Abstract
Online social networks provide an environment for their users to share content with others, where the user who shares a content item is put in charge, generally ignoring others that might be affected by it. However, a content that is shared by one user can very well violate the privacy of other users. To remedy this, ideally, all users who are related to a content should get a say in how the content should be shared. Recent approaches advocate the use of agreement technologies to enable stakeholders of a post to discuss the privacy configurations of a post. This allows related individuals to express concerns so that various privacy violations are avoided up front. Existing techniques try to establish an agreement on a single post. However, most of the time, agreement should be established over multiple posts such that the user can tolerate slight breaches of privacy in return of a right to share posts themselves in future interactions. As a result, users can help each other preserve their privacy, viewing this as their social responsibility. This article develops a reciprocity-based negotiation for reaching privacy agreements among users and introduces a negotiation architecture that combines semantic privacy rules with utility functions. We evaluate our approach over multiagent simulations with software agents that mimic users based on a user study.
- Roland Benabou and Jean Tirole. 2010. Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica 77, 305, 1--19.Google Scholar
- Igor Bilogrevic, Kévin Huguenin, Berker Agir, Murtuza Jadliwala, Maria Gazaki, and Jean-Pierre Hubaux. 2016. A machine-learning based approach to privacy-aware information-sharing in mobile social networks. Pervasive and Mobile Computing 25, 125--142. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gul Calikli, Mark Law, Arosha K. Bandara, Alessandra Russo, Luke Dickens, Blaine A. Price, Avelie Stuart, Mark Levine, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2016. Privacy dynamics: Learning privacy norms for social software. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 47--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barbara Carminati and Elena Ferrari. 2011. Collaborative access control in on-line social networks. In Proceedings of the 2011 7th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications, and Worksharing (CollaborateCom ’11). 231--240.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Armin Falk and Urs Fischbacher. 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54, 2, 293--315.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alvin W. Gouldner. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25, 2, 161--178.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew Horridge and Sean Bechhofer. 2011. The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies. Semantic Web 2, 1, 11--21. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Harold Boley, Said Tabet, Benjamin Grosof, and Mike Dean. 2004. SWRL: A Semantic Web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. World Wide Web Consortium Member Submission 21, 79.Google Scholar
- Hongxin Hu, Gail-Joon Ahn, and Jan Jorgensen. 2013. Multiparty access control for online social networks: Model and mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 25, 7, 1614--1627. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dilara Keküllüoğlu, Nadin Kökciyan, and Pınar Yolum. 2016. Strategies for privacy negotiation in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Privacy and Security (PrAISe’16). 2:1--2:8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Berkant Kepez and Pınar Yolum. 2016. Learning privacy rules cooperatively in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Privacy and Security (PrAISe@ECAI’16).3:1--3:4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nadin Kökciyan, Nefise Yaglikci, and Pınar Yolum. 2017. An argumentation approach for resolving privacy disputes in online social networks. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 17, 3, 27:1--27:22. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nadin Kökciyan and Pınar Yolum. 2016. PriGuard: A semantic approach to detect privacy violations in online social networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28, 10, 2724--2737. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nadin Kökciyan and Pınar Yolum. 2017. Context-based reasoning on privacy in Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’17). 4738--4744. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Phillip R. Kunz and Michael Woolcott. 1976. Season’s greetings: From my status to yours. Social Science Research 5, 3, 269--278.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Airi Lampinen, Vilma Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio, and Sakari Tamminen. 2011. We’re in it together: Interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 3217--3226. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jure Leskovec and Julian J. McAuley. 2012. Learning to discover social circles in ego networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 539--547. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Debora L. McGuinness and Frank van Harmelen (Eds.). 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language overview. World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation 10, 10.Google Scholar
- Yavuz Mester, Nadin Kökciyan, and Pınar Yolum. 2015. Negotiating privacy constraints in online social networks. In Advances in Social Computing and Multiagent Systems, F. Koch, C. Guttmann, and D. Busquets (Eds.). Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 541. Springer International, 112--129. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristina R. Olson and Elizabeth S. Spelke. 2008. Foundations of cooperation in young children. Cognition 108, 1, 222--231.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarvapali D. Ramchurn, Carles Sierra, Lluis Godo, and Nicholas R. Jennings. 2006. Negotiating using rewards. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 400--407. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Albrecht Schmidt, Michael Beigl, and Hans W. Gellersen. 1999. There is more to context than location. Computers and Graphics 23, 6, 893--901.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Aditya Kalyanpur, and Yarden Katz. 2007. Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5, 2, 51--53. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Manya Sleeper, Rebecca Balebako, Sauvik Das, Amber Lynn McConahy, Jason Wiese, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2013. The post that wasn’t: Exploring self-censorship on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’13). ACM, New York, NY, 793--802. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anna Cinzia Squicciarini, Mohamed Shehab, and Federica Paci. 2009. Collective privacy management in social networks. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York, NY, 521--530. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Margaret Gould Stewart. 2014. How giant Websites design for you (and a billion others, too). Retrieved March 13, 2018, from https://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_gould_stewart_how_giant_websites_design_for_you_and_a_billion_others_too.Google Scholar
- Jose M. Such and Natalia Criado. 2016. Resolving multi-party privacy conflicts in social media. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28, 7, 1851--1863.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jose M. Such and Michael Rovatsos. 2016. Privacy policy negotiation in social media. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 11, 1, 4:1--4:29. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Preserving Privacy as Social Responsibility in Online Social Networks
Recommendations
An Argumentation Approach for Resolving Privacy Disputes in Online Social Networks
Special Issue on Argumentation in Social Media and Regular PapersPreserving users’ privacy is important for Web systems. In systems where transactions are managed by a single user, such as e-commerce systems, preserving privacy of the transactions is merely the capability of access control. However, in online social ...
Strategies for Privacy Negotiation in Online Social Networks
PrAISe '16: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on AI for Privacy and SecurityPreserving privacy of posts in online social networks is difficult. One reason for this is that a post can be related to the poster as well as various others that are related to the post. Hence, it is possible to share information that pertains others ...
Privacy leakage analysis in online social networks
Online Social Networks (OSNs) have become one of the major platforms for social interactions, such as building up relationship, sharing personal experiences, and providing other services. The wide adoption of OSNs raises privacy concerns due to personal ...
Comments