When privacy and utility are in harmony: towards better design of presence technologies

Biehl, Jacob T.; Rieffel, Eleanor; Lee, Adam J.

doi:10.1007/s00779-012-0504-7

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As alluded to previously, LSS have significant privacy issues, and in fact the primary issue was exposed in [6]. In this study, it was shown that that users are uncomfortable with a service controlling access to their location data.…”

Section: Limitations Of Prior Workmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Over the last decade, location-and presence-sharing systems have received considerable attention from both researchers [6,8,21,22,28,29,35] and in practice [12,15,18,20]. The recent explosion in mobile computing and social networking has led to deployment of a wide range of locationsharing systems (LSSs), both stand-alone in nature (e.g., Find My Friends [14], FourSquare [15], or Glympse [18]) as well as integrated with other social networking platforms (e.g., Facebook places [12], Google Plus [20], Twitter, or Yelp).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to describing the key agreement and locationsharing protocols used by the architecture, we discuss an iOS implementation of SLS that enables location sharing at tunable granularity through an intuitive policy interface on the user's mobile device. [6,8,21,22,28,29,35] and in practice [12,15,18, 20] her geographic location with her social contacts either as a first-class data object or as support for other content (e.g., attaching one's location to restaurant review). This sharing can be done in a near seamless manner, particularly when the LSS is embedded within a larger social platform.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Combining social authentication and untrusted clouds for private location sharing

Adams

Lee

2013

Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the advent of GPS-enabled smartphones, location-sharing services (LSSs) have emerged that share data collected through those mobile devices. However, research has shown that many users are uncomfortable with LSS operators managing their location histories, and that the ease with which contextual data can be shared with unintended audiences can lead to regrets that sometimes outweigh the benefits of these systems. In an effort to address these issues, we have developed SLS: a secure location sharing system that combines location-limited channels, multi-channel key establishment, and untrusted cloud storage to hide user locations from LSS operators while also limiting unintended audience sharing. In addition to describing the key agreement and locationsharing protocols used by the architecture, we discuss an iOS implementation of SLS that enables location sharing at tunable granularity through an intuitive policy interface on the user's mobile device. [6,8,21,22,28,29,35] and in practice [12,15,18, 20] her geographic location with her social contacts either as a first-class data object or as support for other content (e.g., attaching one's location to restaurant review). This sharing can be done in a near seamless manner, particularly when the LSS is embedded within a larger social platform.Despite their popularity, LSSs are not without their own security and privacy problems. By their very design, these systems have the implicit shortcoming that sharing one's location with social contacts requires sharing this location with the LSS operator as well. This can lead to undesirable profiling of users by third parties, or increase users' exposure risk in the event of an LSS compromise. In addition, it is has been shown that social networks in general [36] and LSSs in particular [29] can sometimes lead to situations in which users experience regrets after (over)sharing information. This is often the result of the so-called unintended audience problem, in which data is shared with individuals other than those with whom the subject intended to share.This may manifest as a result of a location being automatically attached to content posted on a social network, accidental sharing of a location with a user's entire set of contacts instead of a restricted subset, or posting a location that contradicts other statements made by the user [29].The latter problem is symptomatic of both LSS and access control complexity. For instance, it is well-known that users' social networks have many more contacts than they interact with on a day-to-day basis: a 2011 poll of 1,954 British citizens found that the average person had 476 1 Facebook friends, but only 152 contacts in their cellular phone [38]. Furthermore, research studies have shown that users frequently make mistakes when authoring even basic access control policies in commodity systems [5,11,30]. As such, it is clear that accidents and misconfigurations can lead to over-sharing in large social networks. On the other hand, the problem of required sharing with LSS operator...

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of Prior Workmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Combining social authentication and untrusted clouds for private location sharing

Adams

Lee

2013

Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such data can indeed yield useful generalizable insight as indicated by the utilization of hypothetical requests and scenarios by a large number of published location sharing studies (e.g., [4,14,23,24,28]), including those that employed ESM [1,6]. Moreover, the influence of simulation was evenly distributed due to the random allocation of participants to the two study conditions, leaving comparative analyses unaffected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Although difficult to pin down precisely, these factors are typically captured in LSS that support identity-, time-, and/or location-based rules [23,26]. In addition, others have noted that privacy preferences could be predicated on the activity in which an individual is engaged [11], the individual's perception regarding the utility to the requester [4], the entropy of the current location [25], and the frequency with which location has been requested by others [24]. Efforts have been made to develop policy languages or systems capable of capturing these types of conditions to enable better end user control of location privacy [7,9,16,20,23,26].…”

Section: Privacy Policies For Location Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflection or action?

Patil

Schlegel

Kapadia

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Owing to the ever-expanding size of social and professional networks, it is becoming cumbersome for individuals to configure information disclosure settings. We used location sharing systems to unpack the nature of discrepancies between a person's disclosure settings and contextual choices. We conducted an experience sampling study (N = 35) to examine various factors contributing to such divergence. We found that immediate feedback about disclosures without any ability to control the disclosures evoked feelings of oversharing. Moreover, deviation from specified settings did not always signal privacy violation; it was just as likely that settings prevented information disclosure considered permissible in situ. We suggest making feedback more actionable or delaying it sufficiently to avoid a knee-jerk reaction. Our findings also make the case for proactive techniques for detecting potential mismatches and recommending adjustments to disclosure settings, as well as selective control when sharing location with socially distant recipients and visiting atypical locations.

show abstract