A Survey on Transparency Tools for Enhancing Privacy

  • Hans Hedbom
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 298)

Abstract

This paper provides a short survey on transparency tools for privacy purposes. It defines the term transparency tools, argues why they are important and gives examples for transparency tools. A classification of transparency tools is suggested and some example tools are analyzed with the help of the classification.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Brckner, L., Voss, M.: Mozpets – a privacy enhanced web browser. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Privacy and Trust (PST 2005), Canada (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chappell, D.: Introducing windows cardspace. Technical report, Windows Vista Technical Articles (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Wide Web Consortium. Enterprise privacy authorization language (epal 1.2). W3C Member Submission (November 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hildebrant, M. (ed.): D 7.12: Biometric behavioural profiling and transparency enhancing tools. FIDIS Deliverable (work in progress)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer-Hbner, S., Hedbom, H. (eds.): Deliverable d14.1.c framework v3. PRIME Project Deliverable (March 2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen, M.: Marrying transparency tools with user-controlled identity management. In: Proceedings of Third International Summer School organized by IFIP WG 9.2, 9.6/11.7, 11.6 in cooperation with FIDIS Network of Excellence and HumanIT, Karlstad, Sweden (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jendricke, U., Gerd tom Markotten, D.: Usability meets security– the identity-manager as your personal security assistant for the internet. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Computer Security Application Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    FIDIS (Future of Identity in the Information Society), http://www.fidis.net
  10. 10.
    European Parliament. Directive 95/46/ec of the european parliament and of the council of 24 october 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal, L 281/31– L 281/39 39 (October 1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. Opinion on more harmonised information provisions. 11987/04/EN WP 100 (November 2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Sackmann, S., Strker, J., Accorsi, R.: Personalization in privacy-aware highly dynamic systems. Communications of the ACM 49(9) (September 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    W3C. The platform for privacy preferences 1.0 (p3p1.0) specification (April 2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weitzner, J., Abelson, H., Berners-Lee, T., Hanson, C., Hendler, J., Kagal, L., McGuiness, D.L., Sussman, G.J., Waterman, K.: Transparent acountable data mining: New strategies for privacy protection. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report MIT-CSAIL-TR-2006-007, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zwick, D., Dholakia, N.: Whose identity is it anyway? consumer representation in the age of database marketing. Journal of Macromarketing 24, 31 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Hedbom
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceKarlstad University KarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations