Accountability in Theory and Practice K√ľnnemann, Nemati

News

08.07.2019

What is that, a rebuttal?

Hi!

I've received this question (s.t.) via mail today, and I thought it makes sense to make the answer visible to all.

Some conferences give paper authors the chance to react to criticism and correct factual errors. In our mock conference, you have "authored"... Read more

Hi!

I've received this question (s.t.) via mail today, and I thought it makes sense to make the answer visible to all.

Some conferences give paper authors the chance to react to criticism and correct factual errors. In our mock conference, you have "authored" two papers (you should see yourself listed as one of the authors, one in each of the two categories "theory" and "practice"). You can chose any of those (but carefully, the other one is the one that you have to present).

A rebuttal is, first and foremost, a chance to correct a misunderstanding or to clarify questions raised in reviews. Typical case: a proof is making a step that is not sufficiently elaborated on. The reviewer remarks that she cannot follow this step, and asks why this should be the case. The author, in her rebuttal, gives a justification and promises to add it. Even more typical case: the reviewer complains about missing explanation for notation used in Section 10, and is then pointed to  Section 2, where it was indeed explained.

It is a fine line to walk in actual rebuttals, as they are supposed to only correct errors, but may not announce new results or debate a subjective interpretation. In the context of this seminar, however, this is not important: the purpose is to force you to read the reviews and the criticism they contain, so you start to scrutinize parts of the paper that you took for granted, and to argue for the paper from the perspective of the authors.

I hope that helps.

With kind regards, Robert

05.07.2019

Rebuttal phase started

Hi!

The rebuttal phase has started, the deadline is Jul 17. I'll go on vacation after Jul 12, so if you want feedback, please send me your draft early enough, if I am the paper's "co-author". (*) Note that the rebuttal and the presentation should cover... Read more

Hi!

The rebuttal phase has started, the deadline is Jul 17. I'll go on vacation after Jul 12, so if you want feedback, please send me your draft early enough, if I am the paper's "co-author". (*) Note that the rebuttal and the presentation should cover *different* papers, so your choice here determines what your talk is about. It might be the case that you want to write the rebuttal for a paper that does not have reviews. Should this be the case, write me (I know which paper that is, #23).

Cheers, Robert

(*) Wednesday evening is pretty save, anything later gets higher probabiity of not being answered.

27.06.2019

Review III

Hi all,

Thanks for submitting your review notes for the second assignment!  Please note that the next review is due on July 3.

Cheers,

Hamed and Robert

05.06.2019

Review II

Hi all,

Thanks for submitting your review notes for the first assignment!  Please note that the next review is due on June 19.

Cheers,

Hamed and Robert

31.05.2019

Presentation day I on 18/07 or 19/07, day II on 26/08

Hi!

We are thinking of splitting the presentation days into an early and a late date, as there is a student, who is bound by an internship. This would be ok for us; maybe it is even nicer for you to arrange with your exams. Please check out the question on Askbot... Read more

Hi!

We are thinking of splitting the presentation days into an early and a late date, as there is a student, who is bound by an internship. This would be ok for us; maybe it is even nicer for you to arrange with your exams. Please check out the question on Askbot (see menu above) and let us know, if one of 18/07, 19/07, 26/08,27/8 is inconvenient for you, or if you cannot say yet, and for what reasons.

Also: feel free to use Askbot for content-related questions, now that it is activated anyway.

Cheers, Robert and Hamed

29.05.2019

Review phase I prolonged until Monday. Also: get feedback.

Hi!

We only received three reviews so far; maybe this was due to yesterday's problem with the conference system. (Which Hamed fixed as soon as we took notice -- dont be shy to report issues!)

We also only received a single draft to comment on before the... Read more

Hi!

We only received three reviews so far; maybe this was due to yesterday's problem with the conference system. (Which Hamed fixed as soon as we took notice -- dont be shy to report issues!)

We also only received a single draft to comment on before the review. In particular for the first reviews, our comment might be helpful to get you on the right track. So please, contact Hamed or me (whoever is "author" of the paper you are reviewing) to get Feedback on the draft.

To give you the opportunity to get feedback on your review until Friday, we will prolong the reviewing phase until Monday.

Cheers, Robert

15.05.2019

Review bidding!

Hi,

The review bidding is done. Each student should have received an emails regarding the assigned papers. Please let us know if you did not receive the email.

Cheers, Hamed and Robert

09.05.2019

Authorship bidding

Hi,

The authorship bidding is done. You should have received two emails about the papers that are assigned to you. The paper assignment is done automatically by HotCRP and we hope the result is fine with you :). The first review bidding phase is starting now, the... Read more

Hi,

The authorship bidding is done. You should have received two emails about the papers that are assigned to you. The paper assignment is done automatically by HotCRP and we hope the result is fine with you :). The first review bidding phase is starting now, the deadline is next week on Wednesday, when you will be assigned a paper to review.

Cheers, Hamed and Robert

15.04.2019

Kickoff meeting on Thursday!

Hi!

Thank you for chosing this seminar!

The kick-off meeting is scheduled for 18.04.2019 12:20 - 13:00. We will discuss the procedure, how grading is done and lose a few words about the papers. The location will be announced soon, but it will most likely be at... Read more

Hi!

Thank you for chosing this seminar!

The kick-off meeting is scheduled for 18.04.2019 12:20 - 13:00. We will discuss the procedure, how grading is done and lose a few words about the papers. The location will be announced soon, but it will most likely be at CISPA.

In case this appointment clashes with your schedule -- it is short notice, I admit -- please let us know as soon as possible. We will make slides available, though.

Last but not least: Hamed Nemati, Ph.D., will be instructing the seminar along side me. He is an expert on formal verification and looking forward to meet with you.

With kind regards, Robert

Show all
 

Accountability in Theory and Practice

Accountability is the ability of actors within a system to hold others accountable, e.g., for violating some policy or for acting in bad faith. Accountability is used to describe desiderata in social sciences, be it the accountability of a government or the accountability of actors in a company context, but we look at it from through the lense of security.

Aim of the seminar: understand accountability in different contexts and learn to use it as a guiding principle in system design; overview about concrete proposals for accountable security mechanisms. Last but not least: argue a point in reviews and rebuttals.

Modus operandi: Students bid for "authorship" of two papers and review another three ( at least one theoretical and one practical). The "authors" respond to the rebuttals (in groups). At the end, each student presents "their" paper.

Requirements: Basics on security: either you've attended a course like Security or Cryptography course, or you can argue that you are knowledgeable in information security. In the latter case, please use the motivation field to make this argument, e.g.: "I have not attended any security-focused course, but I earn my living hunting vulnerabilities for money."

Procedure:

Please Information/Timetable in this CMS for the deadlines.

1. Bidding:
    1. papers divided into Theory and Practice: give three preferences per category.
    2. optional: propose paper of your choice
    3. You are "author" of two papers, Hamed or Robert are "co-authors".

2. Reviewing phase:
    1. Bidding on reviews, three in total, at least one in each category.
    2. submit draft-review to "co-author" of the paper to get feedback.
    3. work in feedback
    4. submit review:
        - summary of 5-10 sentences
        - comments (> 300 words)
    5. authors write rebuttal (<500 words)

3. Presentation phase:
    - two mornings after 19th July
    - talk 20min + 5min discussion
    - slide review: at least 1 week before, "co-author"

Zotero

You can share notes via http://www.zotero.org.

Conference System

See https://infsec.cs.uni-saarland.de/2019s-aitap



Privacy Policy | Legal Notice
If you encounter technical problems, please contact the administrators