Secure and Privacy-Preserving Information Sharing for Enhanced Resilience

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 301)


City resilience is a pressing issue worldwide since the majority of the population resides in urban areas. When disaster strikes, the consequences will be more severe in the cities. To achieve resilience, different entities and the public should share information during a disaster. ICT-based Community engagement is used for strengthening resilience. We suggest easy-to-use metrics for assessing the security and privacy of information sharing platforms for resilience, and apply them to selected platforms. Most of them are reasonably well-protected, but with less than private default settings. We discuss the importance of security and privacy for different important categories of users of such systems, to better understand how these aspects affect the willingness to share information. Security and privacy is of particular importance for whistle-blowers that may carry urgent information, while volunteers and active helpers are less affected by the level of security and privacy.


Resilience Security Privacy Resilience tool Information sharing 


  1. 1.
    UN: World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas (2014).
  2. 2.
    Yang, T.-M., Maxwell, T.A.: Information-sharing in public organizations: a literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Gov. Inf. Q. 28(2), 164–175 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palen, L., et al.: A vision for technology-mediated support for public participation & assistance in mass emergencies & disasters. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-BCS Visions of Computer Science Conference. British Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pipek, V., Liu, S.B., Kerne, A.: Crisis informatics and collaboration: a brief introduction. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 23(4–6), 339–345 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    UNISDR: Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. In: World Conference on Disaster Reduction, Kobe (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trnka, J., Johansson, B.J.E.: Resilient emergency response: supporting flexibility and improvisation in collaborative command and control. In: Murray, E.J. (ed.) Crisis Response and Management and Emerging Information Systems: Critical Applications, pp. 112–138. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    UNISDR: Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives: 2004 version - volume II Annexes. In: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). United Nations, New York and Geneva (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, S.B.: Crisis crowdsourcing framework: designing strategic configurations of crowdsourcing for the emergency management domain. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 23(4–6), 389–443 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liza, P.: Sociotechnical uses of social web tools during disasters. In: Elayne, C. (ed.) Knowledge Development and Social Change through Technology: Emerging Studies, pp. 97–108. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tapia, A.H., Moore, K.: Good enough is good enough: overcoming disaster response organizations’ slow social media data adoption. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 23(4–6), 483–512 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindsay, B.R.: Social media and disasters: current uses, future options, and policy considerations. In: Congressional Research Service, C.R.f. Congress, Editor (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Avižienis, A., et al.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 1(1), 11–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, P., Chetal, A.: Trust-based secure information sharing between federal government agencies. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 56(3), 283–298 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwartz, P.M., Solove, D.J.: Pii problem: privacy and a new concept of personally identifiable information. NYUL Rev. 86, 1814 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herrmann, D.S.: Complete Guide to Security and Privacy Metrics: Measuring Regulatory Compliance, Operational Resilience, and ROI, p. 848. Auerbach Publications (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jansen, W.: Directions in Security Metrics Research. Diane Publishing, Darby (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaquith, A.: Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Addison-Wesley Professional, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernandez, E.B.: A methodology for secure software design. In: Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cavoukian, A.: Privacy by design: the 7 foundational principles. Implementation and mapping of fair information practices (2006).
  20. 20.
    Pfleeger, S.L.: Security measurement steps, missteps, and next steps. IEEE Secur. Priv. 10(4), 5–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    PEP: Public Empowerment Policies for Crisis Management (2016).
  31. 31.
    Bharosa, N., Lee, J., Janssen, M.: Challenges and obstacles in sharing and coordinating information during multi-agency disaster response: propositions from field exercises. Inf. Syst. Front. 12(1), 49–65 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turner, M., et al.: Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(5), 463–479 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee, J., et al.: Group value and intention to use — a study of multi-agency disaster management information systems for public safety. Decis. Support Syst. 50(2), 404–414 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aedo, I., et al.: End-user oriented strategies to facilitate multi-organizational adoption of emergency management information systems. Inf. Process. Manag. 46(1), 11–21 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cha, J.: Usage of video sharing websites: drivers and barriers. Telemat. Inform. 31(1), 16–26 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cottrill, C.D., “Vonu” Thakuriah, P.: Location privacy preferences: a survey-based analysis of consumer awareness, trade-off and decision-making. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 56, 132–148 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stolfo, S., Bellovin, S.M., Evans, D.: Measuring security. IEEE Secur. Priv. 3, 60–65 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pekárek, M., Pötzsch, S.: A comparison of privacy issues in collaborative workspaces and social networks. Identity Inf. Soc. 2(1), 81–93 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hull, G., Lipford, H.R., Latulipe, C.: Contextual gaps: privacy issues on Facebook. Ethics Inf. Technol. 13(4), 289–302 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Solove, D.J.: Introduction: privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harv. Law Rev. 126, 1880 (2012)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Twitter: Best practices for using Twitter in times of crisis (2016). Accessed 15 Mar 2016
  42. 42.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ICTCentre for Integrated Emergency Management UiAGrimstadNorway
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceHIOAOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations