Advertisement

Geo-Privacy Beyond Coordinates

  • Grant McKenzieEmail author
  • Krzysztof Janowicz
  • Dara Seidl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

The desire to share one’s location with friends and family or to use location information for navigation and recommendations services is often overshadowed by the need to preserve privacy. As recent progress in big data analytics, ambient intelligence, and conflation techniques is met with the economy’s growing hunger for data, even formerly negligible digital footprints become revealing of our activities. The majority of established geo-privacy research tries to protect an individual’s location by different masking or perturbation techniques or by suppressing and generalizing an individual’s characteristics to a degree where she cannot be singled out from a crowd. In this work we demonstrate that location privacy may already be compromised before these techniques take effect. More concretely, we discuss how everyday digital footprints such as timestamps, geosocial check-ins, and short social media messages, e.g., tweets, are indicative of the user’s location. We focus particularly on places and highlight how protecting place-based information differs from a purely spatial perspective. The presented research is based on so-called semantic signatures that are mined from millions of geosocial check-ins and enable a probabilistic framework on the level of geographic feature types, here Points Of Interest (POI). While our work is compatible with leading privacy techniques, we take a user-centric perspective and illustrate how privacy-enabled services could guide the users by increasing information entropy.

Keywords

Privacy Place Semantic signature Location Geosocial 

References

  1. Adams B, Janowicz K (2012) On the geo-indicativeness of non-georeferenced text. In: ICWSM, pp 375–378Google Scholar
  2. Almuhimedi H, Schaub F, Sadeh N, Adjerid I, Acquisti A, Gluck J, Cranor LF, Agarwal Y (2015) Your location has been shared 5,398 times!: a field study on mobile app privacy nudging. In: The 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI). ACM, pp 787–796Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong MP, Rushton G, Zimmerman DL (1999) Geographically masking health data to preserve confidentiality. Stati Med 18(5):497–525Google Scholar
  4. Batty M (1974) Spat Entropy. Geogr Anal 6(1):1–31Google Scholar
  5. Beldad A, Kusumadewi MC (2015) Heres my location, for your information: the impact of trust, benefits, and social influence on location sharing application use among indonesian university students. Comput Hum Behav 49:102–110Google Scholar
  6. Benisch M, Kelley PG, Sadeh N, Cranor LF (2011) Capturing location-privacy preferences: quantifying accuracy and user-burden tradeoffs. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 15(7):679–694Google Scholar
  7. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022Google Scholar
  8. Bohn J, Coroamă V, Langheinrich M, Mattern F, Rohs M (2005) Social, economic, and ethical implications of ambient intelligence and ubiquitous computing. In: Ambient intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 5–29Google Scholar
  9. Clarke CC (2015) A multiscale masking method for point geographic data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 30(2):1–16Google Scholar
  10. de Montjoye YA, Hidalgo CA, Verleysen M, Blondel VD (2013) Unique in the crowd: the privacy bounds of human mobility. Sci Rep 3Google Scholar
  11. Dixon PM (2002) Ripley’s K function. In: Encyclopedia of environmetricsGoogle Scholar
  12. Duckham M, Kulik L (2006) Location privacy and location-aware computing. Dyn Mob GIS: Investigating Change Space Time 3:35–51Google Scholar
  13. Dwork C (2011) Differential privacy. In: Encyclopedia of cryptography and security. Springer, pp 338–340Google Scholar
  14. Gambs S, Killijian MO, del Prado Cortez MN (2010) Show me how you move and i will tell you who you are. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL international workshop on security and privacy in GIS and LBS. ACM, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  15. Goodchild MF (2015) Space, place and health. Ann GIS 21(2):97–100Google Scholar
  16. Hampton KH, Fitch MK, Allshouse WB, Doherty IA, Gesink DC, Leone PA, Serre ML, Miller WC (2010) Mapping health data: improved privacy protection with donut method geomasking. Am J Epidemiol 172(9):1062–1069Google Scholar
  17. Janowicz K (2012) Observation-driven geo-ontology engineering. Trans GIS 16(3):351–374Google Scholar
  18. Kounadi O, Leitner M (2015) Spatial information divergence: using global and local indices to compare geographical masks applied to crime data. Trans GIS 19(5):737–757Google Scholar
  19. Lin J (1991) Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 37(1):145–151Google Scholar
  20. Lindqvist J, Cranshaw J, Wiese J, Hong J, Zimmerman J (2011) I’m the mayor of my house: examining why people use foursquare-a social-driven location sharing application. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2409–2418Google Scholar
  21. Mahmud J, Nichols J, Drews C (2014) Home location identification of twitter users. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol (TIST) 5(3):47Google Scholar
  22. McCallum AK (2002) MALLET: a machine learning for language toolkit. http://mallet.cs.umass.edu
  23. McKenzie G, Janowicz K (2014) Coerced geographic information: The not-so-voluntary side of user-generated geo-content. In: Eighth international conference on geographic information scienceGoogle Scholar
  24. McKenzie G, Janowicz K (2015) Where is also about time: a location-distortion model to improve reverse geocoding using behavior-driven temporal semantic signatures. Comput Environ Urban Syst 54:1–13Google Scholar
  25. McKenzie G, Janowicz K, Gao S, Yang JA, Hu Y (2015) POI pulse: a multi-granular, semantic signatures-based approach for the interactive visualization of big geosocial data. Cartographica: Int J Geogr Inf Geovis 50(2):71–85Google Scholar
  26. Seidl DE, Jankowski P, Tsou MH (2015) Privacy and spatial pattern preservation in masked GPS trajectory data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 1–16Google Scholar
  27. Seidl DE, Paulus G, Jankowski P, Regenfelder M (2015) Spatial obfuscation methods for privacy protection of household-level data. Appl Geogr 63:253–263Google Scholar
  28. Shannon CE (1948) A note on the concept of entropy. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423Google Scholar
  29. Sweeney L (2002) k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 10(05):557–570Google Scholar
  30. Weber RH (2010) Internet of things-new security and privacy challenges. Comput Law Secur Rev 26(1):23–30Google Scholar
  31. Zandbergen PA (2014) Ensuring confidentiality of geocoded health data: assessing geographic masking strategies for individual-level data. Adv Med pp 1–14Google Scholar
  32. Zhang S, Freundschuh SM, Lenzer K, Zandbergen PA (2015) The location swapping method for geomasking. Cartography Geogr Inf Sci 1–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grant McKenzie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Krzysztof Janowicz
    • 1
  • Dara Seidl
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.STKO Lab, Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations