Advertisement

The Anonymity vs. Utility Dilemma

  • Michele Bezzi
  • Jean-Christophe Pazzaglia

Abstract

The number, the type of users and their usage of the internet, computers and phones have evolved considerably, due to the emergence of the web 2.0, the decreasing cost of portable devices, the expansion of wired and wireless internet access and the digitalization of the main entertainment media. Protecting the assets of service and software providers has been the main driver for the development of security solutions in the past ten years. However, the users/customers/citizen rights have been too often neglected since the risk related to the wrong usage of personal related information was not considered by the other stakeholders. Today, the Right to Privacy is appearing on everyone’s radar and factors as regulations, increasing number of news stories on privacy breaches, brand damages, are forcing organizations to address user privacy as a priority. In this paper, we will briefly review the main business drivers behind the raising of privacy concerns, and outline some of the current technology solutions to address privacy requirements. Finally, we will describe some of the future challenges in the area of privacy.

Keywords

Internet Access Technology Solution Future Challenge Data Security Portable Device 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ashley2002]
    Ashley, P., Hada, S., Karjoth, G, Schunter, M.: E-P3P privacy policies and privacy authorization. In Proc. of the ACM workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES 2002), Washington, DC, USA, November 2002.Google Scholar
  2. [Ateniese2007]
    Ateniese, G., Blanton, M., Kirsch, J.: Secret Handshakes with Dynamic and Fuzzy Matching. In 14th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS’07), 2007.Google Scholar
  3. [Baldwin1985]
    Baldwin, Gramlich, W.C.: Cryptographic Protocol for Trustable Match Making, Proc., IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [Balfanz,2003]
    Balfanz, Dirk, Durfee, Glenn, Shankar, Narendar, Smetters, Diana K., Staddon, Jessica, Wong, Hao-Chi: Secret Handshakes from Pairing-Based Key Agreements. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2003: 180–196Google Scholar
  5. [Ciriani2007]
    Ciriani, V., De Capitani di Vimercati, S., Foresti, S., Samarati, P.: Microdata protection, (Advances in information security). — In: Secure data management in decentralized systems; Eds. by Ting Yu, Sushil Jajodia. — New York: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  6. [CyLab2006]
    CyLab Privacy Interest Group, Carnegie Mellon University, 2006 Privacy Policy Trends Report http://www.chariotsfire.com/pub/cpig-jan2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. [DuncanLambert1986]
    Duncan, G. T., Lambert, D.: Disclosure-limited data dissemination, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 81, no. 393, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [Dwork2006]
    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy, ICALP, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. [Eurobarometer2008]
    Data Protection in the European Union Report, Citizens’ perceptions, Flash Eurobarometer 225, 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_225_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. [EUDir95]
    Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/index_en.htmGoogle Scholar
  11. [Li2007]
    Li, N., Li, T., Venkatasubramanian, S.: t-closeness: Privacy beyond k-anonymity and l-diversity, ICDE, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. [Machanavajjhala2007]
    Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Gehrke, J., Venkitasubramaniam, M.: l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity, ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 1, no. 1, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. [Meadows1986]
    Meadows, — Catherine: A More Efficient Cryptographic Matchmaking Protocol for Use in the Absence of a Continuously Available Third Party. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 1986: 134–137.Google Scholar
  14. [Ponemon2006]
    2006 Annual Study: Cost of a Data Breach, Ponemon Institute, see also K. Kark, Calculating The Cost Of A Security Breach, Forrester, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. [PrivacyRights2008]
    Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, A Chronology of Data Breaches, http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htmGoogle Scholar
  16. [Shin2008]
    Shin, Ji Sun, Gligor, Virgil D., A New Privacy-Enhanced Matchmaking Protocol, NDSS Symposium 2008.Google Scholar
  17. [Slagell2005]
    Slagell, A., and Yurcik, W., Sharing Computer Network Logs for Security and Privacy: A Motivation for New Methodologies of Anonymization, SECOVAL: The Workshop on the Value of Security through Collaboration, Athens, Greece, 2005Google Scholar
  18. [Sweeney2000]
    Sweeney, L.,: Uniqueness of simple demographics in the u.s. population. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. [Samarati2001]
    Samarati, P., Protecting Respondent’s Privacy in Microdata Release, in IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 13, n. 6, November/December 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Vieweg+Teubner | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Bezzi
    • 1
  • Jean-Christophe Pazzaglia
    • 1
  1. 1.SAP ResearchMouginsFrance

Personalised recommendations