S4P: A Generic Language for Specifying Privacy Preferences and Policies

This paper presents S4P, a declarative language for specifying both users’ privacy preferences and services’ privacy policies. Preferences and policies are uniformly expressed as assertions and queries written in SecPAL extended with two modal verbs, may and will, and can express both permissions and obligations. Checking if a user’s preference is satisfied by a service’s policy is simple as it only involves evaluating the queries against the assertions. Expressiveness and applicability are maximized by keeping the vocabulary and semantics of service behaviours abstract. The language’s model-theoretic semantics is given in terms of abstract service traces, and formalizes the notion of service compliance with respect to a policy or a preference.

[1]  Joan Feigenbaum,et al.  Decentralized trust management , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.

[2]  Vladimiro Sassone,et al.  A logical framework for history-based access control and reputation systems , 2008, J. Comput. Secur..

[3]  Neha Jain,et al.  Specifying privacy policies with P3P and EPAL: lessons learned , 2004, WPES '04.

[4]  Alon Itai,et al.  Unification as a Complexity Measure for Logic Programming , 1987, J. Log. Program..

[5]  Annie I. Antón,et al.  Financial privacy policies and the need for standardization , 2004, IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine.

[6]  Andrew D. Gordon,et al.  Design and Semantics of a Decentralized Authorization Language , 2007, 20th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF'07).

[7]  Lorrie Faith Cranor,et al.  The platform for privacy preferences , 1999, CACM.

[8]  Jorge Lobo,et al.  An obligation model bridging access control policies and privacy policies , 2008, SACMAT '08.

[9]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Constraint Logic Programming: A Survey , 1994, J. Log. Program..

[10]  Scott Dick,et al.  P3P Adoption on E-Commerce Web sites: A Survey and Analysis , 2007, IEEE Internet Computing.

[11]  Sebastian Nanz,et al.  The Role of Abduction in Declarative Authorization Policies , 2008, PADL.

[12]  Suzanne W. Dietrich,et al.  Extension Tables: Memo Relations in Logic Programming , 1987, SLP.

[13]  Harry Hochheiser.  The platform for privacy preference as a social protocol: An examination within the U.S. policy context , 2002, TOIT.

[14]  Ting Yu,et al.  On the modeling and analysis of obligations , 2006, CCS '06.

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

[16]  Sushil Jajodia,et al.  Obligation monitoring in policy management , 2002, Proceedings Third International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[17]  Sabrina De Capitani di Vimercati,et al.  A privacy-aware access control system , 2008, J. Comput. Secur..

[18]  Colin Potts,et al.  Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices , 2004, CHI.

[19]  Marco Casassa Mont,et al.  On Parametric Obligation Policies: Enabling Privacy-Aware Information Lifecycle Management in Enterprises , 2007, Eighth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY'07).

[20]  Daniel Le Métayer,et al.  A Formal Privacy Management Framework , 2009, Formal Aspects in Security and Trust.

[21]  John C. Mitchell,et al.  Enterprise privacy promises and enforcement , 2005, WITS '05.

[22]  Andrew D. Gordon,et al.  Refinement Types for Secure Implementations , 2008, 2008 21st IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium.

[23]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Complexity and expressive power of logic programming , 2001, CSUR.