Smart Contract-Driven Mechanism Design to Mitigate Information Diffusion in Social Networks

  • Arinjita PaulEmail author
  • Vorapong Suppakitpaisarn
  • C. Pandu Rangan
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


This paper presents a new direction in privacy preserving techniques for social networks based on consensus-driven blockchain and mechanism design principles. Privacy problem is among the class of the most important and fundamental problems in social networks. The most commonly accepted privacy solution is to incorporate a perfect data privacy policy and central system, which inherently lacks transparency and trust. All existing privacy techniques deny undesired users access to the information directly, but, in reality, the information may be forwarded to them from other users who possess the information. Our user-controlled privacy mechanism aims to control such data dissemination using simple game theoretic concepts combined with blockchain technology. Our mechanism applies to DAG structured networks (directed acyclic graphs), and our reward policy incentivizes the receivers if they do not diffuse the message in the network. We establish blockchain powered smart contracts to enable the flow of incentives in the system, without the involvement of a trusted third party. The owner of the message has to pay for the rewards, but our mechanism makes sure that the payment is minimum. In fact, the owner will have more utility when he/she pays. Our mechanism satisfies the necessary constraints of mechanism design, namely individual rationality, incentive compatibility, and weakly budget balance while ensuring privacy.



Parts of this work is done while Arinjita Paul was conducting an internship supported by the JST Sakura Science Program. We would like to thank Prof. Satoru Iwata for hosting the internship. We also would like to thank anonymous reviewers who give comments that can significantly improve this paper.


  1. 1.
    Akasha: (2015)
  2. 2.
    Azaria, A., Ekblaw, A., Vieira, T., Lippman, A.: Medrec: using blockchain for medical data access and permission management. In: 2nd International Conference on Open and Big Data, OBD 2016, Vienna, Austria, 22–24 August 2016, pp. 25–30 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buterin, V., et al.: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. White paper (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casas-Roma, J., Rousseau, F.: Community-preserving generalization of social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, ASONAM 2015, Paris, France, 25–28 August 2015, pp. 1465–1472 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng, J., Fu, A.W.-C. Liu, J.: K-isomorphism: privacy preserving network publication against structural attacks. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data, pp. 459–470. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, E., Megiddo, N.: Recognizing properties of periodic graphs. In: Applied Geometry and Discrete Mathematics, Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 18 September 1990, vol. 4, pp. 135–146. DIMACS/AMS (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dagher, G.G., Mohler, J., Milojkovic, M., Marella, P.B.: Ancile: privacy-preserving framework for access control and interoperability of electronic health records using blockchain technology. Sustain. Cities Soc. 39, 283–297 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Dwork, C.: The differential privacy frontier. In: Proceedings of Theory of Cryptography, 6th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2009, San Francisco, CA, USA, 15–17 March 2009, pp. 496–502 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., Smith, A.D.: Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In: Proceedings of Theory of Cryptography, Third Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2006, New York, NY, USA, 4–7 March 2006, pp. 265–284 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goel, V.: Facebook tinkers with users emotions in news feed experiment, stirring outcry. The New York Times (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gradwohl, R.: Information sharing and privacy in networks. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC ’17, Cambridge, MA, USA, 26–30 June 2017, pp. 349–350 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hardekopf, B.: The big data breaches of 2014. Forbes, 13 January 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hay, M., Miklau, G., Jensen, D., Weis, P., Srivastava, S.: Anonymizing Social Networks. Computer Science Department Faculty Publication Series, p. 180 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henson, B., Reyns, B.W., Fisher, B.S.: Security in the 21st century: examining the link between online social network activity, privacy, and interpersonal victimization. Crim. Justice Rev. 36(3), 253–268 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hongfei, D., Zhang, E.: (2014)
  17. 17.
    Iwano, K., Steiglitz, K.: Testing for cycles in infinite graphs with periodic structure. In: Aho, A.V. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 46–55. ACM, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J.M., Kumar, A.: Connectivity and inference problems for temporal networks. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Portland, OR, USA, 21–23 May 2000, pp. 504–513. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kleinberg, J.M., Raghavan, P.: Query incentive networks. In: Proceedings of 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2005), 23–25 October 2005, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 132–141. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, B., Hao, D., Zhao, D., Zhou, T.: Mechanism design in social networks. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, California, USA, 4–9 February 2017, pp. 586–592 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, N., Li, T., Venkatasubramanian, S.: t-closeness: privacy beyond k-anonymity and l-diversity. In: IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering. ICDE 2007, pp. 106–115. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo, W., Liu, J., Liu, J., Fan, C.: An analysis of security in social networks. In: Eighth IEEE International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, pp. 648–651. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Machanavajjhala, A., Gehrke, J., Kifer, D., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: l-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering. ICDE’06, pp. 24–24. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moulin, H.: Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making. Econometric Society Monographs, vol. 15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., Vazirani, V.V.: Algorithmic Game Theory, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nissim, K., Smorodinsky, R., Tennenholtz, M.: Approximately optimal mechanism design via differential privacy. In: Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–10 January 2012, pp. 203–213 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pai, M.M., Roth, A.: Privacy and mechanism design. SIGecom Exch. 12(1), 8–29 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rajagopalan, K.: Interacting with users in social networks: the follow-back problem. Technical report, MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lexington United States (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steemit social network: (2016)
  31. 31.
    Sweeney, L.: k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 10(05), 557–570 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Szabo, N.: Smart contracts (1994)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J. Financ. 16(1), 8–37 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williams, J.: Social networking applications in health care: threats to the privacy and security of health information. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care, pp. 39–49. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zyskind, G., Nathan, O., Pentland, A.: Decentralizing privacy: using blockchain to protect personal data. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops, SPW 2015, San Jose, CA, USA, 21–22 May 2015, pp. 180–184 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arinjita Paul
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vorapong Suppakitpaisarn
    • 2
  • C. Pandu Rangan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIIT MadrasChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Graduate School of Information Science and TechnologyThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations