Sex, Lies, or Kittens? Investigating the Use of
Snapchat’s Self-Destructing Messages
Franziska Roesner1 , Brian T. Gill2 , and Tadayoshi Kohno1
1

University of Washington, Computer Science & Engineering
2
Seattle Pacific University, Mathematics

Abstract. The privacy-related Snapchat smartphone application allows
users to share time-limited photos or videos, which “disappear” after
a specified number of seconds once opened. This paper describes theresults of a user survey designed to help us understand how and why
people use the Snapchat application. We surveyed 127 adult Snapchat
users, finding that security is not a major concern for the majority ofthese respondents. We learn that most do not use Snapchat to send
sensitive content (although up to 25% may do so experimentally), thattaking screenshots is not generally a violation of the sender’s trust but
instead common and expected, that most respondents understand thatmessages can be recovered, and that security and privacy concerns areovershadowed by other influences on how and why respondents choose
to use or not use Snapchat. Nevertheless, we find that a non-negligible
fraction (though not a majority) of respondents have adapted or would
adapt their behavior in response to understanding Snapchat’s (lack of)
security properties, suggesting that there remains an opportunity for amore secure messaging application. We reflect on the implications of ourfindings for Snapchat and on the design of secure messaging applications.

1

Introduction

The privacy-related Snapchat smartphone application1 allows users to sharetime-limited photos or videos with friends. Users take photos or videos using theapplication and specify the number of seconds (up to ten) for which the recipientis allowed to view the content. After this time, the content “disappears” — i.e.,
it is no longer accessible via the Snapchat user interface, but it is not actually
securely deleted from the device. Snapchat’s popularity has increased dramatically in recent months, with over 8 million adult users [31], 350 million “snaps”
sent every day [17], and a possible valuation of up to $3.5 billion [6].
We surveyed 127 adult Snapchat users, finding that security is not a major concern for the majority of them, despite our sample being slightly skewed
towards users with higher self-reported security expertise. We find that most
respondents do not use Snapchat primarily for sensitive content (although up to
25% may do so experimentally), that screenshots are common and expected, andthat most respondents understand that messages can be recovered. However, anon-negligible fraction (though not a majority) of respondents has adapted orwould adapt their behavior in response to weakened trust in Snapchat, suggesting that there remains an opportunity for a more secure messaging application.
1

http://www.snapchat.com

Fig. 1. Snapchat screenshots. On the left, Snapchat runs on an Android phone.
The timer indicates the number of seconds that this image will be viewable by recipients.
Users can add caption text or draw arbitrarily on top of the picture. On the right,
Snapchat’s log shows sent and received “snaps” (usernames hidden for anonymity),e.g., indicating that the recipient of the second message in the list took a screenshot.

2

Background and Motivation

We first provide background on Snapchat, an application that allows users tosend photos and videos that “disappear” after a specified number of seconds.
Figure 1 shows a screenshot of the Snapchat application running on Android.
Snapchat usage. Snapchat’s primary feature is that each message “disappears”
once the recipient has opened it and the sender-specified timeout (of up to ten
seconds) has elapsed. The ephemeral nature of Snapchat messages naturally
evokes the idea of its use for privacy-sensitive content — indeed, much media
buzz has been made about Snapchat’s potential use for sexual content (“sexting”) [21]. In practice, however, it appears that Snapchat is used for a varietyof creative purposes that are not necessarily privacy-related. For example, many
people make use of the application’s support for easily drawing on photos [24],and others (including Snapchat itself) argue that disappearing messages also
reduce inhibitions for sending non-sensitive, in-the-moment content, challenging
the “never forgets” nature of the Internet and other social media services [14,16]. These and similar anecdotes led us to ask: How and for what do people reallyuse Snapchat? What are common, uncommon, or surprising usage patterns?
Saving and retrieving snaps. Importantly, the way in which Snapchat implements message destruction is not secure. In practice, there are many ways
to save or retrieve “snaps” on a user’s device after their timeout has elapsed.
In one class of data exfiltration, recipients can take screenshots of messages as
they view them, using the operating system’s application-agnostic screenshot
capabilities (e.g., holding the volume down and power buttons on a Samsung
Galaxy Nexus device). The Snapchat application can (generally) detect thesekinds of screenshots, in which case it notifies the sender (e.g., the second message in the list in Figure 1). However, this notification is not always reliable, as
users have discovered ways to take screenshots without alerting the Snapchat
application (e.g., [10]). In light of these capabilities, websites have emerged thatencourage people to post screenshots of embarrassing or sensitive “snaps” (e.g.,
SnapchatLeaked [1]). In our study, we attempt to answer the following questions:
What are users’ screenshot practices? To what extent are screenshots a commonand expected use of the application, rather than a violation of the sender’s trust?
Another class of attacks exploits the fact that Snapchat doesn’t actually
delete from the device messages that have passed their timeout. Instead, it simply
renames the files and makes them inaccessible via its user interface. As a result,people with moderate technical expertise can retrieve these files from a device
even for destroyed messages (e.g., [8, 9]). Snapchat itself does not claim perfectsecurity, warning that deleted data can sometimes be retrieved [26]. Thus, we ask:
Do users have a realistic mental model with respect to Snapchat’s security? Do
they trust Snapchat? Does this mental model affect their use of the application?

3

User Survey

To explore the above questions, we designed a survey that was taken by 127
adult Snapchat users. We estimate that the survey, which consisted of at most
41 optional questions per respondent, took 15-30 minutes to complete. We surveyed only adults (18 years or older), who we recruited primarily by sharing thesurvey link via our own and our contacts’ social media pages and via university
email lists. As a result, our sample is slightly skewed towards respondents withhigher self-reported security expertise — however, reported security expertise did
not significantly affect most responses. Furthermore, while reports suggest that
Snapchat is also popular among 13-18 year olds [29], sexting-style behavior is notnecessarily more common among younger users [28]. This study was reviewed
and found exempt by our institution’s human subjects ethics review board.
Of 206 initial recruits, 18 (8.7%) responded that they do not know what
Snapchat is and were screened out. Of the remaining 188 respondents, 61 (32.4%)
responded that they had never used Snapchat. We report the remainder of ourresults considering only the 127 self-reported Snapchat users. Unless otherwise
noted, questions were multiple choice; free responses and multiple-choice “other”
responses were coded independently by two of the authors.
Demographics. 68.5% of Snapchat-using respondents were male and 29.9%
female (two did not specify). Although our population is skewed towards male
respondents, we find almost no statistically significant gender differences. Most
respondents (81.9%) were between the ages of 18-24; 14.2% were between theages of 25-34, 1.6% between 35-44, 0% between 45-54, and 1.6% between 55-64.
When asked to describe their level of familiarity with computer security on ascale of 1 (novice) to 5 (expert), 12.6% considered themselves an expert and only
4.7% a novice, with a plurality (31.5%) selecting option 4 on the scale. (Note thatten respondents were not asked about security expertise because we added thequestion to the survey after they had already completed it. All other questions

Fig. 2. Do respondents send sensitive content? For each type of content we asked
about, respondents indicated whether they primarily send it and/or have sent it. They
report sending sensitive content (sexual, legally questionable, mean/offensive/insulting
content, and documents) uniformly less than non-sensitive content.

were unmodified.) We also asked respondents to rate their agreement with threeprivacy-related prompts, allowing us to classify them according to the Westin
Privacy Index [18] as Privacy Fundamentalists, Privacy Pragmatists, or Privacy
Unconcerned. We found that 39.4% of respondents are Privacy Fundamentalists,
45.7% are Privacy Pragmatists, and 12.6% are Privacy Unconcerned.
3.1

Common Usage Patterns

We first explore whether our respondents use Snapchat to send sensitive (suchas sexual) content, and then consider whether respondents’ message timeout behaviors and reported reasons for using Snapchat suggest privacy considerations.
Do respondents send sensitive content? We asked respondents about whether
they primarily send and/or have sent certain types of sensitive content using Snapchat, including sexual, legally questionable, mean/offensive/insulting
content, and documents. We provided additional non-sensitive options to avoid
priming respondents; Figure 2 shows the response options and responses.
We find that only 1.6% of respondents report using Snapchat primarily for“sexting” — although 14.2% admit to having sent sexual content via Snapchat
at some point. (More, 23.6%, admit to having sent content classified as “jokesexting,” in which sexual or pseudo-sexual content is sent as a joke.) Thoughsome do appear to use Snapchat for sensitive content, respondents in aggregate
report sending sensitive content types uniformly less than non-sensitive content(Figure 2). However, we may consider self-photographs to be borderline sensitive:
while most content types show no significant differences between Westin Privacy
types, Privacy Unconcerned respondents are slightly more likely to say thatthey primarily send “photos/videos of myself” (62.5%) than Pragmatists (31%)
or Fundamentalists (28%) (Fisher’s exact test, 2 d.f., p = 0.042).
While we recognize that respondents may have underreported how often they
send sensitive content (as we discuss further in Section 4), our findings suggestthat they do seem to find Snapchat useful for non-sensitive content. In a free re-sponse question about additional Snapchat experiences, several respondents emphasized using Snapchat for fun, sending messages with silly or mundane content
that they might not otherwise send via a messaging platform that emphasizesarchival rather than temporariness. For example, one respondent mentioned that
Snapchat “lets me have more cats in my life because my friends who don’t normally post pictures of their cats on other social media will snapchat their cats
to me.” Others mention that they use it to send photos of “stupid faces” andanother wishes for an option to “add moustaches to those faces.” Indeed, ofthe content options presented in our survey, respondents most commonly chose
funny content as their primary use for Snapchat (59.8%).
Does message timeout behavior reflect privacy considerations? A possible explanation for Snapchat’s recent success is its implied security and privacy
properties. To evaluate this claim, we consider whether our respondents’ use of
message timeouts or their choice of Snapchat suggest privacy considerations.
First, we asked respondents multiple choice questions about the message
timeout that they set (up to ten seconds). About half (52.8%) use a fixed or
arbitrary timeout length, regardless of content type or recipient. The remaining 47.2% report adjusting the timeout depending on content and/or recipient.
When asked about the reason,2 many of these respondents report setting shortertimeouts for embarrassing photos (22.8% of 127) or for secret information (10%).
Many also report setting longer timeouts for people they trust more (18.9%) or
shorter timeouts for people they trust less (10%).
A possible explanation for shorter timeouts is an attempt to control screenshots by recipients. Two respondents explained in “other” responses that they
set shorter timeouts if a screenshot should be avoided and longer timeouts if one
is desired (particularly for photos of cats, according to one respondent). Anothermentioned “a tacit agreement that if the timeout is 10sec, then a screenshot isalmost expected.” However, not all timeout manipulation is for privacy reasons:
12 respondents (9.4%) explained in “other” responses that they set a longer timeout if the message takes more time to comprehend (e.g., includes a lot of text),
and more may have selected this answer choice had we included it explicitly.
These results suggest that up to a quarter of respondents do adjust timeouts
with privacy in mind (e.g., in an attempt to avoid screenshots). However, most do
not explicitly manage timeouts. We observed no significant associations between
Privacy Index or reported security expertise and timeout behavior.
Do respondents use Snapchat for security/privacy reasons? We asked
respondents why, when they use Snapchat, they choose it over other services
such as email, text messaging, Facebook, or Twitter. We included two securityrelated options, as well as additional options to avoid priming respondents. Whilea non-negligible (though not majority) of respondents prefers Snapchat because
content is unlikely to or can’t (according to the respondent’s belief) be saved2

Respondents could select multiple answers: I set shorter timeouts for embarrassing
photos; I set shorter timeouts for content containing secret information; I set longer
timeouts for people I trust more. I set shorter timeouts for people I trust less; Other.

Fig. 3. Do screenshots violate trust?
Only a minority of respondents reportsthat the victim changed his or her behavior
or was angry after learning of a screenshot
or photo. Respondents more commonly selected neutral (“didn’t care”) or positive(“thought it was funny”) answer choices.
Note that respondents could select multiple
response options.

(46.5% chose one or both of these answer choices), not all of these respondents
appear to like message disappearance for security or privacy reasons. Instead,some explicitly report liking it because it becomes socially acceptable to sendmore casual, in-the-moment content and/or to “spam” friends: 6 respondents(4.7%) who selected the “other” response wrote in sentiments like: “expectationof spam means it’s ok to spam,” “some content, whether or not it’s risque, does
not need to be seen more than once (e.g., photos of food),” or “Snapchat allows
for less serious communication.” Respondents more frequently selected answer
choices unrelated to security or privacy, most commonly that Snapchat is easyand simple (66.1%) and/or more fun to use (55.9%).
3.2

Screenshot Practices

One might argue that screenshots circumvent Snapchat’s intended usage modeland violate the sender’s trust, thus expecting that screenshots are taken rarely.
How often do respondents take screenshots? Contrary to expectation, we
find that it is common for respondents to take screenshots of Snapchat messages: 47.2% admit to taking screenshots and 52.8% report that others havetaken screenshots of their messages. We also found that a small numbers of respondents have used a separate camera to take a photo of a Snapchat message(5 respondents, or 3.9%) or report that someone has used a separate camera to
take a photo of their message (3 respondents). While most respondents didn’t
select reasons for taking screenshots that indicated the explicit intent to violate
trust, 10.2% admit that they have done so to embarrass the sender.
How do respondents and their contacts react to screenshots? If message senders feel that their trust is violated by a screenshot, they may react withanger or by changing their behavior: by sending messages with shorter timeouts
or different content, by no longer sending messages to that recipient, and/or
by taking a screenshot in retaliation. Using these alongside options indicating
neutral (e.g., “didn’t care”) and positive (e.g., “thought it was funny”) sentiments, we asked respondents both about their own reactions to screenshots of
their messages as well as about the reactions of people of whose messages they
took screenshots. Figure 3 summarizes these responses.
Only 11.8% of respondents reported reacting by changing their own behavior;
only 15.0% reported that their contact changed his or her behavior. Even fewer
respondents reported themselves or their contacts reacting with anger (4.4% and6.7%, respectively). Respondents more commonly chose answer choices indicating neutral (“didn’t care”) or positive (“thought it was funny”) reactions.
Thus, screenshots seem to be an ordinary and expected component of Snapchat use among our respondents. Recall also from Section 3.1 the anecdote that
longer timeouts implicitly permit the recipient to take a screenshot. Interestingly, Privacy Unconcerned respondents were more likely to report having takena screenshot (64.7%) than Pragmatists (33.7%) or Fundamentalists (22.0%)(Fisher’s exact test, 2 d.f., p = 0.0026). This finding suggests that privacysensitive respondents, who may be more likely to view a screenshot as a trust
violation, are less likely to take a screenshot themselves.
3.3

Effects of Security Weaknesses

Since Snapchat is marketed as a secure messaging application, one might expect
discoveries about its insecurity to threaten its popularity. We directly asked
respondents about their views of Snapchat’s security, and we infer additional
security-related views from their reported behaviors.
Do respondents know Snapchat message destruction is insecure? We
asked respondents whether they believe that someone with technical expertisecan recover expired Snapchat messages on a device. (As discussed in Section 2,
the correct answer to this question is “yes” [8, 9].) We find that a majorityof respondents (79.4%) says that they know or think that recovering “snaps” ispossible. Only a minority of respondents thinks or “knows” that expired messages
cannot be recovered (14.1%); the rest (5.5%) responded that they don’t know.
Our sample is skewed towards respondents with security expertise, who may
have more realistic security mental models than the average Snapchat user. Indeed, knowing the message destruction is insecure was associated with higher
levels of security expertise (Wilcoxon rank sum test, p = 0.014). Respondents
may also have been made suspicious by the availability of certain answer choices.
Nevertheless, we were surprised at the large majority of respondents who reported knowing or suspecting that Snapchat’s message destruction is insecure.
Do respondents report security-related behavior changes? We asked
respondents about whether and how they would change their Snapchat use in
response to learning that message destruction is insecure. We find that a small
majority (52.8%) reports that experts finding a way to recover expired messages
would not affect their use of the application at all. However, a non-negligible(38.6%) report that they would change or have changed their behavior (by using
Snapchat less, sending different content, and/or sending messages to different
people) in response to learning that message destruction is not secure. A majority of these behavior-changing respondents do not report that they would use
Snapchat less (14.2% of 127), suggesting that Snapchat’s lack of security may
not dramatically reduce its user base. Nevertheless, since they would use it differently (24.4% of 127), our results suggest that there remains an opportunity
for a more secure ephemeral messaging application, as we discuss in Section 4.
Does lack of trust in Snapchat affect content respondents send? Above,
we described how respondents said they would change their behavior upon learn-ing that Snapchat messages can be recovered. Because the majority already knew
or suspected that message destruction is insecure, these responses don’t yet give
us a clear idea of how respondents’ behavior is affected by their (lack of) trustin Snapchat. We thus also examine what types of content respondents report
not sending via Snapchat and why.3 Overwhelmingly, respondents are willing tosend most types of content via Snapchat, with the following exceptions:– 74.8% of respondents are not willing to send content classified as “sexting” or“joke sexting.” The primary reported reason is that these respondents “nevertake pictures of that kind of thing” (47.2%), followed by fear of screenshots(25.2%) and distrust of Snapchat (14.2%).
– 85.0% of respondents are not willing to send photos of documents via Snapchat, primarily because they “never take pictures of that sort of thing”(30.7%). Many would “rather send it another way” (e.g., email, text message,
Facebook, Twitter) (26.8%), in part because they don’t want documents todisappear (18.1%). Only 11.8% wouldn’t trust Snapchat with documents.
– 86.6% of respondents are not willing to send messages containing legallyquestionable content, again primarily because they “never take pictures ofthat kind of thing” (66.9%). Concerns about screenshots and Snapchat’s
trustworthiness were also present in this case (12.6% and 8.7% respectively),possibly because of the risk of legal ramifications. Indeed, three of 16 freeresponses explaining additional reasons for not using Snapchat for certain
content were related to legality issues and/or concerns that Snapchat may
allow government access to user data, the latter now known to be true [25].
– 93.7% of respondents are not willing to send content considered mean, offensive, or insulting, reporting primarily that they “never take pictures of thatkind of thing” (73.2%), followed by “I don’t want to bother people” (15.7%).
Thus, although most respondents don’t use Snapchat for certain types ofcontent primarily because they don’t produce such content, the remaining respondents commonly selected fear of screenshots or lack of trust in Snapchat asreasons for avoiding it. Considering sexual, legally questionable, offensive content
and/or documents as “more sensitive,” we find that respondents were more likely
to be concerned about screenshots or about trusting Snapchat for these than forless sensitive types of content. Only 3.1% of respondents indicated concern about
screenshots for non-sensitive content compared to 33.1% for potentially sensitive content (McNemar’s test, p < 0.001), and only 1.6% don’t send non-sensitive
content because they don’t trust Snapchat, compared to 26.0% for potentiallysensitive content (McNemar’s test, p < 0.001).
More generally, we find a significant difference among the Privacy Indexgroups (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, χ2 = 9.88, 2 d.f., p = 0.0072) in how
3For each type of content in Figure 2 that a respondent would not be willing to send
via Snapchat, he/she could select multiple reasons for why not: I’m afraid someone
will take a screenshot or photo; I don’t trust the Snapchat application; I never takepictures of that kind of thing; I don’t want to bother people; I don’t want it todisappear; I want to share it more publicly; I’d rather send it another way (such as
using email, text message, Facebook, Twitter).

frequently they use Snapchat at all: Privacy Unconcerned report using it more
frequently than both Pragmatists (p = 0.021) and Fundamentalists (p = 0.002).
That is, privacy-sensitive respondents tend to use Snapchat less frequently.

4

Discussion

We reflect on the implications of our findings, including perspectives from respondents given with “other” responses to multiple choice questions or in afree-response question asking about additional thoughts regarding Snapchat.
Implications for Snapchat. Some potential Snapchat users may assume thatthe application is intended or commonly used for “sexting” or other sensitive
content. For example, before ending the survey for 61 respondents who reported
not using Snapchat, we asked them about why they have chosen not to use it.
While mostly simply expressed lack of interest, several voiced concerns related tosensitive content, including that Snapchat “has a bad reputation (for sexting),”that it “seems useful for only inappropriate content,” and that “there are additional connotations that go along with this particular app.” By contrast, we findthat although some of our 127 Snapchat-using respondents do use Snapchat forsensitive content, they don’t report using it primarily for this purpose, and they
commonly report finding it useful for non-sensitive content (e.g., funny content).
Our findings are also in contrast with media coverage of every new Snapchat
vulnerability (e.g., [8–10]), which often implies that Snapchat’s success depends
on it being actually secure. Instead, our survey results suggest that Snapchat’s
success is not due to its security properties but because users find Snapchat to be
fun. Because they don’t often send sensitive content, respondents may not needmessages to disappear securely, but the mere disappearance of messages from theuser interface seems to appeal to some. Some report feeling comfortable sending
casual content more frequently via Snapchat because “it doesn’t feel like spam”
and “it makes it easy not to think about the storage of old messages.”Thus, Snapchat may be better served by advertising itself without implied
security properties, focusing rather on the “fun” factor and the change in social
media norms introduced by ephemeral content. There is evidence that Snapchat
has already begun to embrace this shift in its role: for example, after the launchof our survey, Snapchat introduced “stories” that live for 24 hours [27]. The
company has also explicitly backed away from security promises [26].
Implications for secure messaging applications. Most respondents appear
to understand Snapchat’s weaknesses and most report they have not or would notchange their behavior in response. However, recall that about 40% report thatthey would change or have changed their behavior in response to this knowledge,
and that security-sensitive respondents reported using Snapchat less frequently.
Indeed, a non-trivial fraction of respondents reports that they don’t send
sensitive content in part because they don’t trust Snapchat or they are worried
about screenshots. Respondents may also have underreported sending sensitive
content or already incorporated their knowledge of Snapchat’s weaknesses into
their reported behaviors. Some emphasized using Snapchat for fun while remaining aware of its lack of absolute security. For example, one respondent said, “Iuse Snapchat knowing that it’s a limited tool (screencaptures at the OS-levelare easy), so I use it knowing that the impermanence is artificial (meaning that
I have to trust my friends to play along).” Another expressed hesitation: “I likethe idea of Snapchat, but it definitely worries me that the photos are ‘out there’
somewhere, even if the snaps I’m sending don’t have sensitive content.”
Combined, the above two paragraphs suggest that while Snapchat is usefuland fun for a large set of users for non-sensitive content, a more secure messaging
platform would still be a valuable addition to the set of communication tools formany users. In particular, these users would likely value the following properties
in a more secure messaging system: (1) privacy on the server-side (i.e., fromcompany employees), (2) privacy in transit, (3) more secure message destruction
on the device and in the cloud, and (4) a higher bar for message recipients to savemessages, e.g., by completely preventing screenshots. In practice, many of thesefeatures may be challenging or impossible to achieve — for example, message
recipients can always use another device to take photos even if screenshots areprohibited (i.e., the “analog hole”). Nevertheless, an application that adequately
addresses even a subset of these issues would significantly raise the bar overSnapchat and may attract some of these more privacy-sensitive users.
Study limitations. We highlight several limitations that prevent us from generalizing our results to the entire population of Snapchat users. First, our survey
did not reach a random sample of users but rather propagated through our own
social and university networks (snowball sampling). Additionally, we only surveyed respondents at least 18 years of age, though reports suggest that Snapchat
is also popular among younger users [29]. Finally, we asked about respondents’behaviors rather than observing them directly, allowing respondents to underreport potentially sensitive behaviors or beliefs, and we used primarily multiple
choice questions that limit our ability to explore respondents’ behaviors andmental models more generally. Future studies are thus needed to better understand Snapchat use in the wild among a more general population.

5

Related Work

Finally, we briefly summarize related work. In the research community, there
have been a number of efforts toward creating self-destructing data, including
early work by Perlman [22] and more recent work on Vanish [11, 12], as well aswork on attacking specific implementations of Vanish with Sybil attacks [33]. An
analysis of different approaches for secure data deletion appears in [23]. There
have also been significant efforts toward ephemeral two-way communications,such as the off-the-record messaging system [4, 13].
Commercial examples of messaging applications that reportedly support message destruction include TigerText [30], Wickr [32], and Facebook’s Poke [2],which emerged as a potential competitor to Snapchat and reportedly encrypts
messages and deletes the encryption key after two days [7]. Another Snapchatinspired idea is BlinkLink [3], a link that disappears after some number of views.
Other researchers have studied users’ interactions with social media from asecurity and privacy perspective. For example, studies have shown that users

struggle to understand and apply Facebook privacy settings (e.g., [15, 19]) andthat privacy violations on Twitter are a growing problem [20]. Others have considered the privacy strategies of users on social networks more generally [5].

6Conclusion

We surveyed 127 adult users of the privacy-related Snapchat smartphone application, which allows users to send messages that “disappear” after a timeout.
We found that security and privacy are not major concerns for the majorityof respondents. Respondents more commonly respond that they use Snapchat
because it is fun, not because of its implied or actual security properties. Indeed,most respondents understand that Snapchat’s message destruction is insecure,but they do not send sensitive messages (such as sexual or legally questionable content) more commonly because they don’t produce such content thanbecause they don’t trust Snapchat or their friends. We find that screenshots arecommon and that respondents appear not to consider them a trust violation.
Nevertheless, we observe that a non-negligible fraction (but not a majority) ofrespondents adapt their behavior in response to Snapchat’s weak security properties, and thus conclude that these users may still have a use for a more secure
messaging application in addition to the more casual, fun-focused Snapchat.
Acknowledgements. We thank our shepherd, Serge Egelman, and the anonymous
reviewers for their valuable feedback. We thank our survey respondents for their participation, Tamara Denning for feedback on the survey, and Greg Akselrod for feedbackon an earlier draft. The cats Tony and Fidget posed for Figure 1. This work is supported
in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant CNS-0846065 and a Graduate Research Fellowship, Grant DGE-0718124) and by a Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship.

References
1. Snapchat Leaked, http://snapchatleaked.com/
2. Aguilar, M.: Poke: Facebook just cloned Snapchat (Dec 2012), http://gizmodo.
com/5970590/
3. Allsopp, C.: BlinkLink Post-Mortem (Aug 2013), http://clayallsopp.com/
posts/blinklink/
4. Borisov, N., Goldberg, I., Brewer, E.: Off-the-record communication, or, why not
to use PGP. In: ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (2004)
5. boyd, d., Marwick, A.E.: Social privacy in networked publics: Teens attitudes,
practices, and strategies. In: Oxford Internet Institute Decade in Internet Time
Symposium (2011)
6. Colao, J.: Is Snapchat Raising Another Round At A $3.5 Billion Valuation?
(Oct 2013), http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2013/10/25/is-snapchatraising-another-round-at-a-3-5-billion-valuation/
7. Constine, J.: Your Facebook pokes are stored for two days, then their encryption keys are deleted (Dec 2012), http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/22/yourfacebook-pokes-are-stored-for-two-days
8. Ducklin, P.: Snapchat images that have “disappeared forever” stay right on yourphone... (May 2013), http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/05/10/snapchat
9. Dunn, G.: Yet another way to retrieve deleted Snapchat photos (Jun 2013),
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/yet_another_way_to_retrieve_deleted_snapchat_photos_partner/

10. Empson, R.: Not-So-Ephemeral Messaging: New SnapChat “Hack” Lets Users Save
Photos Forever (Jan 2013), http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/22/not-so-eph
11. Geambasu, R., Kohno, T., Krishnamurthy, A., Levy, A., Levy, H.M., Gardner, P.,
Moscaritolo, V.: New directions for self-destructing data. Tech. Rep. UW-CSE-1108-01, University of Washington (2011)
12. Geambasu, R., Kohno, T., Levy, A., Levy, H.M.: Vanish: Increasing Data Privacy
with Self-Destructing Data. In: 18th USENIX Security Symposium (2009)
13. Goldberg, I.: Off-the-record messaging, https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/
14. Hoover, R.: What’s the Deal with Snapchat? (Dec 2012), http://ryanhoover.me/
post/38569508918/whats-the-deal-with-snapchat
15. Johnson, M., Egelman, S., Bellovin, S.M.: Facebook and privacy: it’s complicated.
In: 8th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2012)
16. Jurgenson, N.: Temporary Social Media (Jul 2013), http://blog.snapchat.com/
post/55902851023/temporary-social-media
17. Koh, Y.: Snapchat Sends 350 Million ‘Snaps’ (Sep 2013), http://blogs.wsj.com/
digits/2013/09/09/snapchat-sends-350-million-snaps/
18. Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L.F.: Privacy indexes: A survey of Westin’s studies. Tech.
Rep. CMU-ISRI-5-138, Institute for Software Research International, School ofComputer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (2005)
19. Liu, Y., Gummadi, K.P., Krishnamurthy, B., Mislove, A.: Analyzing Facebook privacy settings: user expectations vs. reality. In: Internet Measurement Conf. (2011)
20. Meeder, B., Tam, J., Kelley, P.G., Cranor, L.F.: RT @IWantPrivacy: Widespread
Violation of Privacy Settings in the Twitter Social Network. In: IEEE Workshop
on Web 2.0 Security and Privacy (2010)
21. Nye, J.: iPhone’s new app Snapchat which destroys photos after a few seconds is
promoting sexting among teens (Nov 2012), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/
article-2236586/
22. Perlman, R.: The ephemerizer: Making data disappear. Journal of Information
System Security 1, 51–68 (2005)
23. Reardon, J., Basin, D., Capkun, S.: SoK: Secure Data Deletion. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2013)
24. Russell, K.: 10 Unusual Ways People Are Using Snapchat (Jul 2013), http://www.
businessinsider.com/weird-ways-people-use-snapchat-2013-7?op=1
25. Schaffer, M.: Who Can View My Snaps and Stories (Oct 2013), http://blog.
snapchat.com/post/64036804085/who-can-view-my-snaps-and-stories
26. Snapchat: How Snaps Are Stored And Deleted (May 2013), http://blog.
snapchat.com/post/50060403002/how-snaps-are-stored-and-deleted
27. Snapchat: Surprise! Introducing Snapchat Stories (Oct 2013), http://blog.
snapchat.com/post/62975810329/surprise
28. Survata: Is Snapchat only used for sexing?, http://survata.com/blog/issnapchat-only-used-for-sexting-we-asked-5000-people-to-find-out/
29. Tan, G.: Tenth grade tech trends (2013), http://blog.garrytan.com/tenthgrade-tech-trends-my-survey-data-says-s
30. TigerText: Secure text messaging app for the enterprise, http://tigertext.com/
31. Van Grove, J.: Snapchat snapshot: App counts 8M adult users in U.S. (Jun 2013),
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57590968-93/
32. Wickr: Wickr: Leave No Trace, https://www.mywickr.com/
33. Wolchok, S., Hofmann, O.S., Heninger, N., Felten, E.W., Halderman, J.A., Rossbach, C.J., Waters, B., Witchel, E.: Defeating Vanish with Low-Cost Sybil Attacks
Against Large DHTs. In: Network & Distributed System Security Symp. (2010)