Hubbry Logo
End userEnd userMain
Open search
End user
Community hub
End user
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
End user
End user
End user
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Nurses as information systems end users

In product development, an end user (sometimes end-user)[a] is a person who ultimately uses or is intended to ultimately use a product.[1][2][3] The end user stands in contrast to users who support or maintain the product,[4] such as sysops, system administrators, database administrators,[5] information technology (IT) experts, software professionals, and computer technicians. End users typically do not possess the technical understanding or skill of the product designers,[6] a fact easily overlooked and forgotten by designers: leading to features creating low customer satisfaction.[2] In information technology, end users are not customers in the usual sense—they are typically employees of the customer.[7] For example, if a large retail corporation buys a software package for its employees to use, even though the large retail corporation was the customer that purchased the software, the end users are the employees of the company, who will use the software at work.

Context

[edit]

End users are one of the three major factors contributing to the complexity of managing information systems. The end user's position has changed from a position in the 1950s (where end users did not interact with the mainframe; computer experts programmed and ran the mainframe) to one in the 2010s where the end user collaborates with and advises the management information system and Information Technology department about his or her needs regarding the system or product. This raises new questions, such as: Who manages each resource?, What is the role of the MIS Department? and What is the optimal relationship between the end-user and the MIS Department?[8]

Empowerment

[edit]

The concept of end-user first surfaced in the late 1980s and has since then raised many debates. One challenge was the goal to give both the user more freedom, by adding advanced features and functions (for more advanced users) and adding more constraints (to prevent a neophyte user from accidentally erasing an entire company's database).[9] This phenomenon appeared as a consequence of consumerization of computer products and software. In the 1960s and 1970s, computer users were generally programming experts and computer scientists. However, in the 1980s, and especially in the mid-to-late 1990s and the early 2000s, everyday, regular people began using computer devices and software for personal and work use. IT specialists needed to cope with this trend in various ways. In the 2010s, users now want to have more control over the systems they operate, to solve their own problems, and be able to customize the systems to suit their needs. The apparent drawbacks were the risk of corruption of the systems and data the users had control of, due to their lack of knowledge on how to properly operate the computer/software at an advanced level.[10]

For companies to appeal to the user, it took primary care to accommodate and think of end-users in their new products, software launches, and updates. A partnership needed to be formed between the programmer-developers and the everyday end users so both parties could maximize the use of the products effectively.[11] A major example of the public's effects on end user's requirements were the public libraries. They have been affected by new technologies in many ways, ranging from the digitalization of their card catalog, the shift to e-books, e-journals, and offering online services. Libraries have had to undergo many changes in order to cope,[12] including training existing librarians in Web 2.0 and database skills, to hiring IT and software experts.

End user documentation

[edit]
This section is about generic system users materials. For consumable guides to software, see Software user documentation.
1980s-era personal computer with end-user documentation
NATO official and Afghan colonel going through end-user documentation to transfer control of barracks to the Afghan army in 2009

The aim of end user documentation (e.g., manuals and guidebooks for products) is to help the user understand certain aspects of the systems and to provide all the answers in one place.[13] A lot of documentation is available for users to help them understand and properly use a certain product or service. Due to the fact that the information available is usually very vast, inconsistent or ambiguous (e.g., a user manual with hundreds of pages, including guidance on using advanced features), many users suffer from an information overload. Therefore, they become unable to take the right course of action. This needs to be kept in mind when developing products and services and the necessary documentation for them.[14]

Well-written documentation is needed for a user to reference. Some key aspects of such a documentation are:[13]

  • Specific titles and subtitles for subsections to aid the reader in finding sections
  • Use of videos, annotated screenshots, text and links to help the reader understand how to use the device or program
  • Structured provision of information, which goes from the most basic instructions, written in plain language, without specialist jargon or acronyms, progressing to the information that intermediate or advanced users will need (these sections can include jargon and acronyms, but each new term should be defined or spelled out upon its first use)
  • Easy to search the help guide, find information and access information
  • Clear end results are described to the reader (e.g., "When the program is installed properly, an icon will appear in the left-hand corner of your screen and the LED will turn on...")
  • Detailed, numbered steps, to enable users with a range of proficiency levels (from novice to advanced) to go step-by-step to install, use and troubleshoot the product or service
  • Unique Uniform Resource Locator (URLs) so that the user can go to the product website to find additional help and resources.

At times users do not refer to the documentation available to them due to various reasons, ranging from finding the manual too large or due to not understanding the jargon and acronyms it contains. In other cases, the users may find that the manual makes too many assumptions about a user having pre-existing knowledge of computers and software, and thus the directions may skip over these initial steps (from the users' point of view). Thus, frustrated user may report false problems because of their inability to understand the software or computer hardware. This in turn causes the company to focus on perceived problems instead of focusing on the actual problems of the software.[15]

Security

[edit]
See also: User (computing)

In the 2010s, there is a lot of emphasis on user's security and privacy. With the increasing role that computers are playing in people's lives, people are carrying laptops and smartphones with them and using them for scheduling appointments, making online purchases using credit cards and searching for information. These activities can potentially be observed by companies, governments or individuals, which can lead to breaches of privacy, identity theft, by, blackmailing and other serious concerns. As well, many businesses, ranging from small business startups to huge corporations are using computers and software to design, manufacture, market and sell their products and services, and businesses also use computers and software in their back office processes (e.g., human resources, payroll, etc.). As such, it is important for people and organizations to know that the information and data they are storing, using, or sending over computer networks, or storing on computer systems, is secure.

However, developers of software and hardware are faced with many challenges in developing a system that can be both user friendly, accessible 24/7 on almost any device, and be truly secure. Security leaks happen, even to individuals and organizations that have security measures in place to protect their data and information (e.g., firewalls, encryption, strong passwords). The complexities of creating such a secure system come from the fact that the behaviour of humans is not always rational or predictable. Even in a very-well secured computer system, a malicious individual can telephone a worker and pretend to be a private investigator working for the software company, and ask for the individual's password, a dishonest process called phishing. As well, even with a well-secured system, if a worker decides to put the company's electronic files on a USB drive to take them home to work on them over the weekend (against many companies' policies), and then loses this USB drive, the company's data may be compromised. Therefore, developers need to make systems that are intuitive to the user in order to have information security and system security.[16]

Another key step to end user security is informing the people and employees about the security threats and what they can do to avoid them or protect themselves and the organization. Clearly underlining the capabilities and risks makes users more aware and informed whilst they are using the products.

Some situations that could put the user at risk are:

  • Auto-logon as administrator options
  • Auto-fill options, in which a computer or program remembers a user's personal information and HTTP cookies
  • Opening junk emails of suspicious emails and/or opening/running attachments or computer files contained in these
  • Email being monitored by third parties, especially when using Wi-Fi connections
  • Unsecure Wi-Fi or use of a public Wi-Fi network at a coffee shop or hotel
  • Weak passwords (using a person's own name, own birthdate, name or birthdate of children, or easy-to-guess passwords such as "1234")
  • Malicious programs such as viruses

Even if the security measures in place are strong, the choices the user makes and his/her behavior have a major impact on how secure their information really is. Therefore, an informed user is one who can protect and achieve the best security out of the system they use.[17] Because of the importance of end-user security and the impact it can have on organizations the UK government set out a guidance for the public sector, to help civil servants learn how to be more security aware when using government networks and computers. While this is targeted to a certain sector, this type of educational effort can be informative to any type of user. This helps developers meet security norms and end users be aware of the risks involved.[18] Reimers and Andersson have conducted a number of studies on end-user security habits and found that the same type of repeated education/training in security best practices can have a marked effect on the perception of compliance with good end-user network security habits, especially concerning malware and ransomware.[19]

Law

[edit]

In end-user license agreements, the end user is distinguished from the value-added reseller who installs the software or the organization that purchases and manages the software.[citation needed]

Certain American defense-related products and information require export approval from the United States Government under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and Export Administration Regulations.[20] In order to obtain a license to export, the exporter must specify both the end user and the end use for undertaking an end-user certificate.[21]

In the UK, there exist documents that accompany licenses for products named in the end user undertaking statements.[clarification needed][22]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

End user

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An end user is the individual or that ultimately utilizes a product, service, or after its development and distribution, distinct from intermediaries involved in production or resale. In the context of and , end users are the people who directly interact with software applications, hardware devices, or digital services to perform tasks, without participating in their design or programming. The term, first attested around , emphasizes the final point of consumption, highlighting the importance of user needs in product development to ensure and effectiveness. End users play a critical role in fields like and , where systems are tailored to empower non-experts in creating or customizing applications, thereby increasing productivity and reducing reliance on IT specialists. Unlike customers who may purchase for others, end users provide direct feedback through usage patterns, informing iterative improvements based on real-world application rather than theoretical assumptions. This focus on empirical user behavior underscores causal mechanisms in technology adoption, where intuitive interfaces drive sustained engagement over complex alternatives.

Definition and Historical Development

Core Definition and Distinctions

An end user refers to the individual or entity that directly consumes or operates a completed product, such as software applications, hardware devices, or digital services, for its primary functional purpose without engaging in its creation, customization at the level, or infrastructural oversight. This role emphasizes practical interaction with the final, user-facing interface to achieve specific tasks, distinguishing it from technical professions by prioritizing empirical utility over expertise in underlying architectures. In contrast to software developers, who architect and implement the core logic and features of systems, or system administrators, who manage deployment, , and of the supporting , end users lack or tools to modify foundational elements and instead rely on pre-packaged outputs tailored for . For example, a utilizing a app to transfer funds exemplifies an end user, whereas the developer coding the transaction algorithms or the administrator configuring server clusters for uptime represent distinct roles focused on production and rather than terminal consumption. Intermediate participants, such as beta testers who provide feedback during refinement, bridge these but do not constitute end users, as their involvement aids development rather than final utilization. End users generate causal demand for products through their adoption and usage patterns, which empirically guide iterative improvements by revealing real-world needs and pain points, yet this influence is indirect and constrained by their exclusion from systemic controls, fostering dependency on designers for reliability, updates, and adaptation to evolving requirements.

Origins and Evolution in Computing History

In the 1960s and 1970s, centered on large mainframe systems such as the , announced on April 7, 1964, which supported where users submitted jobs via punch cards or tapes for execution by centralized operators, rendering end users largely passive recipients of processed outputs rather than direct interactors. This era's architecture prioritized efficiency for organizations over individual agency, with users accessing results through intermediaries, as computing resources were expensive and scarce, typically confined to data centers. The personal computing revolution began in the late 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s, marking the emergence of the end user as an active participant. Software like , released on October 17, 1979, for the , introduced that enabled non-programmers to manipulate data interactively without coding, selling over 100,000 copies rapidly and demonstrating demand for user-friendly tools. The Personal Computer's launch on August 12, 1981, followed by the Apple Macintosh on January 24, 1984, democratized access by providing affordable, standalone machines with graphical interfaces, allowing individuals to own and operate systems independently of specialists. , released January 26, 1983, built on this by integrating , database, and graphics functions into a single package for PCs, further empowering business users to perform complex analyses autonomously. By the 1990s, end-user programming solidified through features like macros in , first released September 30, 1985, for Macintosh and later Windows, permitting customization via recorded scripts that extended beyond predefined functions. household penetration in the United States rose from approximately 15% in 1989 to over 50% by 2000, reflecting widespread adoption that entrenched the end user role. Into the , web applications and mobile devices, exemplified by the iPhone's release on June 29, 2007, shifted emphasis to intuitive interfaces and touch-based interaction, further decentralizing computing from institutional control to personal devices. This progression from mediated mainframe access to direct, programmable personal tools defined the end user's evolution as the primary agent in computing ecosystems.

Role and Responsibilities in Systems

Differentiation from Developers and Administrators

End users in ecosystems are distinguished from developers and administrators by their limited technical oversight and task-oriented engagement, which contrasts with the former's emphasis on software creation and the latter's focus on infrastructure management. Developers concentrate on writing code, designing architectures, and implementing features to build applications, often iterating through testing and to achieve functional goals. System administrators, meanwhile, prioritize deploying software, monitoring , scaling resources, and maintaining across servers, networks, and hardware to ensure reliable operation. For example, while a sysadmin might configure server load balancers to spikes, an end user simply runs end-point applications like word processors or browsers without configuring underlying systems. This role separation arises from end users' prioritization of productivity over technical depth, frequently resulting in improvised interactions that bypass optimization protocols. Office employees, for instance, may utilize software for routine correspondence without grasping transport protocols, leading to patterns like habitual password resets or unintended overwrites that strain resources. Such behaviors create a causal pathway to instability, as aggregated user-level missteps amplify demands on shared without the mitigating expertise developers or administrators apply. Structural analysis reveals why end users warrant distinct handling: their actions generate disproportionate support burdens, with surveys showing that for % of organizations, employee-initiated trouble tickets comprise more than half of volume, directly linking user interactions to elevated operational loads. Developers and administrators, equipped with domain-specific tools and foresight, preempt issues through code reviews or proactive monitoring, whereas end-user errors necessitate layered safeguards like simplified interfaces and automated recovery to preserve overall resilience. This delineation supports targeted interventions, such as user-centric , to decouple task execution from systemic risks.

Expectations and Behaviors in Practice

End users in systems are generally expected by organizations to adhere to policies, such as promptly applying software updates, employing unique passwords across accounts, and exercising caution against unsolicited communications to mitigate risks like infection. However, empirical data reveals frequent deviations, with resistance to updates stemming from concerns over disruptions to ; for instance, a 2023 survey by found that 67% of end users delay or avoid updates due to perceived interference with daily tasks. This behavior aligns with users prioritizing short-term convenience over long-term stability. Password reuse remains prevalent among end users, despite organizational mandates for strong, unique credentials, as evidenced by a 2022 Google study indicating that 52% of users recycle passwords across personal and work accounts, increasing vulnerability to credential-stuffing attacks. Similarly, susceptibility to phishing is common, with the Verizon 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) attributing miscellaneous errors, including phishing susceptibility, to involvement in 74% of breaches analyzed, underscoring how end users often click links or attachments without verification when they promise immediate utility or urgency. Organizations anticipate end users to perform basic , such as restarting devices or checking connections before escalating issues, to reduce support burdens; yet, reality shows many users bypass these steps in favor of simplicity, leading to inefficiencies. From a first-principles perspective, end users rationally optimize for immediate and minimal , often creating tensions with systemic requirements for security and maintenance. Supporting this, research from the demonstrates that intuitive user interfaces can yield 20-30% gains in task completion efficiency, highlighting how misalignments arise when systems demand behaviors counter to users' utility-maximizing instincts rather than designing for them.

Empowerment Through Technology

Mechanisms of User Empowerment

Spreadsheets represent a foundational mechanism for end-user empowerment, originating with in 1979, which allowed non-programmers to perform complex calculations through grid-based interfaces without writing code. This tool abstracted mathematical operations into intuitive cells, enabling business users to model financial scenarios and data relationships directly. , released in 1985 for Macintosh and 1987 for Windows, further democratized this capability by integrating graphical user interfaces and formula automation, used by over 1.2 billion people worldwide as of 2023 for data manipulation. Macros and scripting extended spreadsheet functionality, permitting end users to automate repetitive tasks via recorded actions or simple code. (VBA), introduced in 5.0 in 1993, provided a structured embedded within familiar tools, allowing users to create custom functions and workflows without full programming expertise. VBA's event-driven model and integration with Office applications enabled procedural logic, such as looping through datasets or generating reports, layered atop the spreadsheet's visual paradigm to handle complexity incrementally. The progression to low-code and no-code platforms builds on these abstractions through visual development environments. Microsoft Power Apps, launched in late 2015, exemplifies this by offering canvas-based app building with connectors to data sources, where users assemble logic via pre-built components rather than imperative code. No-code variants emphasize drag-and-drop interfaces for UI elements and workflows, reducing barriers by encapsulating backend services like databases and APIs into configurable blocks. These platforms rely on metadata-driven architectures that generate underlying code automatically, preserving end-user agency while concealing implementation details. forecasts that 70% of new organizational applications will leverage low-code or no-code technologies by 2025, up from less than 25% in 2020, driven by such layers that facilitate without deep technical knowledge.

Achievements in Accessibility and Innovation

The introduction of intuitive spreadsheet software like Microsoft Excel in 1985 marked a pivotal achievement in end-user accessibility, allowing non-technical users to conduct sophisticated data analysis and financial modeling without relying on programmers or mainframe systems. Released initially for the Macintosh on September 30, 1985, Excel provided features such as dynamic formulas, charting, and what-if analysis, enabling business professionals to prototype financial models and generate insights independently, which accelerated decision-making in sectors like finance and operations. This democratization extended to broader innovation through citizen development, where end users leverage low-code and no-code platforms to build custom applications, bypassing traditional IT bottlenecks. forecasts that by 2025, 70% of new enterprise applications will utilize no-code or low-code technologies, with citizen developers—full-time employees outside IT—playing a central role in this shift, contributing to and tailored solutions in areas like and visualization. Such platforms have enabled end users to develop an average of 13 applications each, predominantly web-based, enhancing organizational agility without extensive coding expertise. Empirical evidence underscores productivity gains from these tools; studies show that intuitive interfaces in increase end-user output, with 75% of users reporting higher efficiency and up to 40% reductions in training time due to streamlined interactions. In s specifically, end-user innovations like custom macros and model-driven approaches have empirically improved task completion speeds in data-heavy environments, as demonstrated in controlled studies comparing traditional versus intuitive paradigms. Skilled end users have further driven via open-source contributions, developing extensions, plugins, and user-specific modifications that address niche requirements and propagate improvements across communities. For instance, end-user networks in projects like / and have originated practical enhancements, such as customized tools for , exemplifying how user-led adaptations fuel iterative advancements in software ecosystems. These efforts highlight causal links between accessible tools and tangible outputs, including faster innovation cycles in collaborative environments.

Criticisms and Limitations of Empowerment

While end-user empowerment through accessible tools enables , it has empirically fostered the proliferation of —unauthorized applications and workflows created by non-experts—which often results in inefficient and poorly integrated custom solutions. Surveys indicate that constitutes more than half of daily software usage in over half of surveyed companies, bypassing centralized and leading to duplicated efforts and resource waste. These ad-hoc systems, such as unauthorized SaaS tools or makeshift integrations, introduce operational redundancies that elevate costs without delivering scalable efficiency, as end users prioritize immediate needs over long-term architectural coherence. Cognitive limitations among end users exacerbate these issues, with systematic biases contributing to high error rates in user-generated artifacts like spreadsheets and simple scripts. A 2024 analysis of business spreadsheets revealed that 94% contain critical errors, often stemming from overconfidence in intuitive modeling or in formula validation, which propagate inaccuracies in . Similarly, end-user programming tasks are prone to anchoring effects, where initial assumptions rigidly shape subsequent logic, resulting in fragile code that fails under edge conditions unforeseen by untrained creators. Such patterns underscore how , absent rigorous training, amplifies tendencies documented in , with error rates in complex tasks hovering around 2-5% per cell or decision point. This over-reliance on user autonomy undermines professional oversight, as IT specialists' expertise in verification and standardization is circumvented, yielding ecosystems of interdependent yet unvetted components that heighten overall system fragility. Empirical observations show that unchecked custom solutions complicate maintenance and auditing, fostering a false narrative of universal user competence despite evidence of persistent defects in non-professional outputs. Consequently, organizations face elevated risks of cascading failures from these brittle constructs, challenging the assumption that broader empowerment inherently enhances reliability without corresponding accountability mechanisms.

Support and Documentation Practices

Essential Components of End-User Support

End-user support relies on a suite of foundational elements to enable effective system utilization, particularly through documentation and tools that address discrepancies in user proficiency without presuming proactive engagement. Core components include user manuals, which offer detailed operational instructions and protocols, and frequently asked questions (FAQs), compiling common queries with concise resolutions to facilitate rapid reference. These resources form the bedrock of , allowing users to navigate interfaces independently. Interactive assistance mechanisms, such as tooltips and inline help, provide immediate, context-aware guidance embedded within software environments. For example, applications like utilize callout dialogs to elucidate features and settings, reducing by delivering explanations at the point of need. Help desks complement these by offering human-mediated support for escalated or nuanced issues, typically via ticketing systems or direct channels, ensuring comprehensive coverage across varying complexity levels. Self-service prioritization underpins efficiency in end-user support, as knowledge bases and searchable repositories empower resolution of routine problems without agent intervention. Implementing robust strategies can deflect 30-50% of support tickets, substantially curtailing staffing demands and operational costs. This structure acknowledges the spectrum of end-user expertise, supplying explicit directives to mitigate errors arising from incomplete understanding, thereby optimizing and minimizing .

Evolution and Best Practices in Documentation

End-user documentation began with printed manuals in the , providing physical guides for operating early computer systems like mainframes and minicomputers, where users relied on detailed paper instructions for configuration and . These formats offered comprehensive but static content, limited by costs, distribution challenges, and absence of indexing tools, often resulting in user frustration during complex tasks. By the 1990s, the rise of personal computing and the shifted documentation toward digital formats, including HTML-based help systems and searchable PDF files integrated into software installations, enabling easier updates and keyword searches. The early saw the influence of wiki technologies, following the 2001 launch of , which inspired open-editable platforms for , allowing community contributions and real-time revisions in projects like open-source repositories. Post-2020 advancements incorporated AI-driven tools, such as generative chatbots and automated query responders, transforming static guides into interactive, context-aware assistants that provide tailored explanations and reduce navigation time for end users. Best practices in contemporary end-user documentation prioritize clarity and conciseness, employing structured formats with step-by-step instructions, screenshots, and video embeds to minimize ambiguity and . systems, adapted from code management tools like , ensure traceability of changes and accessibility of historical versions, facilitating maintenance in agile environments. Empirical evidence from analyses shows that high-quality, detailed documentation correlates with reduced user reliance on external support, as resources lower helpdesk interactions and associated error resolutions. Overly verbose or jargon-heavy documentation has been criticized for alienating novice users, increasing error rates through , with studies recommending example-driven approaches that focus on common scenarios over exhaustive theoretical coverage. This shift toward verifiable, practical content—supported by —avoids ideological padding, emphasizing causal links between precise guidance and effective user outcomes, such as fewer misconfigurations in .

Security Considerations

Vulnerabilities Stemming from End-User Actions

End-user actions represent a primary source of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, as individuals often prioritize convenience or overlook risks in daily tasks, distinct from flaws in or administrative oversights. These behaviors enable attackers to exploit human psychology rather than technical weaknesses alone, with empirical data indicating that stolen or weak credentials—frequently resulting from user choices—served as the initial in 19% of breaches analyzed in 2023. Similarly, attacks succeed due to users' responses to deceptive prompts, capitalizing on urgency or curiosity without requiring sophisticated code exploits. Susceptibility to exemplifies how end-user haste and lack of vigilance create entry points, as attackers craft messages inducing rapid clicks on malicious links or attachments, bypassing other defenses. Proofpoint identifies social engineering, including , as leveraging emotions like fear to prompt actions that 95% of surveyed security professionals link to in broader breach contexts, though precise attribution varies by incident type. Weak practices compound this, with users selecting easily guessable or reused credentials; statistics show that 60% of individuals reuse passwords across accounts, facilitating attacks where a single compromise cascades. Failure to apply software patches further stems from user inaction, leaving systems exposed to known exploits that persist due to deferred updates rather than undiscovered developer errors. Causal analysis reveals these risks arise from predictable human tendencies, such as underestimating low-probability threats or favoring immediate task completion over verification, independent of systemic incentives. For instance, cognitive shortcuts lead users to ignore in unverified emails, amplifying vulnerabilities in ways unaddressed by code-level fixes. The economic toll underscores prevalence: the global average cost reached $4.88 million in 2024, with user-enabled vectors like and compromised credentials driving a substantial share, per IBM's of over 600 incidents. This contrasts with purely technical failures, as user decisions form the proximal cause in chains where behavioral lapses precede exploitation.

Empirical Evidence of Risks and Real-World Incidents

The human element, including end-user actions such as falling for or misconfigurations, has been a factor in a significant majority of . According to Verizon's 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report, which analyzed over 30,000 incidents and 10,000 confirmed breaches, 68% involved non-malicious human actions, such as errors or social engineering susceptibility, remaining consistent with prior years. This pattern underscores the frequency of user-related contributions across industries, where simple oversights enable initial access or lateral movement by attackers. A prominent example occurred in the 2016 Democratic National Committee (DNC) breach, initiated via spear-phishing. In March 2016, Russian military intelligence operatives sent spoofed emails mimicking security alerts to DNC personnel, including chairman , who clicked a malicious link on March 19, compromising his account and facilitating broader network infiltration. This led to the exfiltration of thousands of emails, leaked via in July 2016, highlighting how individual user responses to deceptive prompts can cascade into organizational compromise. In the realm of supply chain attacks with user involvement, the 2020 SolarWinds Orion breach affected up to 18,000 organizations after end-users routinely updated software with tampered versions. Attackers inserted into legitimate updates between September and December 2020, exploiting trust in vendor releases; once installed by administrators, it enabled persistence and data theft from high-profile targets like U.S. agencies. Propagation relied on users' standard deployment practices without additional verification, amplifying the initial compromise. Shadow IT practices, where end-users deploy unauthorized tools, have similarly contributed to breaches. IBM's analysis indicates that 35% of 2023 breaches involved unmanaged or "shadow" data sources, often stemming from unsanctioned cloud apps or storage, increasing detection and response times by an average of 100 days. Statistics show nearly half of cyberattacks trace to , with associated remediation costs averaging $4.2 million per incident, driven by lack of oversight in user-initiated adoptions. These cases, spanning corporate environments, illustrate recurring patterns of unauthorized user actions bypassing , though individual consumer incidents like personal follow similar mechanics on a smaller scale.

Strategies for Enhancing User Security Awareness

Effective security awareness programs emphasize practical training methods that foster individual responsibility, such as simulated phishing exercises, which expose users to realistic scenarios to build recognition skills. Data from KnowBe4's analysis of over 1,000 organizations indicates that such simulations, combined with remedial training, reduced the phish-prone percentage—a metric of users likely to click links—from a baseline of 33.1% to 4.1% after 12 months, representing an 86% decrease, with initial drops of 40% within three months. This approach prioritizes repeated, low-stakes exposure over one-off lectures, enabling users to internalize threats through direct experience rather than passive instruction. Mandatory (MFA) serves as a foundational , compelling users to adopt verification habits that mitigate credential-based risks without external dependencies. Implementation of MFA has been shown to block over 99% of automated account takeover attempts, as it requires possession of a second factor beyond passwords, training users to verify prompts critically. While bypass techniques exist, such as for one-time codes, consistent user adherence—reinforced through awareness campaigns—amplifies its causal impact on reducing unauthorized access, with studies confirming it as a high-yield defense for end-users managing personal or work accounts. Behavioral analytics integrates monitoring of user patterns to enhance awareness proactively, flagging anomalies like unusual times or data access that signal potential compromises or careless habits. User and entity behavior analytics (UEBA) tools analyze deviations from established baselines, alerting individuals to self-correct or escalate issues, thereby cultivating vigilance without paternalistic oversight. This method supports by providing actionable feedback, such as notifications of risky behaviors, which empirical deployments show improve threat detection by identifying insider errors early. Complementing these, (EDR) technologies empower users by automating alerts on device-level threats, encouraging habitual checks like software updates and safe browsing. Comprehensive awareness initiatives incorporating these elements deliver measurable returns; for instance, effective programs correlate with up to 70% reductions in security risks and make organizations 8.3 times less likely to suffer breaches, per vendor-analyzed datasets, underscoring the value of user-centric, evidence-driven over regulatory crutches. ROI calculations from such programs often exceed 100%, as avoided incidents offset costs, with one model estimating $138,000 annual savings per organization from diminished breach probabilities.

Liability Frameworks for End-User Conduct

End-user liability for misconduct in computing environments primarily arises under tort law principles of , where users fail to exercise reasonable care in handling systems, leading to foreseeable harm such as data breaches or unauthorized disclosures. For instance, an end user who negligently shares credentials or ignores security warnings may be held accountable in civil actions for resulting , as tort doctrine requires proving breach of a , causation, and injury. Contractual agreements, including end-user agreements (EULAs) and , further reinforce user responsibility by stipulating compliance with usage policies, often limiting recourse against providers while imposing penalties for user violations. In the United States, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), enacted in 1986, addresses certain end-user conduct involving unauthorized computer access or exceeding authorized access, potentially leading to criminal or civil liability for actions like intentional data exfiltration by employees. However, judicial interpretations have narrowed CFAA applicability; for example, the Third Circuit in 2025 ruled that mere violations of employer computer-use policies, without evidence of technical circumvention like hacking, do not constitute CFAA offenses, rendering criminal prosecutions rare absent clear unauthorized entry. Empirical data supports this infrequency: while insider threats account for about 34% of breaches per Verizon's 2024 report, CFAA convictions against non-hacking users remain exceptional, with most resolutions handled civilly through negligence claims or employment disputes rather than federal prosecution. This user-focused accountability contrasts sharply with developer liability under doctrines, where providers face claims only for defective or flaws, not user errors in operation. Courts distinguish misuse—attributable to the end user—from inherent product defects; for example, a 2018 analysis noted that robust licensing agreements shield developers from for user-induced harms, shifting the burden to the user's negligent conduct. Such frameworks incentivize user caution by personalizing , though critics argue they may deter adoption of complex tools by imposing undue individual burdens without proportionate enforcement. Post-2023 developments in AI applications have highlighted rising user accountability for misuse, with cases emphasizing personal responsibility over tool-provider fault. In Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023), attorneys faced sanctions for submitting fictitious case citations generated by without verification, underscoring negligence in relying on unvetted AI outputs. Similar incidents, including UK judicial warnings in 2025 against AI-generated fabrications in filings, indicate a trend toward professional discipline and potential liability for users who fail to mitigate foreseeable AI errors, though criminal cases remain scarce. Internationally, liability frameworks exhibit variances, with the imposing stricter standards on user through national codes and directives like the NIS2 (effective 2023), which extend to individuals in critical sectors for lapses contributing to systemic risks. Unlike the U.S. emphasis on contractual and CFAA boundaries, approaches integrate with broader regulatory duties, potentially heightening user exposure in cross-border scenarios, as seen in fines for willful mishandling under aligned laws. These regimes collectively underscore end-user agency, countering tendencies to externalize blame to technology providers while balancing with .

Regulatory Impacts on User Autonomy and Privacy

The European Union's (GDPR), effective May 25, 2018, mandates explicit user for , aiming to bolster individual control over personal information. However, empirical analyses reveal that this framework often overwhelms users, fostering "consent fatigue" where repeated prompts lead to habitual acceptance without genuine comprehension or deliberation. Studies indicate that such fatigue undermines the regulation's goal of informed , as users increasingly default to approving terms to access services, paradoxically weakening effective . Similarly, the (CCPA), enacted in 2018 and operative from January 1, 2020, grants users rights to opt out of data sales, intending to enhance privacy agency. Yet, compliance burdens have correlated with diminished service availability, as firms face heightened operational costs and legal risks, reducing innovation in data-driven applications. from post-GDPR and analogous CCPA contexts shows a decline in digital service supply within regulated jurisdictions, with funding for tech startups dropping by up to 20% in affected regions due to compliance hurdles. This contraction limits user options, as smaller providers exit markets unable to absorb regulatory overhead, thereby curtailing practical autonomy despite formal empowerment mechanisms. Debates over self-management highlight inherent flaws in consent-centric models, where users' cognitive limits and information overload preclude robust decision-making, as evidenced by surveys documenting widespread app uninstallations—up to 72%—attributed to intrusive interfaces mandated by such laws. Proposals like the U.S. , reintroduced in 2023, exemplify tensions with , conditioning liability protections on scanning for illicit content, which pressures providers to weaken cryptographic safeguards under the pretext of child safety. Such measures risk normalizing proactive by intermediaries, eroding user in favor of state-mandated interventions that prioritize collective risk mitigation over individual tools. Evidence suggests these regulatory impulses favor top-down controls, diminishing the efficacy of user-deployed protections like strong , which empirical research upholds as superior for preserving against both private and governmental overreach.

Debates Over Government and Corporate Overreach

Debates over government-mandated access to encrypted communications have intensified in the , with proponents arguing that "lawful access" mechanisms are essential for to combat child exploitation and . For instance, the U.S. , reintroduced in 2022, seeks to hold tech providers liable for failing to detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM), potentially pressuring companies to weaken or scan user data preemptively. Advocates, including some lawmakers, claim such measures enhance public safety without creating universal backdoors, as access would require warrants. However, critics from organizations like the (EFF) contend that no technically feasible "responsible" backdoor exists, as any weakening of exposes all end users to hacking risks from adversaries, including foreign states, undermining the very these policies aim to protect. Empirical evidence supports skepticism toward these interventions; post-Edward Snowden revelations in 2013, public awareness of U.S. programs reached 87% by 2015, prompting 22% of Americans to increase privacy protections like using tools, yet trust in government handling of remained low at 35%. practitioners echo this, noting that historical proposals like the 1990s failed due to inevitable key compromises, and modern equivalents would similarly erode end-user confidence in digital tools essential for everyday computing. In the UK, 2025 proposals for scanning encrypted messages have drawn warnings that they jeopardize national cybersecurity standards, as weakened protocols invite exploitation beyond intended use. Corporate practices exacerbate these concerns through extensive justified under opaque privacy policies, often collecting user behavioral far exceeding service needs, which fuels debates on surveillance capitalism. A 2024 report highlighted how major platforms like and Meta aggregate vast personal datasets for advertising, with end users facing limited practical control despite options, leading to incidents like the 2021 breach affecting 87 million users. Proponents of tighter corporate regulation cite safety benefits, such as improved , but detractors argue it stifles innovation and user autonomy, as firms respond by or layering compliance costs that reduce service for non-expert end users. Critiques from liberty-oriented perspectives emphasize that both and corporate overreach cultivate user dependency on centralized systems, discouraging self-reliant security practices like personal management. For example, mandatory lawful access proposals implicitly prioritize state access over individual rights, while corporate hoarding—estimated to include 50-90% "dark" unused —creates vulnerabilities that governments later exploit under emergency pretexts, as seen in post-9/11 expansions of laws. This dynamic, unmoored from first-hand evidence of net safety gains, risks normalizing controls that diminish end-user agency in environments, with empirical trust erosion persisting since Snowden without corresponding reductions in crime via such measures.

Integration of AI and Low-Code Platforms

The integration of (AI) with low-code platforms has significantly expanded capabilities in the 2020s, enabling non-technical users to create applications through natural language prompts and visual interfaces rather than traditional programming. Following the release of in November 2022, AI assistants have facilitated code generation for tasks ranging from simple scripts to complex algorithms, allowing end-users to prototype software rapidly without extensive coding expertise. Low-code platforms, such as , complement this by providing drag-and-drop tools that claim to accelerate development by up to 10 times compared to conventional methods, democratizing app creation for business users. Adoption of these technologies has surged, with forecasting that 70% of new enterprise applications will utilize low-code or no-code methods by 2025, up from less than 25% in 2020, driven by demands for faster . However, this empowerment introduces shadow AI risks, where end-users deploy unauthorized AI tools outside IT oversight, potentially leading to data leakage, compliance violations under regulations like GDPR, and exposure of sensitive information to external models. Surveys indicate that up to 80% of organizations exhibit unapproved AI activity, amplifying vulnerabilities such as prompt injection attacks or biased outputs in user-built applications. Empirical studies on reveal productivity gains tempered by limitations. Microsoft-backed trials reported a 21% boost in complex knowledge work via AI assistance, including code-related tasks, while some developer self-reports noted 6.5% time savings. Conversely, a 2025 randomized controlled trial found experienced open-source developers 19% slower when using early-2025 AI tools, due to increased time spent reviewing and outputs. Error rates remain a concern, with at least 48% of AI-generated code containing security vulnerabilities, and rates exceeding 70% for languages like in user applications. These findings underscore that while AI-low-code integration enhances end-user agility, it necessitates rigorous validation to mitigate defects and risks in production environments.

Shifts Toward Cloud and Virtual End-User Computing

The transition to cloud-based and virtual end-user computing has accelerated since the early 2020s, driven by the need for flexible infrastructure. (AVD), rebranded from Windows Virtual Desktop in June 2021 following its general availability in October 2019, enables organizations to deliver virtualized Windows desktops and applications hosted in Azure cloud data centers. Complementing this, launched Windows 365 in August 2021 as a cloud PC service, providing per-user virtual machines accessible from any device without local hardware management. These solutions represent a shift from on-premises virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) to desktop-as-a-service (DaaS) models, with forecasting that 60% of enterprises will rely on remote access services and virtualized workspaces by the end of 2025 to support operational agility. DaaS market spending is projected to grow from $4.3 billion in 2025 to $6.0 billion by 2029, reflecting a of approximately 9%. Centralized management in these cloud VDI environments reduces dependency on end-user hardware by hosting desktops on scalable cloud resources, allowing administrators to apply patches, updates, and policies across fleets simultaneously. This approach enhances digital employee experience (DEX) metrics, such as user and satisfaction, by ensuring consistent access to resources regardless of endpoint devices. Organizations report cost savings of 30-40% in desktop management and hardware expenditures through resource pooling and elimination of physical PC refreshes, though initial implementation requires optimizing sizing to avoid overprovisioning. Despite these advantages, latency remains a challenge in scenarios, where high network delays—often exceeding 100-150 ms—can degrade performance for graphics-intensive tasks or real-time interactions, necessitating edge caching or protocol optimizations like those in AVD. Looking to trends, these shifts enable greater for hybrid workforces, with auto-scaling features in platforms like Windows 365 supporting dynamic to handle fluctuating demand without upfront capital outlays, potentially reducing costs by up to 30% for expanding enterprises. This positions cloud as a foundational layer for resilient, device-agnostic operations amid rising remote adoption.

Emerging Controversies in Shadow IT and AI Liability

, encompassing end-user adoption of unapproved software and services, continues to provoke debates over organizational control versus individual productivity gains, with recent analyses indicating it constitutes 30-40% of IT spending in large enterprises. This prevalence heightens breach risks, as unauthorized tools often lack vetting, leading to vulnerabilities like ; for instance, 11% of global cyber incidents in 2024 were linked to such usage. Proponents argue that curbing stifles , citing surveys where 80% of employees adopt these tools for efficiency, yet critics highlight of escalating exposures, particularly in hybrid work environments post-2022. The integration of AI has intensified these tensions through "shadow AI," where end-users deploy generative models without oversight, exemplified by ChatGPT emerging as the leading offender in shadow IT rankings by mid-2024. Corporate data fed into such tools surged 485% from March 2023 to March 2024, amplifying risks of sensitive information leakage and compliance violations under frameworks like GDPR or HIPAA. This user-driven proliferation underscores a core controversy: while AI enhances task , unmonitored deployments introduce prompt injection attacks and , with 2024 marking a record year for AI-facilitated exfiltration in sectors like and healthcare. AI liability debates center on apportioning responsibility for harms arising from opaque, "black-box" systems prompted by end-users, as explored in Yale analyses questioning whether fault lies with the tool's owner, deployer, or original developer. In user-initiated errors—such as biased outputs or erroneous decisions—legal scholars contend that end-user complicates traditional standards, potentially shifting burdens to organizations despite individual agency; this view contrasts with provider defenses emphasizing user input as the causal factor. Empirical cases, including 2024 voice-based incidents rising 3,000% from prior years, illustrate how shadow AI evades accountability, fueling calls for explicit liability regimes over blanket prohibitions. Looking ahead, controversies pivot toward decentralized AI architectures, which promise greater end-user autonomy by distributing computation across networks resistant to centralized oversight, potentially mitigating risks through peer-verified tools. Yet, this trajectory clashes with regulatory momentum, such as the EU AI Act's risk-based classifications effective from 2024, which aim to impose governance on high-impact systems but struggle against borderless decentralized models. Advocates for decentralization argue it fosters causal transparency via blockchain-augmented AI, countering black-box opacity, though skeptics warn of amplified liability diffusion in ecosystems, where user prompts could trigger untraceable harms amid fragmented enforcement.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/end-user.asp
  2. https://trymata.com/blog/what-is-an-end-user/
  3. https://www.techtarget.com/searchmobilecomputing/definition/end-user-computing-platform-EUC-platform
  4. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/end-user
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/end-users
  6. https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/143654/what-is-the-difference-between-a-user-and-an-end-user
  7. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-end-users-normal-users-power-users-admins-and-system-administrators
  8. https://www.toolpioneers.com/post/who-are-the-end-users
  9. https://www.ibm.com/history/system-360
  10. https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/22208/VisiCalc/
  11. https://www.ibm.com/history/personal-computer
  12. https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_classic/specs/mac_128k.html
  13. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/today-in-media-history-lotus-1-2-3-was-the-killer-app-of-1983/
  14. https://www.britannica.com/technology/Microsoft-Excel
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6326256/
  16. https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/this-day-history-june-29-2007-first-iphone-sale
  17. https://www.tecmint.com/which-career-to-choose-programmer-vs-administrator/
  18. https://software-league.com/sysadmin-vs-developer/
  19. https://www.atera.com/blog/how-to-choose-am-i-destined-to-be-an-it-administrator-or-a-software-developer/
  20. https://www.netscout.com/blog/troubling-trend-trouble-tickets
  21. https://subset.so/blog/the-history-of-spreadsheets
  22. https://www.sheetgo.com/blog/spreadsheets-tips/history-of-spreadsheets/
  23. https://blog.stephsmith.io/history-of-excel/
  24. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/vb-vba/1565923588/1565923588_ch01-6-fm2xml.html
  25. https://iranvba.com/en/where-did-it-all-begin-a-look-at-the-turbulent-history-of-vba-and-its-future/
  26. https://cloudjoy.com.au/power-apps/launch/
  27. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/no-code
  28. https://www.nobledesktop.com/blog/history-of-microsoft-excel
  29. https://quixy.com/blog/future-of-citizen-development/
  30. https://research.aimultiple.com/low-code-statistics/
  31. https://moldstud.com/articles/p-how-intuitive-interfaces-boost-the-effectiveness-of-business-intelligence-tools
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258689156_End_Users_Productivity_in_Model-based_Spreadsheets_An_Empirical_Study
  33. https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/medias/doc/conf/sic/papers_2002/vonhippel.pdf
  34. https://linuxfoundation.eu/newsroom/the-importance-of-open-source-contributions-by-end-users
  35. https://resources.cledara.com/hubfs/eBooks%2520PDF/The%2520State%2520of%2520Shadow%2520IT%2520-%2520Cledara.pdf
  36. https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/tip/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-shadow-IT
  37. https://phys.org/news/2024-08-business-spreadsheets-critical-errors.html
  38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-025-13392-0
  39. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3457
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228662532_What_We_Know_About_Spreadsheet_Errors
  41. https://cacm.acm.org/research/cognitive-biases-in-software-development/
  42. https://devrev.ai/blog/it-service-desk
  43. https://baymard.com/blog/inline-help
  44. https://www.endsight.net/blog/components-of-it-support-desk
  45. https://www.servicetarget.com/blog/strategic-self-service-reduces-support-costs-improves-customer-experience
  46. https://www.walkme.com/glossary/end-user-support/
  47. https://www.amarel-us.com/all-resources/blog/the-evolution-of-technical-writing-from-traditional-manuals-to-interactive-digital-guides/
  48. https://manuals.plus/the-evolution-of-user-manuals-from-print-to-digital
  49. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/technical-documentation-in-software-development-types-best-practices-and-tools/
  50. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-technical-documentation-from-manual-ai-driven-aachit-kumar-qcpaf
  51. https://www.sowflow.io/blog-post/best-practices-for-a-user-manual-format-tips-for-clarity-and-usability
  52. https://www.veterinaria.org/index.php/REDVET/article/download/1391/1004/
  53. https://www.archbee.com/blog/technical-documentation-usability
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262201755_Evaluating_usage_and_quality_of_technical_software_documentation_An_empirical_study
  55. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/social-engineering
  56. https://spacelift.io/blog/password-statistics
  57. https://newsroom.ibm.com/2024-07-30-ibm-report-escalating-data-breach-disruption-pushes-costs-to-new-highs
  58. https://securityscorecard.com/blog/the-human-factor-in-cybersecurity/
  59. https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/2024-dbir-data-breach-investigations-report.pdf
  60. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/how-russians-broke-into-democrats-email-mueller.html
  61. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election
  62. https://www.solarwinds.com/blog/an-investigative-update-of-the-cyberattack
  63. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.10294
  64. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/hidden-risk-shadow-data-ai-higher-costs
  65. https://www.josys.com/article/article-shadow-it-shadow-it-definition-2024-statistics-and-solutions
  66. https://www.knowbe4.com/press/knowbe4-report-reveals-security-training-reduces-global-phishing-click-rates-by-86
  67. https://www.knowbe4.com/press/knowbe4-analysis-finds-security-awareness-training-and-simulated-phishing-effective-in-reducing-cybersecurity-risk
  68. https://www.miniorange.com/blog/multifactor-authentication-mfa-a-must-for-cyber-insurance/
  69. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/email-and-cloud-threats/stopping-account-takeovers-requires-defense-in-depth
  70. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/user-behavior-analytics
  71. https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/exposure-management/behavioral-analytics/
  72. https://keepnetlabs.com/blog/security-awareness-training-statistics
  73. https://www.iotinsider.com/iot-insights/industry-insights/does-security-awareness-training-result-in-fewer-breaches/
  74. https://www.abacustechnologies.com/calculating-the-roi-on-security-awareness-training/
  75. https://torts.uslegal.com/business-torts/computer-torts/
  76. https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/86-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1.pdf
  77. https://www.saa.legal/blog/2018/december/why-you-probably-don-t-have-product-liability-fo/
  78. https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/third-circuit-absent-hacking-violating-employers-computer-use-policy-cannot
  79. https://www.ammlaw.com/2025/10/violations-of-an-employers-computer-use-policies-cannot-support-a-claim-under-the-federal-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act/
  80. https://datamatters.sidley.com/2025/08/29/van-buren-in-action-third-circuit-rejects-application-of-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-cfaa-to-violations-of-workplace-policies/
  81. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2025/08/courts-redefining-software-as-product-generates-new-risks
  82. https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2020/09/SELBST.pdf
  83. https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/app/uploads/2023/10/Fake-Cases-Real-Consequences-Misuse-of-ChatGPT-Christoper-F.-Lyon-NY-Litigator.pdf
  84. https://www.esquiresolutions.com/federal-court-turns-up-the-heat-on-attorneys-using-chatgpt-for-research/
  85. https://postquantum.com/post-quantum/ciso-negligence-personal-liability/
  86. https://www.cio.com/article/3594117/personal-liability-a-new-trend-in-cybersecurity-compliance.html
  87. https://iapp.org/news/a/liability-for-software-insecurity-striking-the-right-balance
  88. https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2024/04/SOLOVE.pdf
  89. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/36/1/edad047/7609866
  90. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
  91. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13662716.2023.2271858
  92. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/econpol-forum-2024-6-martens-eu-regulation.pdf
  93. https://datainnovation.org/2022/05/more-evidence-emerges-that-the-gdpr-has-inflicted-lasting-damage-to-the-eus-digital-economy/
  94. https://twinr.dev/blogs/why-users-abandon-apps/
  95. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/dangerous-earn-it-bill-advances-out-committee-several-senators-offer-objections
  96. https://www.wired.com/story/earn-it-act-sneak-attack-on-encryption/
  97. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/lawful-access
  98. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4051
  99. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/fancy-new-terms-same-old-backdoors-encryption-debate-2019
  100. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/there-no-middle-ground-encryption
  101. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/03/16/americans-privacy-strategies-post-snowden/
  102. https://www.securityweek.com/encryption-backdoors-the-security-practitioners-view/
  103. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2025/05/encryption-under-threat-the-uks-backdoor-mandate-and-its-impact-on-online-safety/
  104. https://publicknowledge.org/the-ftcs-new-report-reaffirms-big-techs-personal-data-overreach-whats-new/
  105. https://hbr.org/2022/02/the-new-rules-of-data-privacy
  106. https://www.eff.org/files/2025/08/19/the_crypto_wars.pdf
  107. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2023/07/20/a-cdo-call-to-action-stop-hoarding-data-save-the-planet/
  108. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/09/21/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/
  109. https://hammadulhaq.medium.com/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-ai-assisted-code-generation-balancing-productivity-control-and-risk-80869176202f
  110. https://www.outsystems.com/low-code-platform/
  111. https://kissflow.com/low-code/gartners-magic-quadrant-about-low-code-vs-no-code-2025/
  112. https://www.varonis.com/blog/shadow-ai
  113. https://xmcyber.com/blog/shadow-it-is-everywhere-xm-cyber-finds-80-of-companies-show-signs-of-unapproved-ai-activity/
  114. https://www.netcorpsoftwaredevelopment.com/blog/ai-generated-code-statistics
  115. https://www.npr.org/2025/10/21/nx-s1-5506141/ai-code-software-productivity-claims
  116. https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/
  117. https://futurecio.tech/study-reveals-flaws-and-risks-of-ai-generated-code/
  118. https://devops.com/survey-ai-tools-are-increasing-amount-of-bad-code-needing-to-be-fixed/
  119. https://www.crn.com/news/virtualization/microsoft-unveils-azure-virtual-desktop-as-new-name-for-wvd-adds-management-features
  120. https://www.channelfutures.com/desktop/microsoft-windows-virtual-desktop-azure-daas-offering-now-ga-worldwide
  121. https://isg-one.com/articles/microsoft-announces-windows-365-as-azure-virtual-desktop-adoption-increases-time-to-invest-in-daas
  122. https://choicesolutions.com/news/industry-trends-in-end-user-computing-2/
  123. https://xtium.com/gartner-daas-magic-quadrant-for-desktop-as-a-service-2025
  124. https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/vdi/
  125. https://www.splashtop.com/blog/vdi
  126. https://meriplex.com/building-a-business-case-for-vdi-key-considerations-for-it-leaders/
  127. https://v2cloud.com/blog/how-to-reduce-operating-costs
  128. https://vagon.io/blog/reducing-latency-in-virtual-desktops
  129. https://www.reddit.com/r/msp/comments/1cxcd36/remote_workers_from_another_country_facing_high/
  130. https://www.cloudservus.com/blog/top-microsoft-technology-trends-to-watch-in-2025
  131. https://www.cyberdefensemagazine.com/the-impact-of-cloud-computing-in-2025/
  132. https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2025/09/17/windows-365-brings-resilient-ai-driven-cloud-productivity-to-more-users/
  133. https://www.zluri.com/blog/shadow-it-statistics-key-facts-to-learn-in-2024
  134. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2024/05/05/number-1-reason-the-shadow-it-trend-is-benefiting-careers-but-hampering-companies/
  135. https://www.itbrew.com/stories/2024/05/22/chatgpt-is-the-number-one-offender-in-shadow-it-report-finds
  136. https://www.cfodive.com/news/shadow-it-surge-threatens-corporate-data-report/716686/
  137. https://cybernews.com/press-releases/the-hidden-risk-behind-free-ai-tools-why-chatgpt-and-other-llms-are-not-secure/
  138. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/who-is-responsible-when-ai-breaks-the-law
  139. https://venturebeat.com/security/shadow-ai-doubles-every-18-months-creating-blind-spots-socs-never-see
  140. https://keymakr.com/blog/regional-and-international-ai-regulations-and-laws-in-2024/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.