DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-73078-1_61
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

To Share or Not to Share: Supporting the User Decision in Mobile Social Software Applications

Abstract: Abstract. User's privacy concerns represent one of the most serious obstacles to the wide adoption of mobile social software applications. In this paper, we introduce a conceptual model which tackles the problem from the perspective of trade-off between privacy and trust, where the user takes the decision with minimal privacy loss. To support the user decision, we introduce the Mobile Access Control List (Macl), a privacy management mechanism which takes into account the user attitude towards mobile sharing, h… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With the access control mechanism, users may specify that certain of their profile items are accessible only by 'friends', 'friends of friends', or certain members in the friend list by using an access control list (Lugano and Saariluoma, 2007), multilevel access control list (Park et al, 2010), degree of relationship (Cai et al, 2009), or hidden friendship matching (Preibusch and Beresford, 2009). The users may iteratively capture their privacy preferences by using 'Privacy Wizard' (Fang and LeFevre, 2010) or may use an automated service such as 'Privacy Butler' (Wishart et al, 2010).…”
Section: Client-server Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…With the access control mechanism, users may specify that certain of their profile items are accessible only by 'friends', 'friends of friends', or certain members in the friend list by using an access control list (Lugano and Saariluoma, 2007), multilevel access control list (Park et al, 2010), degree of relationship (Cai et al, 2009), or hidden friendship matching (Preibusch and Beresford, 2009). The users may iteratively capture their privacy preferences by using 'Privacy Wizard' (Fang and LeFevre, 2010) or may use an automated service such as 'Privacy Butler' (Wishart et al, 2010).…”
Section: Client-server Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 they may be technically adept enough to understand the privacy settings of the SN 2 they might be able to employ a mobile access control list (MACL), a privacy control mechanism which considers 'user attitude', 'user communication history' and 'social aspect' (Lugano and Saariluoma, 2007) 3 they might ensure privacy by using a SN Privacy Wizard template (Fang and LeFevre, 2010), which iteratively captures a limited number of user inputs to assign privacy 'labels' to selected friends and infers a user privacy preference 4 they can utilise 'Privacy Butler', an automated service which monitors privacy policies and filters unwanted activities of connected friends (Wishart et al, 2010) 5 they can avail themselves of the advantages of the capabilities of both the Semantic Web and mobile adhoc networks to ensure privacy based on a simple number as the trust mechanism, such as the 'BlueTrust' system (Markides and Coetzee, 2008); however, trust is more complex and, while regularly available in the Bluetooth range, the system may not provide symmetric or asymmetric trust.…”
Section: Privacy By Access Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The decision for location privacy settings in Social Networks depends also on context factors like the current location of the user, the occasion, or the purpose for a location retrieval [27,23]. The context a permission is given might also have an effect on the choice of mobile app permission settings, for example if a user wants to grant the web browser access to the internal storage only to store e-ticket receipts.…”
Section: Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A user announces his documents to a friend, if the friend is interested he can request a document. Papers (Eagle, 2006), (Lugano, 2007) and (Raento, 2005) discuss implementation of various forms of a social network.…”
Section: Content Sharing In Msnmentioning
confidence: 99%