skip to main content
10.1145/2557500.2557504acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Location sharing privacy preference: analysis and personalized recommendation

Published:24 February 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Location-based systems are becoming more popular with the explosive growth in popularity of smart phones. However, the user adoption of these systems is hindered by growing user concerns about privacy. To design better location-based systems that attract more user adoption and protect users from information under/overexposure, it is highly desirable to understand users' location sharing and privacy preferences. This paper makes two main contributions. First, by studying users' location sharing privacy preferences with three groups of people (i.e., Family, Friend and Colleague) in different contexts, including check-in time, companion and emotion, we reveal that location sharing behaviors are highly dynamic, context-aware, audience-aware and personal. In particular, we find that emotion and companion are good contextual predictors of privacy preferences. Moreover, we find that there are strong similarities or correlations among contexts and groups. Our second contribution is to show, in light of the user study, that despite the dynamic and context-dependent nature of location sharing, it is still possible to predict a user's in-situ sharing preference in various contexts. More specifically, we explore whether it is possible to give users a personalized recommendation of the sharing setting they are most likely to prefer, based on context similarity, group correlation and collective check-in preference. PPRec, the proposed recommendation algorithm that incorporates the above three elements, delivers personalized recommendations that could be helpful to reduce both user's burden and privacy risk. It also provides additional insights into the relative usefulness of different personal and contextual factors in predicting users' sharing behavior.

References

  1. Alessandro Acquisti, R. G. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the facebook. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4258 (2006), 36--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Barkhuus et al, L. From awareness to repartee: sharing location within social groups. In SIGCHI (2008), 497--506. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Benisch, M., Kelley, P. G., and Sadeh, N. Capturing location-privacy preferences: Quantifying accuracy and user-burden tradeoffs. Journal of Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 15, 7 (2011), 679--694. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Benisch, M., Kelley, P. G., Sadeh, N., Sandholm, T., Tsai, J., Cranor, L. F., and Drielsma, P. H. The impact of expressiveness on the effectiveness of privacy mechanisms for location-sharing. In SOUPS (2009), 22:1--22:1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bollen, D., Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., and Graus, M. Understanding choice overload in recommender systems. In ACM RecSys (2010), 63--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Church, L., Anderson, J., Bonneau, J., and Stajano, F. Privacy stories: confidence in privacy behaviors through end user programming. In SOUPS (2009), 20:1--20:1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Consolvo, S., Smith, I. E., Matthews, T., LaMarca, A., Tabert, J., and Powledge, P. Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. In CHI (2005), 81--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cremonesi, P., Koren, Y., and Turrin, R. Performance of recommender algorithms on top-n recommendation tasks. In ACM Recsys (2010), 39--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ekman, P. Emotions Revealed: Understanding Faces and Feelings. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, June 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fang, L., and LeFevre, K. Privacy wizards for social networking sites. In WWW (2010), 351--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gross, R., and Acquisti, A. Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In ACM WPES (2005), 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jakulin, A., and Bratko, I. Testing the Significance of Attribute Interactions. In ICML (2004), 409--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Knijnenburg, B. P., and Jin, H. The persuasive effect of privacy recommendations for location sharing services. In Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, http://bit.ly/SigHCI2013 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Knijnenburg, B. P., and Kobsa, A. Making decisions about privacy: Information disclosure in context-aware recommender systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 3, 3 (2013), 20:1--20:23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Knijnenburg, B. P., Kobsa, A., and Jin, H. Dimensionality of information disclosure behavior. IJHCS 71, 12 (2013), 1144--1162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Knijnenburg, B. P., Kobsa, A., and Jin, H. Preference-based Location Sharing: Are More Privacy Options Really Betterfi In CHI (2013), 2667--2676. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Knijnenburg, B. P., Willemsen, M. C., Gantner, Z., Soncu, H., and Newell, C. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 4--5 (2012), 441--504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kobsa, A. Tailoring privacy to users' needs. In UMAP (2001), 303--313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Koren, Y. Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model. In SIGKDD (2008), 426--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lipford, H. R., Besmer, A., and Watson, J. Understanding privacy settings in facebook with an audience view. In UPSEC (2008), 2:1--2:8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Page, X., Knijnenburg, B. P., and Kobsa, A. Fyi: communication style preferences underlie differences in location-sharing adoption and usage. In UbiComp (2013), 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Paterek, A. Improving regularized singular value decomposition for collaborative filtering. In SIGKDD Cup Workshop (2007), 39--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Patil, S., and Lai, J. Who gets to know what when: configuring privacy permissions in an awareness application. In CHI (2005), 101--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ravichandran, R., Benisch, M., Kelley, P. G., and Sadeh, N. M. Capturing social networking privacy preferences. In PETS (2009), 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Sousa, L. Facebook and your privacy: Who sees the data you share on the biggest social networkfi Consumer Reports magazine (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Strater, K., and Lipford, H. R. Strategies and struggles with privacy in an online social networking community. In British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers (2008), 111--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Takács, G., Pilászy, I., Németh, B., and Tikk, D. Scalable collaborative filtering approaches for large recommender systems. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 10 (2009), 623--656. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Thaler, R. H., and Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin, Mar. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Toch, E., Sadeh, N. M., and Hong, J. Generating default privacy policies for online social networks. In CHI (2010), 4243--4248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Toch et al, E. Empirical models of privacy in location sharing. In Ubicomp (2010), 129--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Tsai, J., Kelley, P., Cranor, L., and Sadeh, N. Location-sharing technologies: Privacy risks and controls. ISJLP 6 (2010), 119--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson, S., Cranshaw, J., Sadeh, N., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L. F., Springfield, J., Jeong, S. Y., and Balasubramanian, A. Privacy manipulation and acclimation in a location sharing application. In ACM UbiComp (2013), 549--558. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ye, M., Shou, D., Lee, W.-C., Yin, P., and Janowicz, K. On the semantic annotation of places in location-based social networks. In SIGKDD (2011), 520--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Location sharing privacy preference: analysis and personalized recommendation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      IUI '14: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
      February 2014
      386 pages
      ISBN:9781450321846
      DOI:10.1145/2557500

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 February 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      IUI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate46of191submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader