Virtual Walls: Protecting Digital Privacy in Pervasive Environments

Abstract

Abstract. As pervasive environments become more commonplace, the privacy of users is placed at increased risk. The numerous and diverse sensors in these environments can record users' contextual information, leading to users unwittingly leaving "digital footprints." Users must thus be allowed to control how their digital footprints are reported to third parties. While a significant amount of prior work has focused on location privacy, location is only one type of footprint, and we expect most users to be incapable of specifying fine-grained policies for a multitude of footprints. In this paper we present a policy language based on the metaphor of physical walls, and posit that users will find this abstraction to be an intuitive way to control access to their digital footprints. For example, users understand the privacy implications of meeting in a room enclosed by physical walls. By allowing users to deploy "virtual walls," they can control the privacy of their digital footprints much in the same way they control their privacy in the physical world. We present a policy framework and model for virtual walls with three levels of transparency that correspond to intuitive levels of privacy, and the results of a user study that indicates that our model is easy to understand and use.

Service-oriented middleware for the Future Internet: state of the art and research directions

“…Then work in [126] introduces a solution to privacy-preserving trust negotiations. Finally, other privacy concerns are tackled in [73], where users can control external access to private sensor data by enforcing their privacy preferences.…”

Privacy analysis in mobile social networks: the influential factors for disclosure of personal data

“…It can be achieved by following the assumption that the sensitivity of the users' personal information is not stable; it may vary depending on different circumstances in which the user is involved (Lederer et al, 2003a;Wright et al, 2009;Sapuppo and Sørensen, 2011). Consequently, only information that is relevant, but not sensitive in specific circumstances should be disclosed at a time (Bunnig, 2009a,b;Kapadia et al, 2007;Langheinrich, 2001;Yee, 2010). Therefore, no standard rules can be applied for all the cases of disclosure of users' personal data (Altman, 1975(Altman, , 1977Palen and Dourish, 2003).…”

Privacy Engine for Context-Aware Enterprise Application Services

“…A. Kapadia et al [21] proposed a privacy language based on the metaphor of physical walls, and assumes users understand and accept the privacy implication of a physical wall. The approaches of collaborative filtering [12] and K-anonymity [13,20,22,23] assume some semantics (e.g., spatial or temporal) on the underlying data to implicitly control the granularity of data exposure.…”