skip to main content
research-article

Opinions of people: factoring in privacy and trust

Published:22 September 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The growth of online social networks has seen the utilisation of these network graphs for the purpose of providing recommendations. Automated recommendations, however, do not take into account inter-personal trust levels that exist in a social network. In this article, we propose a privacy-preserving trusted social feedback (TSF) scheme where users can obtain feedback on questions from their friends whom they trust. We show that the concept can be extended to the domain of crowdsourcing -- the trusted crowdsourcing (TCS) scheme. In crowdsourcing, instead of asking friends, one can solicit opinions from experts in the crowd through a privacy preserving trusted feedback mechanism. Our proposal supports categorical answers as well as single-valued numerical answers. We evaluate our proposals in a number of ways: based on a prototype implementation built atop the Google App Engine, we illustrate the performance of the trusted social feedback. In addition, we present a user study to measure the impact that our trusted social feedback proposal has on users' perception of privacy and on foreground trust. We also present another user study to capture a model for user acceptance testing of the trusted crowdsourcing.

References

  1. A. Basu, J. C. Corena, S. Kiyomoto, S. Marsh, J. Vaidya, G. Guo, J. Zhang, and Y. Miyake. Privacy preserving trusted social feedback. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC) TRECK track, Gyeongju, Korea, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Basu, J. C. Corena, S. Kiyomoto, J. Vaidya, S. Marsh, and Y. Miyake. PrefRank: fair aggregation of subjective user preferences. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC) RS track, Gyeongju, Korea, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Basu, J. Vaidya, and H. Kikuchi. Perturbation based privacy preserving Slope One predictors for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 6th IFIP WG 11.11 International Conference on Trust Management (IFIPTM), Surat, India, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. A. Basu, J. Vaidya, H. Kikuchi, T. Dimitrakos, and S. K. Nair. Privacy preserving collaborative filtering for SaaS enabling PaaS clouds. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications, 1(8), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Berkovsky, Y. Eytani, T. Kuflik, and F. Ricci. Privacy-enhanced collaborative filtering. In Proc. User Modeling Workshop on Privacy-Enhanced Personalization, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. Canny. Collaborative filtering with privacy via factor analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR '02, pages 238--245, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Cissée and S. Albayrak. An agent-based approach for privacy-preserving recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 1--8. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Dwyer. Traces of digital trust: an interactive design perspective. PhD thesis, Victoria University, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. N. Dwyer, A. Basu, and S. Marsh. Reflections on measuring the trust empowerment potential of a digital environment. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG11.11 International Conference on Trust Management (IFIPTM), Malaga, Spain, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. S. Fleming. An ant-inspired, deniable routing approach in ad hoc question & answer networks. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Fleming, D. Chalmers, and I. Wakeman. A deniable and efficient question and answer service over ad hoc social networks. Information retrieval, 15(3-4):296--331, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Golbeck. Generating predictive movie recommendations from trust in social networks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Trust Management (iTrust), Pisa, Italy. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. A. Golbeck. Computing and applying trust in web-based social networks. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 2005. AAI3178583. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Gong. Privacy-preserving collaborative filtering based on randomized perturbation techniques and secure multiparty computation. IJACT: International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, 3(4), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. G. Guo, J. Zhang, and D. Thalmann. A simple but effective method to incorporate trusted neighbors in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (UMAP), pages 114--125. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Herlocker, J. Konstan, A. Borchers, and J. Riedl. An algorithmic framework for performing collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. T. R. Hoens, M. Blanton, and N. V. Chawla. Reliable medical recommendation systems with patient privacy. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium, pages 173--182. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Ismail, C. Boyd, A. Jøsang, and S. Russel. Strong privacy in reputation systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Information Security Applications (WISA), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Jamali and M. Ester. Trustwalker: a random walk model for combining trust-based and item-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 397--406. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Jamali and M. Ester. A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys '10, pages 135--142, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Jøsang, T. Ažderska, and S. Marsh. Trust transitivity and conditional belief reasoning. In Trust Management VI, pages 68--83. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. D. R. Karger, S. Oh, and D. Shah. Budget-optimal crowdsourcing using low-rank matrix approximations. In Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), 2011 49th Annual Allerton Conference on, pages 284--291. IEEE, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. R. Kern, H. Thies, and G. Satzger. Statistical quality control for human-based electronic services. In Service-Oriented Computing, pages 243--257. Springer, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. R. Likert. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 1932.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. S. Marsh and M. R. Dibben. Trust, untrust, distrust and mistrust -- an exploration of the dark(er) side. In Trust Management, pages 17--33. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. P. Massa and P. Avesani. Trust-aware recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM conference on Recommender systems, RecSys '07, pages 17--24, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. T. Muller and P. Schweitzer. On beta models with trust chains. In Trust Management VII, pages 49--65. Springer, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. J. O'Donovan and B. Smyth. Trust in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pages 167--174. ACM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. P. Paillier. Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In Advances in Cryptology -- EUROCRYPT'99, volume 1592, pages 223--238. Springer, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. D. C. Parkes, M. O. Rabin, S. M. Shieber, and C. Thorpe. Practical secrecy-preserving, verifiably correct and trustworthy auctions. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3):294--312, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. H. Polat and W. Du. Privacy-preserving collaborative filtering using randomized perturbation techniques. In Data Mining, 2003. ICDM 2003. Third IEEE International Conference on, pages 625--628. IEEE, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. H. Polat and W. Du. Privacy-preserving collaborative filtering on vertically partitioned data. Knowledge Discovery in Databases: PKDD 2005, pages 651--658, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. H. Polat and W. Du. Achieving private recommendations using randomized response techniques. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 637--646, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. L. R. Varshney. Privacy and reliability in crowdsourcing service delivery. In SRII Global Conference (SRII), 2012 Annual, pages 55--60. IEEE, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Y. Wang, Y. Huang, and C. Louis. Respecting user privacy in mobile crowdsourcing. SCIENCE, 2(2):pp-50, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Opinions of people: factoring in privacy and trust

      Recommendations

      Reviews

      Salvatore F. Pileggi

      As online social networks have become part of daily life, social aware recommendation has progressively emerged, aiming at more sophisticated schemata to support automated recommendations. Current solutions are based on various models that reflect significantly different approaches. Most of them do not take into consideration “the interpersonal context-sensitive trust that exists between individuals in [a] social network.” Trust intrinsically affects aspects of social interaction, including the way recommendations are made and interpreted. In this paper, the authors propose a privacy-preserving trusted social feedback (TSF) schema where users can obtain feedback from their social network. The concept can be extended to deal with crowdsourcing, where feedback is retrieved from experts of a given domain. The schema is designed to support “categorical answers as well as single-valued numerical answers.” In order to provide a consistent solution to trust propagation, the authors have associated trust with the strength of a social relation, postulating that it is “one's asymmetric personal perception of another in a particular context that changes over time.” The paper is interesting, clear, and well written. Furthermore, feedback from a "user study to evaluate the perception of privacy and foreground trust in the prototype" shows promising results. I recommend reading it. Online Computing Reviews Service

      Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

      Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

      Comments

      Login options

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

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader