Advertisement

Mobile User Data Privacy

  • Kianoosh G. Boroojeni
  • M. Hadi Amini
  • S. S. Iyengar
Chapter

Abstract

Smart grid (SG) concept is introduced to achieve a sustainable, secure, and environmentally-friendly power system by using new elements such as distributed renewable resources, advanced metering infrastructure, and modern transportation in terms of electric vehicle (EV) utilization [1, 2]. In recent years, the U.S. government targets to increase the penetration of modern EVs[3]. From a critical point of view, utilizing large number of EVs connected to the future power grid may threaten the reliability and stability of power grid [4, 5]. The society of automotive engineers (SAE) established some standards about the utilization of EVs including SAE J2847 which institutes requirements and specifications for communication between EVs and power system. This standard specifies interactions between EVs and power system operators [6]. According to [1], from the utilities perspective, it is not elaborately specified whether EV utilization in terms of vehicle to grid (V2G) is cost-effective [7]. In [8], the authors introduced a comparison between direct and deterministic communication structure and proposed an aggregative command transmit architecture considering three influential factors, reliability, availability, and participating EVs in ancillary services.

Keywords

Mobile Node Smart Grid Location Privacy Query Message Privacy Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Dewri, Location privacy and attacker knowledge: who are we fighting against? in Security and Privacy in Communication Networks. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol. 96 (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 96–115Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Li, S. Salinas, A. Thapa, P. Li, n-CD: a geometric approach to preserving location privacy in location-based services, in Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, 2013Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Gruteser, D. Grunwald, Anonymous usage of location-based services through spatial and temporal cloaking, in ACM Mobisys’03, May 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Gedik, L. Liu, Protecting location privacy with personalized k-anonymity: architecture and algorithms. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 7(1), 1–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Meyerowitz, R.R. Choudhury, Hiding stars with fireworks: location privacy through camouflage, in Proceedings of ACM MobiCom, Beijing, Sept 2009Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.F. Mokbel, C.Y. Chow, W.G. Aref, The new casper: query processing for location services without compromising privacy, in Proceedings of VLDB, 2006Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.-Y. Chow, M.F. Mokbel, X. Liu, A peer-to-peer spatial cloaking algorithm for anonymous location-based service, in Proceedings of ACM GIS, Arlington, VA, Nov 2006Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Beresford, F. Stajano, Location privacy in pervasive computing. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2(1), 46–55 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Hoh, M. Gruteser, H. Xiong, A. Alrabady, Preserving privacy in GPS traces via uncertainty-aware path cloaking, in Proceedings of ACM CCS 2007, Alexandria, VA, Jan 2007Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Kido, Y. Yanagisawa, T. Satoh, An anonymous communication technique using dummies for location-based services, in Proceedings of IEEE ICPS, Santorini, July 2006Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Kalnis, G. Ghinita, K. Mouratidis, D. Papadias, Preventing location-based identity inference in anonymous spatial queries. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 19(12), 1719–1733 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Gedik, L. Liu, Location privacy in mobile systems: a personalized anonymization model, in Proceedings of IEEE ICDCS, Columbus, OH, June 2005Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Lu, C.S. Jensen, M.L. Yiu, Pad: privacy-area aware, dummy based location privacy in mobile services, in Proceedings of ACM MobiDE, Vancouver, June 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Duckham, L. Kulik, A formal model of obfuscation and negotiation for location privacy, in Proceedings of International Conference on Pervasive Computing, Munich, May 2005Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.A. Ardagna, M. Cremonini, S.D.C. di Vimercati, P. Samarati, An obfuscation-based approach for protecting location privacy. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 8(1), 13–27 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Pingley, W. Yu, N. Zhang, X. Fu, W. Zhao, Cap: a contextaware privacy protection system for location-based services, in Proceedings of IEEE ICDCS, Montreal, June 2009Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Damiani, E. Bertino, C. Silvestri, Probe: an obfuscation system for the protection of sensitive location information in LBS. Technical Report 2001–145, CERIAS, 2008Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Shokri, G. Theodorakopoulos, C. Troncoso, J.-P. Hubaux, J.-Y. Le Boudec, Protecting location privacy: optimal strategy against localization attacks, in CCS ‘12 Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and Communications Security, New York, NY, 2012, pp. 617–627Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Shokri, G. Theodorakopoulos, J.-Y. Le Boudec, J.-P. Hubaux, Quantifying location privacy, in 2011 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), Berkeley, CA, May 2011, pp. 247–262Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kianoosh G. Boroojeni
    • 1
  • M. Hadi Amini
    • 2
    • 3
  • S. S. Iyengar
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and Information SciencesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.SYSU-CMU Joint Institute of Engineering School of Electronics and Information TechnologySun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations