International Journal of Information Security

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 173–194 | Cite as

Preventing sensitive relationships disclosure for better social media preservation

  • Elie Raad
  • Bechara Al Bouna
  • Richard Chbeir
Regular Contribution


A fundamental aspect of all social networks is information sharing. It is one of the most common forms of online interaction that is tightly associated with social media preservation and information disclosure. As such, information sharing is commonly viewed as a key enabler for social media preservation tasks. In the current situation, where information sharing and inter-user communications are made instantly possible via the widespread use of ubiquitous technologies, privacy related, and particularly information disclosure issues, are the obvious, much discussed, immediate consequences of information sharing. As a result, information disclosure, especially when multimedia data come to play, is critical for appropriate social media preservation strategies that consider and respect the privacy of social network users. Social media preservation must align with privacy protection solutions and consequently must protect sensitive information that social network users would like to keep private. In this paper, we propose a new approach to implement a privacy-oriented social media preservation strategy that prevents the disclosure of sensitive information. Instead of using a preserve-all strategy, we present a framework to personalize social media preservation tasks. We then describe our proposed rule-based algorithm to evaluate information disclosure addressing mainly relationship type disclosure and using shared photos. We also provide an experimental study to investigate the efficiency and the relevance of our approach.


Social media preservation Information disclosure Social networks Privacy Relationship discovery Crowdsourcing 


  1. 1.
    Aimeur, E., Gambs, S., Ho, A.: Towards a privacy-enhanced social networking site. In: Availability, Reliability, and Security, 2010. ARES ’10 International Conference on, pp. 172–179 (2010). doi: 10.1109/ARES.2010.97
  2. 2.
    Banos, V., Baltas, N., Manolopoulos, Y.: Trends in blog preservation (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besmer, A., Richter Lipford, H.: Moving beyond untagging: photo privacy in a tagged world. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’10, pp. 1563–1572. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodriagov, O., Buchegger, S.: P2p social networks with broadcast encryption protected privacy. In: Camenisch, J., Crispo, B., Fischer-Hübner, S., Leenes, R., Russello, G. (eds.) Privacy and Identity Management for Life, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 375, pp. 197–206. Springer, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boongoen, T., Shen, Q., Price, C.: Disclosing false identity through hybrid link analysis. Artif. Intell. Law 18(1), 77–102 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell, L.E., Dulabahn, B.: Digital preservation: the twitter archives and NDIIPP. In: iPRES 2010: Proceedings of the International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chakaravarthy, V.T., Gupta, H., Roy, P., Mohania, M.K.: Efficient techniques for document sanitization. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM ’08, pp. 843–852. ACM, New York, USA (2008). doi: 10.1145/1458082.1458194
  8. 8.
    Clemons, E.: Monetizing the internet: surely there must be something other than advertising. In: System Sciences, 2009. HICSS ’09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on, pp. 1–10 (2009). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2009.312
  9. 9.
    Damiani, E., Pagano, F., Pagano, D.: iprivacy: a distributed approach to privacy on the cloud. Int. J. Adv. Secur. 4(3 and 4), 185–197 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy. ICALP 2, 1–12 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esslimani, I., Brun, A., Boyer, A.: From social networks to behavioral networks in recommender systems. In: Social Network Analysis and Mining, 2009. ASONAM’09. International Conference on Advances in, pp. 143–148. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fong, P.W.: Relationship-based access control: protection model and policy language. In: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Data and application security and privacy, CODASPY ’11, pp. 191–202. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freni, D.: Ruiz Vicente, C., Mascetti, S., Bettini, C., Jensen, C.S.: Preserving location and absence privacy in geo-social networks. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM ’10, pp. 309–318. ACM, New York, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fung, B.C.M., Wang, K., Chen, R., Yu, P.S.: Privacy-preserving data publishing: a survey of recent developments. ACM Comput. Surv. 42(4), 14:1–14:53 (2010). doi: 10.1145/1749603.1749605 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gessiou, E., Vu, Q.H., Ioannidis, S.: Irild: An information retrieval based method for information leak detection. In: Computer Network Defense (EC2ND), 2011 Seventh European Conference on, pp. 33–40 (2011). doi: 10.1109/EC2ND.2011.21
  16. 16.
    Hart, J., Ridley, C., Taher, F., Sas, C., Dix, A.: Exploring the facebook experience: a new approach to usability. In: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges. NordiCHI ’08, pp. 471–474. ACM, New York, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hedges, M., Blanke, T., Hasan, A.: Rule-based curation and preservation of data: a data grid approach using irods. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 25(4), 446–452 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.future.2008.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Houghton, D.J., Joinson, A.N.: Privacy, social network sites, and social relations. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 28(1–2), 74–94 (2010). doi: 10.1080/15228831003770775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunter, J., Choudhury, S.: Panic: an integrated approach to the preservation of composite digital objects using semantic web services. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 6, 174–183 (2006). doi: 10.1007/s00799-005-0134-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson, M., Egelman, S., Bellovin, S.M.: Facebook and privacy: it’s complicated. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’12, pp. 1–15. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kifer, D.: Attacks on privacy and definetti’s theorem. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 127–138 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, N., Zhang, N., Das, S.: Relationship privacy preservation in publishing online social networks. In: Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (passat), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (socialcom), pp. 443–450 (2011). doi: 10.1109/PASSAT/SocialCom.191
  23. 23.
    Liu, Y., Gummadi, K.P., Krishnamurthy, B., Mislove, A.: Analyzing facebook privacy settings: user expectations vs. reality. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference, IMC ’11, pp. 61–70. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lu, X., Wang, C., Yang, J.M., Pang, Y., Zhang, L.: Photo2trip: generating travel routes from geo-tagged photos for trip planning. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia. MM ’10, pp. 143–152. ACM, New York, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Machanavajjhala, A., Gehrke, J., Kifer, D., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: L-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity. In: Data Engineering, 2006. ICDE ’06. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on, pp. 24–24 (2006). doi: 10.1109/ICDE.2006.1
  26. 26.
    Marketakis, Y., Tzanakis, M., Tzitzikas, Y.: Prescan: towards automating the preservation of digital objects. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems, MEDES ’09, pp. 60:404–60:411. ACM, New York, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCown, F., Nelson, M.: What happens when facebook is gone. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 251–254. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McNealy, J.: Privacy implications of digital preservation: social media archives and the social networks theory of privacy. Elon L. Rev. 3, 133 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Musial, K., Kazienko, P.: Social networks on the internet. World Wide Web pp. 1–42 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11280-011-0155-z
  30. 30.
    Nettleton, D.F., Abril, D.: Document sanitization: measuring search engine information loss and risk of disclosure for the wikileaks cables. In: Domingo-Ferrer, J., Tinnirello, I. (eds.) Privacy in Statistical Databases, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7556, pp. 308–321. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33627-0_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nourian, A., Maheswaran, M.: Measuring the availability of images posted on social media sites. In: Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 2012 21st International Conference on, pp. 1–5 (2012). doi: 10.1109/ICCCN.2012.6289206
  32. 32.
    Onnela, J.P., Saramki, J., Hyvnen, J., Szab, G., Lazer, D., Kaski, K., Kertsz, J., Barabsi, A.L.: Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104(18), 7332–7336 (2007). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610245104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Raad, E., Chbeir, R., Dipanda, A.: Discovering relationship types between users using profiles and shared photos in a social network. Multimed. Tools Appl. 64(1), 141–170 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0853-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ranjbar, A., Maheswaran, M.: Community-centric approaches for confidentiality management in online systems. In: Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 2011 Proceedings of 20th International Conference on, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ren, F., Wu, Y.: Predicting user-topic opinions in twitter with social and topical context. Affect. Comput. IEEE Trans. 4(4), 412–424 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ross, S.: Digital preservation, archival science and methodological foundations for digital libraries. New Rev. Inf. Netw. 17(1), 43–68 (2012). doi: 10.1080/13614576.2012.679446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sawant, N., Li, J., Wang, J.: Automatic image semantic interpretation using social action and tagging data. Multimed. Tools Appl. 51, 213–246 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s11042-010-0650-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Scheffer, T.: Finding association rules that trade support optimally against confidence. In: De Raedt, L., Siebes, A. (eds.) Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2168, pp. 424–435. Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Singla, P., Kautz, H., Luo, J., Gallagher, A.: Discovery of social relationships in consumer photo collections using markov logic. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2008. CVPRW ’08. IEEE Computer Society Conference on, pp. 1–7 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Staddon, J., Golle, P., Zimny, B.: Web-based inference detection. In: Proceedings of 16th USENIX Security Symposium on USENIX Security Symposium, SS’07, pp. 6:1–6:16. USENIX Association, Berkeley, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Surowiecki, J.: The wisdom of crowds: Why the Many are smarter than the few. Doubleday Books, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Watry, P.: Digital preservation theory and application: transcontinental persistent archives testbed activity. Int. J. Digit. Curation 2(2), 41–68 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang, C., Sun, J., Zhu, X., Fang, Y.: Privacy and security for online social networks: challenges and opportunities. Network IEEE 24(4), 13–18 (2010). doi: 10.1109/MNET.2010.5510913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Antonine UniversityBaabdaLebanon
  3. 3.Laboratoire LIUPPAUniversity of Pau and Adour CountriesBayonneFrance

Personalised recommendations