skip to main content
10.1145/3360774.3360800acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobiquitousConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Quantifying location privacy in permissioned blockchain-based internet of things (IoT)

Published:03 February 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recently, blockchain has received much attention from the mobility-centric Internet of Things (IoT). It is deemed the key to ensuring the built-in integrity of information and security of immutability by design in the peer-to-peer network (P2P) of mobile devices. In a permissioned blockchain, the authority of the system has control over the identities of its users. Such information can allow an ill-intentioned authority to map identities with their spatiotemporal data, which undermines the location privacy of a mobile user. In this paper, we study the location privacy preservation problem in the context of permissioned blockchain-based IoT systems under three conditions. First, the authority of the blockchain holds the public and private key distribution task in the system. Second, there exists a spatiotemporal correlation between consecutive location-based transactions. Third, users communicate with each other through short-range communication technologies such that it constitutes a proof of location (PoL) on their actual locations. We show that, in a permissioned blockchain with an authority and a presence of a PoL, existing approaches cannot be applied using a plug-and-play approach to protect location privacy. In this context, we propose BlockPriv, an obfuscation technique that quantifies, both theoretically and experimentally, the relationship between privacy and utility in order to dynamically protect the privacy of sensitive locations in the permissioned blockchain.

References

  1. Amazon. 2019. Amazon QLDB. https://aws.amazon.com/qldb/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Michele Amoretti, Giacomo Brambilla, Francesco Medioli, and Francesco Zanichelli. 2018. Blockchain-Based Proof of Location. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C). IEEE, 146--153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Miguel E. Andrés, Nicolás E. Bordenabe, Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis, and Catuscia Palamidessi. 2013. Geo-indistinguishability: differential privacy for location-based systems. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security (CCS '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 901--914. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Microsoft Azure. [n.d.]. Blockchain. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/blockchain/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jacob Benesty, Jingdong Chen, Yiteng Huang, and Israel Cohen. 2009. Pearson correlation coefficient. In Noise reduction in speech processing. Springer, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Alex Biryukov, Dmitry Khovratovich, and Ivan Pustogarov. 2014. Deanonymisation of clients in Bitcoin P2P network. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 15--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Salim Bitam, Abdelhamid Mellouk, and Sherali Zeadally. 2015. VANET-cloud: a generic cloud computing model for vehicular Ad Hoc networks. IEEE Wireless Communications 22, 1 (2015), 96--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Joseph Bonneau, Arvind Narayanan, Andrew Miller, Jeremy Clark, Joshua A Kroll, and Edward W Felten. 2014. Mixcoin: Anonymity for Bitcoin with accountable mixes. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 486--504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Giacomo Brambilla, Michele Amoretti, and Francesco Zanichelli. 2016. Using Blockchain for Peer-to-Peer Proof-of-Location. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.00174 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Stefano Chessa, Antonio Corradi, Luca Foschini, and Michele Girolami. 2016. Empowering mobile crowdsensing through social and ad hoc networking. IEEE Communications Magazine 54, 7 (2016), 108--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ali Dorri, Marco Steger, Salil S Kanhere, and Raja Jurdak. 2017. Blockchain: A distributed solution to automotive security and privacy. IEEE Communications Magazine 55, 12 (2017), 119--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sean Foley, Jonathan R Karlsen, and Tālis J Putniņš. 2019. Sex, drugs, and bitcoin: How much illegal activity is financed through cryptocurrencies? The Review of Financial Studies 32, 5 (2019), 1798--1853.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Pedro Franco. 2014. Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, engineering and economics. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabriel Ghinita, Maria Luisa Damiani, Claudio Silvestri, and Elisa Bertino. 2016. Protecting against velocity-based, proximity-based, and external event attacks in location-centric social networks. ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems (TSAS) 2, 2 (2016), 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Bing Jia, Tao Zhou, Wuyungerile Li, Zhenchang Liu, and Jiantao Zhang. 2018. A Blockchain-Based Location Privacy Protection Incentive Mechanism in Crowd Sensing Networks. Sensors 18, 11 (2018), 3894.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Philip Koshy, Diana Koshy, and Patrick McDaniel. 2014. An analysis of anonymity in bitcoin using p2p network traffic. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 469--485.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Fenghua Li, Yahong Chen, Ben Niu, Yuanyuan He, Kui Geng, and Jin Cao. 2018. Achieving Personalized k-Anonymity against Long-Term Observation in Location-Based Services. In 2018 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. L. Li, J. Liu, L. Cheng, S. Qiu, W. Wang, X. Zhang, and Z. Zhang. 2018. CreditCoin: A Privacy-Preserving Blockchain-Based Incentive Announcement Network for Communications of Smart Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 19, 7 (July 2018), 2204--2220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Regio A. Michelin, Ali Dorri, Marco Steger, Roben C. Lunardi, Salil S. Kanhere, Raja Jurdak, and Avelino F. Zorzo. 2018. SpeedyChain: A Framework for Decoupling Data from Blockchain for Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the 15th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services (MobiQuitous '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 145--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Z. Montazeri, A. Houmansadr, and H. Pishro-Nik. 2017. Achieving Perfect Location Privacy in Wireless Devices Using Anonymization. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 12, 11 (Nov 2017), 2683--2698. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J.P Morgan. 2019. Quorum. https://www.goquorum.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. bit-coin.org (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Clemence Roulin, Ali Dorri, Raja Jurdak, and Salil Kanhere. 2018. On the Activity Privacy of Blockchain for IoT. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08970 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohit Sharma and Suchetana Chakraborty. 2018. BlockAPP: Using Blockchain for Authentication and Privacy Preservation in IoV. In 2018 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Madhusudan Singh and Shiho Kim. 2017. Blockchain Based Intelligent Vehicle Data sharing Framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.09721 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Dingqi Yang, Daqing Zhang, Vincent W Zheng, and Zhiyong Yu. 2015. Modeling user activity preference by leveraging user spatial temporal characteristics in LBSNs. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 45, 1 (2015), 129--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Mengmeng Yang, Tianqing Zhu, Kaitai Liang, Wanlei Zhou, and Robert H Deng. 2019. A blockchain-based location privacy-preserving crowdsensing system. Future Generation Computer Systems 94 (2019), 408--418.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Zhe Yang, Kan Yang, Lei Lei, Kan Zheng, and Victor CM Leung. 2018. Blockchain-based Decentralized Trust Management in Vehicular Networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Bidi Ying, Dimitrios Makrakis, and Zhengzhou Hou. 2015. Motivation for protecting selfish vehicles' location privacy in vehicular networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 64, 12 (2015), 5631--5641.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Guy Zyskind, Oz Nathan, et al. 2015. Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to protect personal data. In Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), 2015 IEEE. IEEE, 180--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Quantifying location privacy in permissioned blockchain-based internet of things (IoT)

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          MobiQuitous '19: Proceedings of the 16th EAI International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services
          November 2019
          545 pages
          ISBN:9781450372831
          DOI:10.1145/3360774

          Copyright © 2019 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: 3 February 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate26of87submissions,30%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader