A Formal Privacy Policy Framework for Social Networks

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8702)


Social networks (SN) provide a great opportunity to help people interact with each other in different ways depending on the kind of relationship that links them. One of the aims of SN is to be flexible in the way one shares information, being as permissive as possible in how people communicate and disseminate information. While preserving the spirit of SN, users would like to be sure that their privacy is not compromised. One way to do so is by providing users with means to define their own privacy policies and give guarantees that they will be respected. In this paper we present a privacy policy framework for SN, consisting of a formal model of SN, a knowledge-based logic, and a formal privacy policy language. The framework may be tailored by providing suitable instantiations of the different relationships, the events, the propositions representing what is to be known, and the additional facts or rules a particular social network should satisfy. Besides, models of Facebook and Twitter are instantiated in our formalism, and we provide instantiations of a number of richer privacy policies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aucher, G., Boella, G., Torre, L.: A dynamic logic for privacy compliance. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19(2-3), 187–231 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruns, G., Fong, P.W., Siahaan, I., Huth, M.: Relationship-based access control: its expression and enforcement through hybrid logic. In: CODASPY 2012, pp. 117–124. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Datta, A., Blocki, J., Christin, N., DeYoung, H., Garg, D., Jia, L., Kaynar, D.K., Sinha, A.: Understanding and protecting privacy: Formal semantics and principled audit mechanisms. In: Jajodia, S., Mazumdar, C. (eds.) ICISS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7093, pp. 1–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about knowledge, vol. 4. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fong, P.W.: Relationship-based access control: Protection model and policy language. In: CODASPY 2011, pp. 191–202. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greschbach, B., Kreitz, G., Buchegger, S.: The devil is in the metadata - new privacy challenges in decentralised online social networks. In: PerCom Workshops, pp. 333–339. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le Métayer, D.: Privacy by design: A formal framework for the analysis of architectural choices. In: CODASPY 2013, pp. 95–104. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lomuscio, A., Ryan, M.: On the relation between interpreted systems and kripke models. In: Wobcke, W., Pagnucco, M., Zhang, C. (eds.) Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Formalisms, Methodologies, and Applications. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1441, pp. 46–59. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruan, J., Thielscher, M.: A logic for knowledge flow in social networks. In: Wang, D., Reynolds, M. (eds.) AI 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7106, pp. 511–520. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seligman, J., Liu, F., Girard, P.: Facebook and the epistemic logic of friendship. In: TARK 2013 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmersSweden
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of GothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations