Advertisement

Breaching the privacy of connected vehicles network

  • Vladimir Kaplun
  • Michael SegalEmail author
Article

Abstract

Connected vehicles network is designed to provide a secure and private method for drivers to use the most efficiently the roads in certain area. When dealing with the scenario of car to access points connectivity (Wi-Fi, 3G, LTE), the vehicles are connected by central authority like cloud. Thus, they can be monitored and analyzed by the cloud which can provide certain services to the driver, i.e. usage based insurance, entertainment services, navigation etc. The main objective of this work is to show that by analyzing the information about a driver which is provided to the usage based insurance companies, it is possible to get additional private data, even if the basic data in first look, seems not so harmful. In this work, we present an analysis of a novel approach for reconstructing driver’s path from other driving attributes, such as cornering events, average speed and total driving time. We show that, in some cases, it is possible to reconstruct the driver’s path, while not knowing the target point of the trip.

Keywords

Privacy Connected vehicles networks Data breach Usage-based insurance 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Dewri, R., Annadata, P., Eltarjaman, & W., Thurimella, R. (2013). Inferring trip destinations from driving habits data. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer and communications security (pp. 267–272).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xiaofeng, L., Zhaowei, Q., Qi, L., & Pan, H. (2014). Privacy information security classification study in internet of things. In International conference on identification, information and knowledge in the internet of things (pp. 162–165).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mivule, K., & Turner, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of data privacy and utility parameter adjustment, using machine learning classification as a gauge. In Procedia computer science (pp. 414–419).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torra, V., & Navarro-Arribas, G. (2014). Data privacy. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 4, 269–280.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sweeney, L. (2002). K-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal on Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, 10, 557–570.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, K., & Fung B. (2006) Anonymizing sequential release. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD) (pp. 414–423).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shmueli, E., Tassa, T., Wasserstein, R., Shapira, B., & Rokach, L. (2012). Limiting disclosure of sensitive data in sequential releases of databases. Information Science, 191, 98–127.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Handel, P., Skog, I., Wahlstrom, J., Bonawiede, F., Welch, R., Ohlsson, J., et al. (2014). Insurance telematics: Opportunities and challenges with the smartphone solution. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 6(4), 57–70.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rinku, D., Prasad, A., Wisam, E., Ramakrishna, T. (2013). Inferring trip destinations from driving habits data. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM workshop on Workshop on privacy in the electronic society (pp. 267–272).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulcsár, Z. (2014). Insurance telematics report. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from http://www.tu-auto.com/insurance-report/, 2014.
  11. 11.
    Eren, H., Makinist, S., Akin, E., & Yilmaz, A. (2012). Estimating driving behavior by a smartphone. In International vehicle symposium (pp. 234–239).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saiprasert, C., & Pattara-Atikom, W. (2013). Smartphone enabled dangerous driving report system. In International conference systems science (pp. 1231–1237).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, D., & Trivedi, M. (2011). Driving style recognition using a smartphone as a sensor platform. In IEEE conference intelligent transportation systems (pp. 1609–1615).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meseguer, J., Calafate, C., Cano, J., & Manzoni, P. (2013). Driving styles: A smartphone application to assess driver behavior. In IEEE symposium computer communication (pp. 535–540).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wahlstrom, J., Skog, I., & Peter, H. (2015). Detection of dangerous cornering in GNSS data driven insurance telematics. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25(6), 3073–3083.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    “Rollover data special study final report,” U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Technical Report (pp. 1–59).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunter, T., Abbeel, P., & Bayen, M. A. (2013). The path inference filter: model-based low-latency map matching of probe vehicle data. In Algorithmic foundations of robotics X, Proceedings of the 10th workshop on the algorithmic foundations of robotics (pp. 591–607).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xianyi, G., Firner, B., Sugrim, S., Pendergrast, V. K., Yang, Y., & Lindqvist, J. (2014). Elastic pathing: your speed is enough to track you. In UbiComp’14, Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (pp. 975–986).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eren, H., Makinist, S., Akin, E., & Yilmaz, A. (2012). Estimating driving behavior by a smartphone. In Intelligent vehicles symposium IV (pp. 234–239).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zheng, Y., Chen, Y., Xie, X., & Wei-Ying, M. (2009). GeoLife2.0: A location-based social networking service. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on mobile data management (pp. 357–358).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yuan, J., Zheng, Y., Zhang, C., Xie, W., Xie, X., Sun, G., & Huang, Y. (2010). T-drive: Driving directions based on taxi trajectories. In Proceedings of the 18th SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems (pp. 99–108).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shin, D. (2010). The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: A security-based approach to understand the pattern of adoption. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 428–438.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shin, D. (2010). Ubiquitous computing acceptance model: End user concern about security, privacy and risk. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 8(2), 169–186.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodrigues, J., De Rezende Segundo, D., Junqueira, H., Sabino, M., Prince, R., Al-Muhtadi, J., de Albuquerque, V. (2018). Enabling technologies for the internet of health things. IEEE Access, 6, 13129–13141.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ngu, Anne Hee Hiong, Gutierrez, Mario A., Metsis, Vangelis, Nepal, Surya, & Sheng, Quan Z. (2017). IoT middleware: A survey on issues and enabling technologies. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salahuddin, M., Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M. (2015). Software-defined networking for RSU clouds in support of the internet of vehicles. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2(2), 133–144.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hara, Takahiro, Sigg, Stephan, Shu, Lei, De Pellegrini, Francesco, & Petrioli, Chiara. (2017). Sanjay Kumar Madria: Special section editorial: Emergent topics for mobile and ubiquitous systems in smartphone, IOT, and cloud computing ERA. IEEE Access, 5, 27827–27830.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Communication Systems Engineering DepartmentBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations