skip to main content
research-article

Preserving Privacy as Social Responsibility in Online Social Networks

Published:24 April 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. Roland Benabou and Jean Tirole. 2010. Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica 77, 305, 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Armin Falk and Urs Fischbacher. 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54, 2, 293--315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Alvin W. Gouldner. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25, 2, 161--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Matthew Horridge and Sean Bechhofer. 2011. The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies. Semantic Web 2, 1, 11--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Phillip R. Kunz and Michael Woolcott. 1976. Season’s greetings: From my status to yours. Social Science Research 5, 3, 269--278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Debora L. McGuinness and Frank van Harmelen (Eds.). 2004. OWL Web Ontology Language overview. World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation 10, 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kristina R. Olson and Elizabeth S. Spelke. 2008. Foundations of cooperation in young children. Cognition 108, 1, 222--231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Albrecht Schmidt, Michael Beigl, and Hans W. Gellersen. 1999. There is more to context than location. Computers and Graphics 23, 6, 893--901.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Preserving Privacy as Social Responsibility in Online Social Networks

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
        ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 18, Issue 4
        Special Issue on Computational Ethics and Accountability, Special Issue on Economics of Security and Privacy and Regular Papers
        November 2018
        348 pages
        ISSN:1533-5399
        EISSN:1557-6051
        DOI:10.1145/3210373
        • Editor:
        • Munindar P. Singh
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 April 2018
        • Accepted: 1 October 2017
        • Revised: 1 September 2017
        • Received: 1 January 2017
        Published in toit Volume 18, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader