Skip to main content

Negotiation for Incentive Driven Privacy-Preserving Information Sharing

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10621))

Abstract

This paper describes an agent-based, incentive-driven, and privacy-preserving information sharing framework. Main contribution of the paper is to give the data provider agent an active role in the information sharing process and to change the currently asymmetric position between the provider and the requester of data and information (DI) to the favor of the DI provider. Instead of a binary yes/no answer to the requester’s data request and the incentive offer, the provider may negotiate about excluding from the requested DI bundle certain pieces of DI with high privacy value, and/or ask for a different type of incentive. We show the presented approach on a use case. However, the proposed architecture is domain independent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    From now on we use DI to refer to “data and information” but also interchangeably use only “data” or only “information” as well.

  2. 2.

    Note the distinction between DI and DI types where the former refers to the data itself while the latter is about the type of data, where ‘age’ is a DI type and ‘68’ is a corresponding piece of DI.

References

  1. Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Secur. Priv. 3(1), 26–33 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baarslag, T., Alan, A.T., Gomer, R., Alam, M., Perera, C., Gerding, E.H., et al.: An automated negotiation agent for permission management. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on AAMAS, pp. 380–390 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baarslag, T., Gerding, E.H., Aydoğan, R., Schraefel, M.: Optimal negotiation decision functions in time-sensitive domains. In: Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), vol. 2, pp. 190–197. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes, S.: A privacy paradox: social networking in the united states. First Monday 11(1) (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barth, S., de Jong, M.D.: The privacy paradox investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior a systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics (2017, in press)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Becker, M.C., Knudsen, T.: The role of routines in reducing pervasive uncertainty. J. Bus. Res. 58(6), 746–757 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K.: Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. 10(1), 104–115 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dinev, T., Hart, P.: An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(1), 61–80 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. El-Khatib, K.: A privacy negotiation protocol for web services. In: Workshop on Collaboration Agents: Autonomous Agents for Collaborative Environments, pp. 85–92. Halifax (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artif. Intell. 142(2), 205–237 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Fatima, S., Kraus, S., Wooldridge, M.: Principles of Automated Negotiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Jonker, C.M., Aydoğan, R., Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Ito, T., Hindriks, K.: Automated negotiating agents competition. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17), pp. 5070–5072. AAAI Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jonker, C.M., Robu, V., Treur, J.: An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 15(2), 221–252 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kafalı, Ö., Günay, A., Yolum, P.: Protoss: A run time tool for detecting privacy violations in online social networks. In: ASONAM, pp. 429–433 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kawaguchi, S., Fujita, K., Ito, T.: AgentK: compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotiating agents. In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. SCI, vol. 383, pp. 137–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24696-8_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kokciyan, N., Yolum, P.: PRIGUARD : a semantic approach to detect privacy violations in online social networks. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 28(10), 2724–2737 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krasnova, H., Veltri, N.F., Günther, O.: Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: the role of culture. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 4(3), 127–135 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Li, H., Sarathy, R., Xu, H.: The role of affect and cognition on online consumers’ decision to disclose personal information to unfamiliar online vendors. Decis. Support Syst. 51(3), 434–445 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin, R., Kraus, S., Baarslag, T., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M.: Genius: an integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Comput. Intell. 30(1), 48–70 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Culnan, M.J., Bies, R.J.: Consumer privacy: balancing economic and justice considerations. J. Soc. Issues 59(2), 323–342 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Preibusch, S.: Implementing privacy negotiation techniques in e-commerce. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology, CEC 2005, pp. 387–390. IEEE (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rubinstein, A.: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1), 97–109 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Taddei, S., Contena, B.: Privacy, trust and control: which relationships with online self-disclosure? Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(3), 821–826 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Murat Sensoy and Pinar Yolum for our fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the ITEA M2MGrids Project, ITEA141011.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reyhan Aydoğan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Aydoğan, R., Øzturk, P., Razeghi, Y. (2017). Negotiation for Incentive Driven Privacy-Preserving Information Sharing. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds) PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10621. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_31

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69130-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69131-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics