Cited By
View all- Samanthula BElmehdwi YHowser GMadria S(2015)A secure data sharing and query processing framework via federation of cloud computingInformation Systems10.1016/j.is.2013.08.00448:C(196-212)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2015
Privacy in a Semantic Cloud: What's Trust Got to Do with It?
Pages 107 - 118
Abstract
The semantic web can benefit from cloud computing as a platform, but for semantic technologies to gain wide adoption, a solution to the privacy challenges of the cloud is necessary. In this paper we present a brief survey on recent work on privacy and trust for the semantic web, and sketch a middleware solution for privacy protection that leverages probabilistic methods for automated trust and privacy management for the semantic web.
References
[1]
Mika, P., Tummarello, G.: Web semantics in the clouds. IEEE Intelligent Systems 23, 82-87 (2008).
[2]
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific America, 34-43 (2001).
[3]
Bussler, C.: Is semantic web technology taking the wrong turn? Internet Computing, IEEE 12, 75-79 (2008).
[4]
Data protection in the european union - citizens' perceptions. Flash Eurobarometer 225, The Gallup Organization (2008).
[5]
Data protection. Special Eurobarometer 192, European Opinion Research Group EEIG (2003).
[6]
Burkert, H.: Privacy-enhancing technologies: typology, critique, vision. In: Agre, P., Rotenberg, M. (eds.) Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, pp. 125-142. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997).
[7]
Goldberg, I., Wagner, D., Brewer, E.: Privacy-enhancing technologies for the internet. In: Proc. of 42nd IEEE Spring COMPCON. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1997).
[8]
Cranor, L., Langheinrich, M., Marchiori, M., Reagle, J.: The platform for privacy preferences 1.0 (p3p1.0) specification. W3C Recommendation (2002).
[9]
EPIC: Pretty poor privacy: An assessment of p3p and internet privacy. Technical report, Electronic Privacy Information Center (2000).
[10]
Kagal, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: A policy based approach to security for the semantic web. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 402-418. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).
[11]
Bonatti, P., Olmedilla, D.: Driving and monitoring provisional trust negotiation with metapolicies. In: Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, pp. 14-23 (2005).
[12]
Damianou, N., Dulay, N., Lupu, E., Sloman, M.: The ponder policy specification language. In: Sloman, M., Lobo, J., Lupu, E.C. (eds.) POLICY 2001. LNCS, vol. 1995, pp. 18-38. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).
[13]
Duma, C., Herzog, A., Shahmehri, N.: Privacy in the semantic web: What policy languages have to offer. In: Eighth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, POLICY 2007, pp. 109-118 (2007).
[14]
Sweeney, L.: K-Anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. International Journal on Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems 10, 557-570 (2002).
[15]
EU: Directive 2002/58/ec of the european parliament and of the council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. Official Journal of the European Communities (2002).
[16]
EU: Directive 95/46/ec of the european parliament and of the council of 24 october 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the European Communities (1995).
[17]
Lioudakis, G.V., Koutsoloukas, E.A., Dellas, N.L., Tselikas, N., Kapellaki, S., Prezerakos, G.N., Kaklamani, D.I., Venieris, I.S.: A middleware architecture for privacy protection. Computer Networks 51, 4679-4696 (2007).
[18]
Park, J., Sandhu, R.: The UCON<inf>ABC</inf> usage control model. ACM Transactions on Information Systems Secuity 7, 128-174 (2004).
[19]
Sandhu, R., Zhang, X., Ranganathan, K., Covington, M.J.: Client-side access control enforcement using trusted computing and PEI models. Journal of High Speed Networks 15, 229-245 (2006).
[20]
Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., Solo, D.: RFC 3280: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile. RFC Editor (2002).
[21]
Song, R., Korba, L., Yee, G.: Privacy management system using social networking. In: Korba, L. (ed.) IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, ISIC, pp. 3327-3332 (2007).
[22]
Varadharajan, V.: A note on Trust-Enhanced security. Security & Privacy, IEEE 7, 57-59 (2009).
[23]
Artz, D., Gil, Y.: A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5, 58-71 (2007).
[24]
Mayer, R., Davis, J., Schoorman, F.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 2, 709-734 (1995).
[25]
Bigley, G., Pearce, J.: Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review 23, 405-421 (1998).
[26]
Marsh, S.P.: Formalizing Trust as a Computational Concept. PhD thesis, Department of Comuting Science and Mathematics, University of Sterling (1994).
[27]
Conrad, M., French, T., Huang, W., Maple, C.: A lightweight model of trust propagation in a multi-client network environment: to what extent does experience matter? In: The First International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES 2006, 6 p. (2006).
[28]
Gil, Y., Artz, D.: Towards content trust of web resources. In: WWW 2006: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 565-574. ACM, New York (2006).
[29]
Golbeck, J., Hendler, J.: Accuracy of metrics for inferring trust and reputation in semantic web-based social networks. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3257, pp. 116-131. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).
[30]
Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Tomkins, A.: Propagation of trust and distrust. In: WWW 2004: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 403-412. ACM, New York (2004).
[31]
Huang, J., Fox, M.S.: An ontology of trust: formal semantics and transitivity. ACM, New York (2006).
[32]
Lopez, J., Oppliger, R., Pernul, G.: Why have public key infrastructures failed so far? Internet Research 15, 544-556 (2005).
- Privacy in a Semantic Cloud: What's Trust Got to Do with It?
Recommendations
Privacy in cloud computing environments: a survey and research challenges
Definitely, cloud computing represents a real evolution in the IT world that provides many advantages for both providers and users. This new paradigm includes several services that allow data storage and processing. However, outsourcing data to the ...
Privacy-preserving data sharing in cloud computing
Storing and sharing databases in the cloud of computers raise serious concern of individual privacy. We consider two kinds of privacy risk: presence leakage, by which the attackers can explicitly identify individuals in (or not in) the database, and ...
Privacy-preserving data outsourcing in the cloud via semantic data splitting
Automatic privacy-preserving mechanism for outsourcing unstructured data to a multi-cloud.Semantic data splitting provides efficient and utility preserving data protection.It relies on a privacy model that offers intuitive and a priori privacy ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 22 November 2009
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 21 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Samanthula BElmehdwi YHowser GMadria S(2015)A secure data sharing and query processing framework via federation of cloud computingInformation Systems10.1016/j.is.2013.08.00448:C(196-212)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2015