Data Governance and Transparency for Collaborative Systems

  • Rauf Mahmudlu
  • Jerry den Hartog
  • Nicola ZannoneEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9766)


As social networks, shared editing platforms and other collaborative systems are becoming increasingly popular, the demands for proper protection of the data created and used within these systems grows. Yet, existing access control mechanisms are not suited for the challenges imposed by collaborative systems. Two main challenges should be addressed: collaborative specification of permissions, while ensuring an appropriate levels of control to the different parties involved, and enabling transparency in decision making in cases where the access requirements of these different parties are in conflict. In this paper we propose a data governance model for collaborative systems, which allows the integration of access requirements specified by different users based on their relation with a data object. We also study the practical feasibility of enabling transparency by comparing different deployment options for transparency in XACML.


Access Request Global Policy Policy Decision Point Collaborative System Access Control Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work has been partially funded by the ITEA2 projects FedSS (No. 11009) and M2MGrid (No. 13011), the EDA project IN4STARS2.0, and the Dutch national program COMMIT under the THeCS project.


  1. 1.
    Albrecht, U.V.: Transparency of health-apps for trust and decision making. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(12), e277 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damen, S., den Hartog, J., Zannone, N.: CollAC: Collaborative access control. In: Proceedings of CTS, pp. 142–149. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damen, S., Zannone, N.: Privacy implications of privacy settings and tagging in facebook. In: Jonker, W., Petković, M. (eds.) SDM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8425, pp. 121–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Fine Licht, J.: Transparency actually: how transparency affects public perceptions of political decision-making. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 6(02), 309–330 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghai, S.K., Nigam, P., Kumaraguru, P.: Cue: A framework for generating meaningful feedback in XACML. In: Proceedings of SafeConfig, pp. 9–16. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guarda, P., Zannone, N.: Towards the development of privacy-aware systems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(2), 337–350 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu, H., Ahn, G.J., Jorgensen, J.: Multiparty access control for online social networks: model and mechanisms. TKDE 25(7), 1614–1627 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jajodia, S., Samarati, P., Sapino, M.L., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Flexible support for multiple access control policies. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 26(2), 214–260 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joshi, A., Bollen, L., Hassink, H.: An empirical assessment of it governance transparency: evidence from commercial banking. Inf. Sys. Manag. 30(2), 116–136 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaluvuri, S.P., Egner, A.I., den Hartog, J., Zannone, N.: SAFAX – Anextensible authorization service for cloud environments. Front. ICT 2(9) (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, N., Wang, Q., Qardaji, W., Bertino, E., Rao, P., Lobo, J., Lin, D.: Access control policy combining: theory meets practice. In: Proceedings of SACMAT, pp. 135–144. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matteucci, I., Mori, P., Petrocchi, M.: Prioritized execution of privacy policies. In: Di Pietro, R., Herranz, J., Damiani, E., State, R. (eds.) DPM 2012 and SETOP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7731, pp. 133–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazzoleni, P., Crispo, B., Sivasubramanian, S., Bertino, E.: XACML policy integration algorithms. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 11(1), 4:1–4:29 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OASIS XACML Technical Committee: eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) Version 2.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reeder, R.W., Bauer, L., Cranor, L.F., Reiter, M.K., Vaniea, K.: Effects of access-control policy conflict-resolution methods on policy-authoring usability. CyLab, p. 12 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandhu, R.S., Coyne, E.J., Feinstein, H.L., Youman, C.E.: Role-based access control models. Computer 29(2), 38–47 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shen, H., Dewan, P.: Access control for collaborative environments. In: Proceedings of Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, pp. 51–58. ACM (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Squicciarini, A.C., Shehab, M., Paci, F.: Collective privacy management in social networks. In: Proceedings of WWW, pp. 521–530. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomas, R.K.: Team-based access control (TMAC): a primitive for applying role-based access controls in collaborative environments. In: Proceedings of RBAC, pp. 13–19. ACM (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomas, R.K., Sandhu, R.S.: Task-based authorization controls (TBAC): A family of models for active and enterprise-oriented authorization management. In: DBSec, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tolone, W., Ahn, G.J., Pai, T., Hong, S.P.: Access control in collaborative systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 37(1), 29–41 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rauf Mahmudlu
    • 1
  • Jerry den Hartog
    • 1
  • Nicola Zannone
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations