Negotiating Privacy Constraints in Online Social Networks

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 541)

Abstract

Privacy is a major concern of Web systems. Traditional Web systems employ static privacy agreements to notify its users of how their information will be used. Recent social networks allow users to specify some privacy concerns, thus providing a partially personalized privacy setting. However, still privacy violations are taking place because of different privacy concerns, based on context, audience, or content that cannot be enumerated by a user up front. Accordingly, we propose that privacy should be handled per post and on demand among all that might be affected. To realize this, we envision a multiagent system where each user in a social network is represented by an agent. When a user engages in an activity that could jeopardize a user’s privacy (e.g., publishing a picture), agents of the users negotiate on the privacy concerns that will govern the content. We employ a negotiation protocol and use it to settle differences in privacy expectations. We develop a novel agent that represents its user’s preferences semantically and reason on privacy concerns effectively. Execution of our agent on privacy scenarios from the literature show that our approach can handle and resolve realistic privacy violations before they occur.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrews, L.: I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy. Simon and Schuster, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aydogan, R., Yolum, P.: Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 24(1), 104–140 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennicke, M., Langendorfer, P.: Towards automatic negotiation of privacy contracts for internet services. In: The 11th IEEE International Conference on Networks, ICON2003, pp. 319–324. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S.: The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies. Semant. Web 2(1), 11–21 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M., et al.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission 21, 79 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, A.R.L.P., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. Int. J. Group Decis. Negot. 10(2), 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kafalı, O., Günay, A., Yolum, P.: Detecting and predicting privacy violations in online social networks. Distrib. Parallel Databases 32(1), 161–190 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pappachan, P., Yus, R., Das, P.K., Finin, T., Mena, E., Joshi, A.: A semantic context-aware privacy model for FaceBlock. In: Second International Workshop on Society, Privacy and the Semantic Web - Policy and Technology (PrivOn), Riva del Garda, Italy, October 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmidt, A., Beigl, M., Gellersen, H.-W.: There is more to context than location. Comput. Graph. 23(6), 893–901 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Squicciarini, A.C., Xu, H., Zhang, X.L.: Cope: Enabling collaborative privacy management in online social networks. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62(3), 521–534 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart, M.G.: How giant websites design for you (and a billion others, too). TED Talk (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walker, D.D., Mercer, E.G., Seamons, K.E.: Or best offer: A privacy policy negotiation protocol. In: IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, POLICY 2008, pp. 173–180. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wishart, R., Corapi, D., Marinovic, S., Sloman, M.: Collaborative privacy policy authoring in a social networking context. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY), pp. 1–8, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBogazici UniversityBebek, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations