One of the many problems facing security engineers is warning fatigue – the tendency of users who have seen too many security warnings to start ignoring the warnings altogether. Good designers think carefully about every warning they display, knowing that each added warning will dilute the warnings that were already there.
Warning fatigue is a significant security problem today. Users are so conditioned to warning boxes that they click them away, unread, as if instinctively swatting a fly.
Which brings us to H.R. 2752, the “Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003″, introduced in the House of Representatives in July, and discussed by Declan McCullagh in his latest column. The bill would require a security warning, and user consent, before allowing the download of any “software that, when installed on the user’s computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers’ contents over the Internet.”
Most users already know that downloading software is potentially risky. Most users are already accustomed to swatting away warning boxes telling them so. One more warning is unlikely to deter the would-be KaZaa downloader.
This is especially true given that the same warning would have to be placed on many other types of programs that meet the bill’s criteria, including operating systems and web browsers. The ACCOPS warning will be just another of those dialog boxes that nobody reads.