Advertisement

A new computing environment for collective privacy protection from constrained healthcare devices to IoT cloud services

  • Ahmed M. Elmisery
  • Seungmin Rho
  • Mohamed Aborizka
Article

Abstract

The Internet of healthcare things is essentially a new model that changes the way of the delivery and management of healthcare services. It utilizes digital sensors and cloud computing to present a quality healthcare service outside of the classical hospital environment. This resulted in the emergence of a new class of online web 4.0 services, which are termed “cloud healthcare services”. Cloud healthcare services offer a straightforward opportunity for patients to communicate with healthcare professionals and utilize their personal IoHT devices to obtain timely and accurate medical guidance and decisions. The personal IoHT devices integrate sensed health data at a central cloud healthcare service to extract useful health insights for wellness and preventive care strategies. However, the present practices for cloud healthcare services rely on a centralized approach, where patients’ health data are collected and stored on servers, located at remote locations, which might be functioning under data privacy laws somewhat different from the ones applied where the service is running. Promoting a privacy respecting cloud services encourages patients to actively participate in these healthcare services and to routinely provide an accurate and precious health data about themselves. With the emergence of fog computing paradigm, privacy protection can now be enforced at the edge of the patient’s network regardless of the location of service providers. In this paper, a framework for cloud healthcare recommender service is presented. We depicted the personal gateways at the patients’ side act as intermediate nodes (called fog nodes) between IoHT devices and cloud healthcare services. A fog-based middleware will be hosted on these fog nodes for an efficient aggregation of patients generated health data while maintaining the privacy and the confidentiality of their health profiles. The proposed middleware executes a two-stage concealment process that utilizes the hierarchical nature of IoHT devices. This will unburden the constrained IoHT devices from performing intensive privacy preserving processes. At that, the patients will be empowered with a tool to control the privacy of their health data by enabling them to release their health data in a concealed form. The further processing at the cloud healthcare service continues over the concealed data by applying the proposed protocols. The proposed solution was integrated into a scenario related to preserving the privacy of the patients’ health data when utilized by a cloud healthcare recommender service to generate health insights. Our approach induces a straightforward solution with accurate results, which are beneficial to both patients and service providers.

Keywords

Internet of healthcare things Cloud healthcare services Recommender services Secure multiparty computation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially financed by the “Dirección General de Investigación, Innovación y Postgrado” of Federico Santa María Technical University- Chile, in the Project Security in Cyber-Physical Systems for Power Grids (UTFSM-DGIP PI.L.17.15), and by Advanced Center for Electrical and Electronic Engineering (AC3E) CONICYT-Basal Project FB0008, and by the Microsoft Azure for Research Grant (0518798) and by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2016R1D1A1A09919551).

References

  1. 1.
    Palmer. D.: The first big internet of things security breach is just around the corner. ZDNet (2016) http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-first-big-internet-of-things-security-breach-is-just-around-the-corner/
  2. 2.
    Burleson, W., Clark, S.S., Ransford, B., Fu, K.: Design challenges for secure implantable medical devices. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 12–17 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stergiou, C., Psannis, K., Kim, B.G., Gupta, B.B.: Secure integration of internet-of-things and cloud computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 78, 964–975 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., Palaniswami, M.: Internet of things (IoT): a vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29, 1645–1660 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Botta, A., De Donato, W., Persico, V., Pescapé, A.: On the integration of cloud computing and internet of things. In: 2014 International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), pp. 23–30 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramalho F., Neto, A.: Virtualization at the network edge: a performance comparison. In: 2016 IEEE 17th International Symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM), pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Willis, D., Dasgupta, A., Banerjee, S.: ParaDrop: a multi-tenant platform to dynamically install third party services on wireless gateways. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM workshop on Mobility in the evolving internet architecture, Maui, Hawaii, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moreno-Vozmediano, R., Montero, R.S., Huedo, E., Llorente, I.M.: Cross-site virtual network in cloud and fog computing. IEEE Cloud Comput. 4, 46–53 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moreira, M.W., Rodrigues, J.J., Oliveira, A.M., Saleem, K., Neto, A.V.: An inference mechanism using Bayes-based classifiers in pregnancy care. In: 2016 IEEE 18th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom), pp. 1–5 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silva, B.M., Rodrigues, J.J., de la Torre Díez, I., López-Coronado, M., Saleem, K.: Mobile-health: a review of current state in 2015. J. Biomed. Inform. 56, 265–272 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marotta, M.A., Faganello, L.R., Schimuneck, M.A.K., Granville, L.Z., Rochol, J., Both, C.B.: Managing mobile cloud computing considering objective and subjective perspectives. Comput. Netw. 93, 531–542 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adat V., Gupta, B.B.: Security in internet of ihings: issues, challenges, taxonomy, and architecture. Telecommunication Systems, 2017/06/13 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Topol, E.J.: The future of medicine is in your smartphone. Wall Street J. (2015). https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-future-of-medicine-is-in-your-smartphone-1420828632
  14. 14.
    Columbus, L.: 83% of Healthcare Organizations Are Using Cloud-Based Apps Today. Forbes (2014) http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2014/07/17/83-of-healthcare-organizations-are-using-cloud-based-apps-today/#43d6b7b56502
  15. 15.
    Olson, J.S., Grudin, J., Horvitz, E.: A study of preferences for sharing and privacy. In: CHI ’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. Portland, OR, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martinovic, I., Davies, D., Frank, M., Perito, D., Ros, T., Song, D.: On the feasibility of side-channel attacks with brain-computer interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 21st USENIX conference on Security symposium, Bellevue, WA (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Storm, D.: MEDJACK: Hackers hijacking medical devices to create backdoors in hospital networks. Computerworld. (2015) http://www.computerworld.com/article/2932371/cybercrime-hacking/medjack-hackers-hijacking-medical-devices-to-create-backdoors-in-hospital-networks.html
  18. 18.
    Varshney, U.: Pervasive healthcare and wireless health monitoring. Mob. Netw. Appl. 12, 113–127 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blum, J., Magill, E.: M-psychiatry: sensor networks for psychiatric health monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Postgraduate Symposium on the Convergence of Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting, Liverpool John Moores University, June 2008, pp. 33–37 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blumrosen, G., Avisdris, N., Kupfer, R., Rubinsky, B.: C-SMART: efficient seamless cellular phone based patient monitoring system. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alghamdi, B., Fouchal, H.: A mobile wireless body area network platform. J. Comput. Sci. 5, 664–674 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Min, C., Yoo, C., Lee, Y., Song, J.: Healthopia: towards your well-being in everyday life. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Applied Sciences in Biomedical and Communication Technologies, Barcelona, Spain (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Welsh, M., Moulton, S., Fulford-Jones, T., Malan, D.J.: Codeblue: an ad hoc sensor network infrastructure for emergency medical care. (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lorincz, K., Malan, D.J., Fulford-Jones, T.R.F., Nawoj, A., Clavel, A., Shnayder, V., et al.: Sensor networks for emergency response: challenges and opportunities. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 3, 16–23 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blum J.M., Magill, E.H.: The design and evaluation of personalised ambient mental health monitors. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE Conference on Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ganti, R.K., Jayachandran, P., Abdelzaher, T.F., Stankovic, J.A.: SATIRE: a software architecture for smart AtTIRE. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services, Uppsala, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malasri K., Wang, L.: Addressing security in medical sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGMOBILE International Workshop on Systems and Networking Support for Healthcare and Assisted Living Environments, San Juan, Puerto Rico (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tan, C.C., Wang, H., Zhong, S., Li, Q.: IBE-Lite: a lightweight identity-based cryptography for body sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 13, 926–32 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang, C., Lee, H., Lee, D.H.: A privacy-strengthened scheme for E-Healthcare monitoring system. J. Med. Syst. 36, 2959–71 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tewari, A., Gupta, B.B.: Cryptanalysis of a novel ultra-lightweight mutual authentication protocol for IoT devices using RFID tags. J. Supercomput. 73, 1085–1102 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Canny, J.: Collaborative filtering with privacy. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Canny, J.: Collaborative filtering with privacy via factor analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Tampere, Finland (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aimeur, E., Brassard, G., Fernandez, J.M., Onana, F.S.M., Rakowski, Z.: Experimental demonstration of a hybrid privacy-preserving recommender system. In: Third International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, 2008 (ARES ’08), March 2008, pp. 161–170. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Polat H., Du, W.: Privacy-preserving collaborative filtering using randomized perturbation techniques. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Polat, H., Du, W.: SVD-based collaborative filtering with privacy. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Santa Fe, New Mexico (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Huang, Z., Du, W., Chen, B.: Deriving private information from randomized data. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Baltimore, Maryland (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kargupta, H., Datta, S., Wang, Q., Sivakumar, K.: On the privacy preserving properties of random data perturbation techniques. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miller, B.N., Konstan, J.A., Riedl, J.: PocketLens. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 22, 437–476 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Elmisery, A.M., Botvich, D.: Multi-agent based middleware for protecting privacy in IPTV content recommender services. Multimed. Tools Appl. 64, 249–275 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-012-1067-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Elmisery, A.M., Rho, S., Botvich, D.: Collaborative privacy framework for minimizing privacy risks in an IPTV social recommender service. Multimed. Tools Appl. 75, 14927–14957 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-014-2271-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Elmisery, A.M.: Private personalized social recommendations in an IPTV system. N. Rev. Hypermed. Multimed. 20, 145–167 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2014.889222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Elmisery, A.M., Botvich, D.: Privacy aware recommender service for IPTV networks. In: 2011 5th FTRA International Conference on Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering (MUE), pp. 160–166 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MUE.2011.70
  43. 43.
    Elmisery, A.M., Botvich, D.: Agent based middleware for maintaining user privacy in IPTV recommender services. In: Prasad, R., Farkas, K., Schmidt, A.U., Lioy, A., Russello, G., Luccio, F.L. (eds.), Security and Privacy in Mobile Information and Communication Systems: Third International ICST Conference, MobiSec 2011, Aalborg, Denmark, May 17–19, 2011, Revised Selected Papers, pp. 64–75. Springer, Berlin (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30244-2_6
  44. 44.
    Elmisery, A.M., Botvich, D.: Enhanced middleware for collaborative privacy in IPTV recommender services. J. Converg. 2(10), 26 (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Elmisery, A.M., Botvich, D.: Agent based middleware for private data mashup in IPTV recommender services. In: 2011 IEEE 16th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), pp. 107–111 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1109/CAMAD.2011.5941096
  46. 46.
    Elmisery, A., Botvich, D.: Privacy aware recommender service using multi-agent middleware-an IPTV network scenario. Informatica 36, 21–36 (2012)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Elmisery, A.M., Rho, S., Botvich, D.: Privacy-enhanced middleware for location-based sub-community discovery in implicit social groups. J. Supercomput. 72, 247–274 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-015-1574-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Elmisery, A.M., Doolin, K., Roussaki, I., Botvich, D.: Enhanced middleware for collaborative privacy in community based recommendations services. In: Yeo, S.-S., Pan, Y., Lee, Y., Chang, B.H. (eds.), Computer Science and its Applications: CSA, pp. 313–328. Springer, Dordrecht (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5699-1_32
  49. 49.
    Elmisery, A.M., Doolin, K., Botvich, D.: Privacy Aware Community based Recommender Service for Conferences Attendees. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-105-2-519 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Elmisery, A.M., Rho, S., Botvich, D.: A fog based middleware for automated compliance with OECD privacy principles in internet of healthcare things. IEEE Access 4, 8418–8441 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2631546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Elmisery, A.M., Botvich, D.: Privacy aware obfuscation middleware for mobile jukebox recommender services. In: Skersys, T., Butleris, R., Nemuraite, L., Suomi, R. (eds.), Building the e-World Ecosystem: 11th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2011, Kaunas, Lithuania, October 12–14, 2011, Revised Selected Papers, pp. 73–86. Springer, Berlin (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27260-8_6
  52. 52.
    Parameswaran, R., Blough, D.M.: Privacy preserving data obfuscation for inherently clustered data. Int. J. Inf. Comput. Sec. 2, 4 (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: the second-generation onion router. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on USENIX Security Symposium, Vol. 13. San Diego, CA (2004)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kim, H.D.: Applying consistency-based trust definition to collaborative filtering. KSII Trans. Internet Inf. Syst. 3, 366–374 (2009)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kelly, D., Teevan, J.: Implicit feedback for inferring user preference: a bibliography. SIGIR Forum 37, 18–28 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nejdl, W., Wolpers, M., Siberski, W., Schmitz, C., Schlosser, M., Brunkhorst I., et al.: Super-peer-based routing and clustering strategies for RDF-based peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, Budapest, Hungary (2003)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Carbo, J., Molina, J., Davila, J.: Trust management through fuzzy reputation. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 12, 135–155 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Paillier, P.: Public-Key Cryptosystems Based on Composite Degree Residuosity Classes. In: EUROCRYPT 1999, International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pp 223–238 (1999)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Damgård, I., Jurik, M.: In: Kim, K. (ed.), A generalisation, a simplication and some applications of Paillier’s probabilistic public-key system public key cryptography, vol. 1992, pp. 119–136, Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Damgård I., Koprowski, M.: In: Pfitzmann, B. (Ed.), Practical threshold RSA signatures without a trusted dealer advances in cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2001, Vol. 2045, pp. 152–165. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Boneh, D., Franklin, M.: In: Kaliski, B. (Ed.), Efficient generation of shared RSA keys Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO ’97, Vol. 1294. Springer, Berlin, pp. 425–439 (1997)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Fuzzy identity-based encryption. In: Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pp. 457–473 (2005)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ostrovsky, R., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Attribute-based encryption with non-monotonic access structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 195–203 (2007)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Waters, B.: Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption: an expressive, efficient, and provably secure realization. In: International Workshop on Public Key Cryptography, p. 53–70 (2011)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ghinita, G., Kalnis, P., Skiadopoulos, S.: PRIVE: anonymous location-based queries in distributed mobile systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, Banff, Alberta, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ahmed, R., Boutaba, R.: A scalable peer-to-peer protocol enabling efficient and flexible search. Technical Report CS-2006-05, vol. 12, p. 101. David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo (2006)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jarvis, R.A., Patrick, E.A.: Clustering using a similarity measure based on shared near neighbors. IEEE Trans. Comput. 22, 1025–1034 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Akinyele, J.A., Garman, C., Miers, I., Pagano, M.W., Rushanan, M., Green, M., et al.: Charm: a framework for rapidly prototyping cryptosystems. J. Cryptogr. Eng. 3, 111–128 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Herlocker, J.L., Konstan, J.A., Terveen, L.G., Riedl, J.T.: Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 22, 5–53 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kingsford, C.: Information Theory Notes. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed M. Elmisery
    • 1
  • Seungmin Rho
    • 2
  • Mohamed Aborizka
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Electronic EngineeringUniversidad Tecnica Federico Santa MariaValparaisoChile
  2. 2.Department of Media SoftwareSungkyul UniversityAnyang-siKorea
  3. 3.College of Computer ScienceArab Academy for Science, Technology, and Maritime TransportCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations