1 / 26

Outline

This research paper discusses the limitations of current privacy preferences on social media platforms and proposes a unified model for privacy preferences that can be exported and reused across platforms. The implementation of this model using the OpenSocial framework is also explored.

owens
Télécharger la présentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Guarding a Walled Garden - Semantic Privacy Preferences for the Social WebPhilipp Kärger and Wolf SiberskiL3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  2. Outline • Observations and Problem Statement • A Unified Privacy Model • Implementation using OpenSocial • Future Work and Conclusions Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  3. Observations and Problem Statement Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  4. Privacy Decisions: who and what • Who is requesting? • Do I know the guy? • Did I ever meet him? • Did I ever talk to him? • Is he a colleague? • Didn’t I meet him at ESWC? • What is requested? • Is the requested thing/action private? • Do I want to share the requested thing? • Isn't it the picture I took once at this nice ESWC talk? Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  5. The Who and the What reflected on the Social Web: Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  6. But what about … • You are allowed if you … • posted in my forum. • are my friend in either Facebook or Skype. • are in one of my Orkut groups. • are in any of my Flickr pictures. • attended ESWC. • like the same music. • are interested in Semantic Web. • are listed in my FOAF profile. … the social context? Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  7. Privacy Preferences are Trapped • Platforms share similar concepts like • friends • groups • messages and chats • profile information • blocked users • shared resources • But privacy preferences cannot be exported and reused. Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  8. Summary: MotivationPrivacy Preferences on the Social Web • are restricted to predefined categories (fixed Whos and Whats) • cannot refer to social context - although it is available (Walled Garden No. 1) • cannot be exported and reused crossing platforms(Walled Garden No. 2) Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  9. A Unified Model for Privacy Preferences Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  10. “Somebody is allowed to do/see something.” • A Privacy Preference is a mapping from • What to Who • Set of actions/objects to Set of persons • Object category to Subject category Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  11. Object and Subject Categories • users shall be allowed to define • new subject categories • e.g., “A family member is every person who is in my FOAF profile or in my Facebook group ‘family’.” • family_member(X) :- foafFriend(X) ; inFacebookGroup(X,’family’). • new object categories • e.g., “A party picture is everything which is a picture and tagged with ‘party’.” • party_picture(X) :- picture(X) , taggedWith(X,’party’). Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  12. And-Or-Tree visualization of categories • Object Categories – the “What” Subject Categories – the “Who” Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  13. User-defined Mappings on Categories enforcement happens acc. to the Mappings common vocabulary  unified format Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  14. Summary • new categories can be defined by rules party_picture(X) :- picture(X) , taggedWith(X,’party’). • mappings between these categories define privacy preferences Every party_picture can be accessed by every friend. • platform independent when exploiting a suitable vocabulary Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  15. Implementation Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  16. Goals • a uniform representation of Privacy Preferences  RDF • extend standard Social Web platform to enforce such preferences the OpenSocial Implementation Apache Shindig • support the integration of arbitrary social contexts for the preferences •  Policy Engine “Protune” plus Social Web wrapper Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  17. Apache Shindig – an Open Social Implementation • Open Social – an API for Social Web sites defining methods for • retrieving personal information (profile data) • getting activity notification • storing/retrieving application data • sending/receiving messages • Apache Shindig • container for hosting Social Web applications • implements Open Social API • basis to easily develop Social Web platforms Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  18. Shindig Extension • filters requests (Open Social API calls) for information about persons • interprets our Privacy Preference Model • Protune is used as policy engine for privacy enforcement • privacy enforcement calls external sources  used to check social context family_member(X) :- foafFriend(X) ; inFacebookGroup(X,’family’). Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  19. Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  20. Social Context • arbitrary RDF sources, e.g., FOAF, SIOC, DOAP • relationships on Twitter • friendships on Flickr • any OpenSocial information (e.g., age, current location, address) • co-authorship on DBLP (via the DBLP SPARQL endpoint) Privacy Preferences can relate to Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  21. Implementation Summary • each Shindig-based platform can adopt it • reuse and share RDF format of Privacy Preferences • integrate of social context gathered from the Web Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  22. Future Work & Conclusions Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  23. Future Work • Authentication and identification • FOAF+SSL • OpenID • certificates, credentials, Trust Negotiation • User Interface Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  24. Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  25. Conclusions • Social Web Privacy Preferences • share a simple scheme • are limited to concepts of one platform only • are not portable to other platforms • We introduced a new Privacy Preference Model • easily extendable with complex categories • crosses the Walled Garden • Our Implementation • exploits OpenSocial and Protune • uses RDF representation of Privacy Preferences Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

  26. Thanks for your attention. • Philipp Kärger • L3S Research Center • kaerger@L3S.de • www.L3S.de/~kaerger Philipp Kärger - L3S Research Center

More Related