Sharing Policies in Multiuser Privacy Scenarios: Incorporating Context, Preferences, and Arguments in Decision Making

Social network services (SNSs) enable users to conveniently share personal information. Often, the information shared concerns other people, especially other members of the SNS. In such situations, two or more people can have conflicting privacy preferences; thus, an appropriate sharing policy may not be apparent. We identify such situations as multiuser privacy scenarios. Current approaches propose finding a sharing policy through preference aggregation. However, studies suggest that users feel more confident in their decisions regarding sharing when they know the reasons behind each other’s preferences. The goals of this paper are (1) understanding how people decide the appropriate sharing policy in multiuser scenarios where arguments are employed, and (2) developing a computational model to predict an appropriate sharing policy for a given scenario. We report on a study that involved a survey of 988 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) users about a variety of multiuser scenarios and the optimal sharing policy for each scenario. Our evaluation of the participants’ responses reveals that contextual factors, user preferences, and arguments influence the optimal sharing policy in a multiuser scenario. We develop and evaluate an inference model that predicts the optimal sharing policy given the three types of features. We analyze the predictions of our inference model to uncover potential scenario types that lead to incorrect predictions, and to enhance our understanding of when multiuser scenarios are more or less prone to dispute.

[1]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Resolving goal conflicts via argumentation-based analysis of competing hypotheses , 2015, 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[2]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Privacy and contextual integrity: framework and applications , 2006, 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P'06).

[3]  Yang Wang,et al.  Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems , 2012, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[4]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[5]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Contravision: exploring users' reactions to futuristic technology , 2010, CHI.

[6]  Danah Boyd,et al.  I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience , 2011, New Media Soc..

[7]  Gail-Joon Ahn,et al.  Multiparty Access Control for Online Social Networks: Model and Mechanisms , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[8]  K. Gegenfurtner,et al.  Design Issues in Gaze Guidance Under review with ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction , 2009 .

[9]  Anna Cinzia Squicciarini,et al.  WWW 2009 MADRID! Track: Security and Privacy / Session: Web Privacy Collective Privacy Management in Social Networks , 2022 .

[10]  David M. Nicol,et al.  unFriendly: Multi-party Privacy Risks in Social Networks , 2010, Privacy Enhancing Technologies.

[11]  Natalia Criado,et al.  Selective Norm Monitoring , 2016, IJCAI.

[12]  M. Premkumar,et al.  Resolving Multi-party Privacy Conflicts in Social Media , 2018 .

[13]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Learning Privacy Expectations by Crowdsourcing Contextual Informational Norms , 2016, HCOMP.

[14]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  A Conceptual Framework and a Toolkit for Supporting the Rapid Prototyping of Context-Aware Applications , 2001, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  H. Nissenbaum Privacy as contextual integrity , 2004 .

[16]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[17]  Jon Williamson,et al.  Combining Argumentation and Bayesian Nets for Breast Cancer Prognosis , 2006, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[18]  Jose M. Such,et al.  BFF: A tool for eliciting tie strength and user communities in social networking services , 2013, Information Systems Frontiers.

[19]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Are you close with me? are you nearby?: investigating social groups, closeness, and willingness to share , 2011, UbiComp '11.

[20]  Stefan Stieglitz,et al.  Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior , 2013, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Srdjan Marinovic,et al.  Collaborative Privacy Policy Authoring in a Social Networking Context , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[22]  Thomas G. Dietterich Approximate Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms , 1998, Neural Computation.

[23]  Ziming Zhao,et al.  Game theoretic analysis of multiparty access control in online social networks , 2014, SACMAT '14.

[24]  Natalia Criado,et al.  Implicit Contextual Integrity in Online Social Networks , 2015, Inf. Sci..

[25]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 2009 .

[26]  Phillip I. Good,et al.  Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them), 2nd Edition + Introduction to Statistics Through Resampling Methods and Microsoft Office Excel , 2005 .

[27]  Barbara Carminati,et al.  Collaborative access control in on-line social networks , 2011, 7th International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom).

[28]  Kristen LeFevre,et al.  Privacy wizards for social networking sites , 2010, WWW '10.

[29]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[30]  Yang Wang,et al.  "I regretted the minute I pressed share": a qualitative study of regrets on Facebook , 2011, SOUPS.

[31]  Ed H. Chi,et al.  Talking in circles: selective sharing in google+ , 2012, CHI.

[32]  Paolo Torroni,et al.  Argumentation Mining , 2016, ACM Trans. Internet Techn..

[33]  Philip H. Ramsey Nonparametric Statistical Methods , 1974, Technometrics.

[34]  Aleksandra Korolova,et al.  Cloak and Swagger: Understanding Data Sensitivity through the Lens of User Anonymity , 2014, 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.

[35]  A. Tamhane,et al.  Multiple Comparison Procedures , 1989 .

[36]  Jonathon S. Hare,et al.  Analyzing and predicting sentiment of images on the social web , 2010, ACM Multimedia.

[37]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Platys Social: Relating Shared Places and Private Social Circles , 2012, IEEE Internet Computing.

[38]  R I M Dunbar,et al.  Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks? , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

[39]  Jiebo Luo,et al.  Robust Image Sentiment Analysis Using Progressively Trained and Domain Transferred Deep Networks , 2015, AAAI.

[40]  Lorrie Faith Cranor,et al.  The post that wasn't: exploring self-censorship on facebook , 2013, CSCW.

[41]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[42]  Airi Lampinen,et al.  We're in it together: interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services , 2011, CHI.

[43]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[44]  Lloyd S. Nelson,et al.  Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them) , 2005 .

[45]  Beverley Fehr,et al.  Dimensions of Relationship Quality , 2002 .

[46]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Platys: An Active Learning Framework for Place-Aware Application Development and Its Evaluation , 2015, TSEM.

[47]  Heather Richter Lipford,et al.  Mapping User Preference to Privacy Default Settings , 2015, TCHI.

[48]  Smitha Sundareswaran,et al.  A3P: adaptive policy prediction for shared images over popular content sharing sites , 2011, HT '11.

[49]  J. Such,et al.  A survey of privacy in multi-agent systems , 2013, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[50]  L FoguesRicard,et al.  Sharing Policies in Multiuser Privacy Scenarios , 2017 .

[51]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Engineering Privacy in Social Applications , 2016, IEEE Internet Computing.

[52]  Munindar P. Singh Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems , 2013, IJCAI.

[53]  Sotiris Ioannidis,et al.  Face/Off: Preventing Privacy Leakage From Photos in Social Networks , 2015, CCS.

[54]  G. Robinson That BLUP is a Good Thing: The Estimation of Random Effects , 1991 .

[55]  Rob Johnson,et al.  Usable Privacy Controls for Blogs , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering.

[56]  S. Holm A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[57]  A. Acquisti,et al.  Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[58]  Jose M. Such,et al.  Open Challenges in Relationship-Based Privacy Mechanisms for Social Network Services , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[59]  Gail-Joon Ahn,et al.  Detecting and resolving privacy conflicts for collaborative data sharing in online social networks , 2011, ACSAC '11.

[60]  Natalia Criado,et al.  Adaptive Conflict Resolution Mechanism for Multi-party Privacy Management in Social Media , 2014, WPES.

[61]  Michael Rovatsos,et al.  Privacy Policy Negotiation in Social Media , 2014, TAAS.

[62]  Paolo Torroni,et al.  Context-Independent Claim Detection for Argument Mining , 2015, IJCAI.

[63]  Stefan Dietze,et al.  Understanding Malicious Behavior in Crowdsourcing Platforms: The Case of Online Surveys , 2015, CHI.

[64]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[65]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook , 2006, Privacy Enhancing Technologies.

[66]  Heather Richter Lipford,et al.  Moving beyond untagging: photo privacy in a tagged world , 2010, CHI.

[67]  Pamela J. Wisniewski,et al.  Fighting for my space: coping mechanisms for sns boundary regulation , 2012, CHI.

[68]  Blase Ur,et al.  Tag, you can see it!: using tags for access control in photo sharing , 2012, CHI.

[69]  B. Hogan The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online , 2010 .