Paul Weiser
ABSTRACT
We argue that current technical and legal attempts aimed at protecting Geoprivacy are insufficient. We propose a novel 2-dimensional model of privacy, which we term "civilized cyberspace". On one dimension there are engineering, social and legal tools while on the other there are different kinds of interaction with information. We argue why such a civilized cyberspace protects privacy without sacrificing personal freedom on the one hand and opportunities for businesses on the other. We also discuss its realization and propose a technology stack including a permission service for geoprocessing.
- A. Abdalla, P. Weiser, and A. U. Frank. Design principles for spatio-temporally enabled pim tools: A qualitative analysis of trip planning. In Geographic Information Science at the Heart of Europe, pages 323--336. Springer, 2013.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- D. Adams. The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Del Rey, 1995.Google Scholar
- M. P. Armstrong and A. J. Ruggles. Geographic information technologies and personal privacy. Cartographica, 40(4):63--73, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Bettini, X. Wang, and S. Jajodia. Protecting privacy against location-based personal identification. In W. Jonker and M. Petković, editors, Secure Data Management, volume 3674 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 185--199. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. J. Blumberg and P. Eckersley. On locational privacy, and how to avoid losing it forever. Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2009.Google Scholar
- R. Clarke. The digital persona and its application to data surveillance. The Information Society: An International Journal, 10(2):77--92, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Cohen and E. Schmidt. The new digital age: Reshaping the future of people, nations and business. Hachette UK, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. T. Commission et al. Protecting consumer privacy in an era of rapid change. Federal Trade Commission, 2010.Google Scholar
- A. Cooper, H. Tschofenig, B. Aboba, J. Peterson, J. Morris, M. Hansen, and R. Smith. Privacy considerations for internet protocols. Technical report, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), 2013.Google Scholar
- H. Couclelis. Ontologies of geographic information. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 24(12):1785--1809, Dec. 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. R. Curry. The digital individual and the private realm. Annals of the Association of American geographers, 87(4):681--699, 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. R. Curry. Rethinking privacy in a geocoded world. Geographical Information Systems, 2:757--766, 1999.Google Scholar
- J. E. Dobson and P. F. Fisher. Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 22(1):47--52, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Duckham and L. Kulik. Location privacy and location-aware computing. Dynamic & mobile GIS: investigating change in space and time, 3:35--51, 2006.Google Scholar
- C. Duhigg. How companies learn your secrets. The New York Times, 2012.Google Scholar
- N. Elias. Über den prozeß der zivilisation, 2 bde. Frankfurt/M, 1976.Google Scholar
- S. Farrell and H. Tschofenig. Pervasive monitoring is an attack. Technical report, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), 2014.Google Scholar
- T. Fechner and C. Kray. Attacking location privacy: exploring human strategies. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pages 95--98. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Ghinita, P. Kalnis, A. Khoshgozaran, C. Shahabi, and K.-L. Tan. Private queries in location based services: anonymizers are not necessary. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 121--132. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Ghinita and R. Rughinis. An efficient privacy-preserving system for monitoring mobile users: making searchable encryption practical. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on Data and application security and privacy, pages 321--332. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Goss. "we know who you are and we know where you live": The instrumental rationality of geodemographic systems. Economic Geography, 72(2):171--198, April 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Gürses. Can you engineer privacy? Commun. ACM, 57(8):20--23, Aug. 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. P. Gutmann and P. C. Stern. Putting people on the map: Protecting confidentiality with linked social-spatial data. National Academies Press, 2007.Google Scholar
- F. Harvey. We know where you are. and we are more and more sure what that means. In K. D. Pimple, editor, Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT), volume 11 of Law, Governance and Technology Series, pages 71--87. Springer Netherlands, 2014.Google Scholar
- A. D. I. Kramer, J. E. Guillory, and J. T. Hancock. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24):8788--8790, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Krumm. A survey of computational location privacy. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13(6):391--399, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Kuhn, T. Kauppinen, and K. Janowicz. Linked Data -- a paradigm shift for Geographic Information Science. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience2014), Berlin, 2014. Springer.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. W. Lampson. Protection. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., 8(1):18--24, Jan. 1974. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Mahmood. Online social networks and terrorism: Threats and defenses. In R. Chbeir and B. Al Bouna, editors, Security and Privacy Preserving in Social Networks, Lecture Notes in Social Networks, pages 73--94. Springer Vienna, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Mahmud, J. Nichols, and C. Drews. Home location identification of twitter users. CoRR, abs/1403.2345, 2014.Google Scholar
- A. M. McDonald and L. F. Cranor. Cost of reading privacy policies, the. ISJLP, 4:543, 2008.Google Scholar
- G. McKenzie and K. Janowicz. Coerced geographic information: The not-so-voluntary side of user-generated geo-content. In Eighth International Conference on Geographic Information Science, 2014.Google Scholar
- P. Ohm. Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Review, 57:1701--1776, 2009.Google Scholar
- M. Raubal. The SAGE Handbook of GIS and Society, chapter Cogito Ergo Mobilis Sum: The Impact of Location-based Services on Our Mobile Lives, pages 159--175. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009.Google Scholar
- S. Scheider and W. Kuhn. How to talk to each other via computers. 2014. forthcoming.Google Scholar
- M. Schmidt and P. Weiser. Web mapping services: Development and trends. In Online Maps with APIs and WebServices, pages 13--21. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. R. Searle. The construction of social reality. Simon and Schuster, 1995.Google Scholar
- L. Sweeney. Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000.Google Scholar
- L. Sweeney. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(5):557--570, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Weiser and A. Aballa. Surveillance in the context of security and profit - the case of "non-volunteered" geographic information. In 18. Fortbildungsseminar Geoinformationssysteme Muenchen, 2013.Google Scholar
- P. Weiser and A. U. Frank. Cognitive transactions--a communication model. In Spatial Information Theory, pages 129--148. Springer, 2013.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A civilized cyberspace for geoprivacy
Recommendations
A Trajectory Privacy Model for Radio-Frequency Identification System
Here we propose a trajectory privacy model to solve privacy and security problems with radio-frequency identification (RFID) systems. The model first formalizes an Adversary Model and then defines an adversary indistinguishability privacy game and ...
Data anonymization evaluation for big data and IoT environment
Highlights- Data anonymisation evaluation, IoT, big data, security.
- Re-identification ...
AbstractThe growth of big data can increase risks of re-identification in complex IoT environment. Data anonymization is widely used to prevent shared data from being re-identified private or sensitive information from anonymized data with ...
Capturing P3P semantics using an enforceable lattice-based structure
PAIS '11: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Privacy and Anonymity in the Information SocietyWith the increasing amount of data collected by service providers, privacy concerns increase for data owners who must provide private data to receive services. Legislative acts require service providers to protect the privacy of customers. Privacy ...
Comments