The present invention generally relates to authorizing activities and authenticating individuals, and more specifically, to methods for authorizing information flow to an individual and authenticating an individual for access to information or service based on that individual's social network.
One of the major benefits of the Internet has been the ease of communicating information to a large number of people. Some users have, however, been abusing this benefit by sending unwanted e-mail solicitations, known as SPAM, to individuals over the Internet. The problem with SPAM has become so pervasive that some states have passed legislation prohibiting SPAM.
Further, the open nature of the Internet has caused providers of content and service over the Internet to place controls on who may access its content or service. The controls are sometimes unnecessarily restrictive and the processes used to grant access tend to be overly cumbersome, to the detriment of both users who might have benefited from the content or service and providers who might have benefited from revenues generated from these users.
The invention provides a method of authorizing transmission of content to an individual as a way to filter out unwanted communication such as SPAM or content that the individual might find to be offensive, and a method of authenticating individuals for access to content or service that makes the content or service available to more users while limiting access to potentially abusive users of the content or service. In particular, a service provider examines an individual's social network and a black list of persons that have been determined to be untrustworthy to determine whether to authorize transmission of content to that individual or authenticate that individual for access to information or service.
In a first embodiment of the invention, the authorization is performed in connection with an e-mail communication service. When an e-mail communication with an individual is attempted, that individual's social network is searched for a path between the sender and the individual. If the path exists and the path does not traverse through unauthorized nodes, the e-mail communication is authorized. If there is no such path, the e-mail communication is prohibited.
In a second embodiment of the invention, the authorization is performed in connection with a search. When an individual enters a search query, the search engine retrieves relevant search results for delivery to the individual. The search results that are delivered to the individual do not include content posted by those persons who are not connected to the individual in the individual's social network through authorized nodes.
In a third embodiment of the invention, the service provider is a third party content provider. When an individual requests access to the content provided by this entity, the entity examines its user base to determine if any of its users is related to this individual. If there is a relationship and the individual and the related user are connected through authorized nodes, the individual is given access. If not, access is denied to the individual.
In a fourth embodiment of the invention, the service provider is a lender. When an individual applies for a loan, the lender examines the credit ratings of members of the individual's social network who are connected to the individual through authorized nodes. If the average credit rating of these members is at least a minimum credit score, the lender continues to process the loan application. Otherwise, the loan application is rejected.
So that the manner in which the above recited features of the present invention can be understood in detail, a more particular description of the invention, briefly summarized above, may be had by reference to embodiments, some of which are illustrated in the appended drawings. It is to be noted, however, that the appended drawings illustrate only typical embodiments of this invention and are therefore not to be considered limiting of its scope, for the invention may admit to other equally effective embodiments.
A social network is generally defined by the relationships among groups of individuals, and may include relationships ranging from casual acquaintances to close familial bonds. A social network may be represented using a graph structure. Each node of the graph corresponds to a member of the social network Edges connecting two nodes represent a relationship between two individuals. In addition, the degree of separation between any two nodes is defined as the minimum number of hops required to traverse the graph from one node to the other. A degree of separation between two members is a measure of relatedness between the two members.
Degrees of separation in a social network are defined relative to an individual. For example, in ME's social network, H and ME are separated by 2 d/s, whereas in G's social network, H and G are separated by only 1 d/s. Accordingly, each individual will have their own set of first, second and third degree relationships.
As those skilled in the art understand, an individual's social network may be extended to include nodes to an Nth degree of separation. As the number of degrees increases beyond three, however, the number of nodes typically grows at an explosive rate and quickly begins to mirror the ALL set.
The member database 210 contains profile information for each of the members in the online social network managed by the system 100. The profile information may include, among other things: a unique member identifier, name, age, gender, location, hometown, references to image files, listing of interests, attributes, and the like. The profile information also includes VISIBILITY and CONTACTABILITY settings, the uses of which are described in a commonly owned application, “System and Method for Managing Information Flow Between Members of an Online Social Network,” (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/854,057, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,010,458), filed May 26, 2004, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference. The relationship database 220 stores information defining to the first degree relationships between members. The relationship database 220 stores information relating to the first degree relationships between members In addition, the contents of the member database 210 are indexed and optimized for search, and stored in the search database 230. The member database 210, the relationship database 220, and the search database 230 are updated to reflect inputs of new member information and edits of existing member information that are made through the computers 500.
The application server 200 also manages the information exchange requests that it receives from the remote computers 500. The graph servers 300 receive a query from the application server 200, process the query and return the query results to the application server 200. The graph servers 3 manage a representation of the social network for all the members in the member database 210. The graph servers 300 and related components are described in detail in a commonly owned application, “System and Method for Managing an Online Social Network,” (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/854,054, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,572,221), filed May 26, 2004, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Graph servers 300 store a graph representation of the social network defined by all of the members (nodes) and their corresponding relationships (edges). The graph servers 300 respond to requests from application server 200 to identify relationships and the degree of separation between members of the online social network. The application server 200 is further configured to process requests from a third party application 610 to provide social network information (e.g., the relationships between individuals) for user records maintained in a third party database 620. The third-party application 610 makes the requests to the application server 200 through an application programming interface (API) 600. The methods by which the social network information maintained in the system 100 is shared with a third party is described in detail in a commonly owned application, “Method of Sharing Social Network Information with Existing User Databases,” (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/854,610, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,478,078), filed Jun. 14, 2004, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
The present invention will be illustrated with the following four examples: (1) authorizing an individual to communicate with a member of the social network (by way of e-mail, instant messaging, text messaging, voicemail, and other similar means); (2) authorizing content made available by an individual to be transmitted to a member of the social network for viewing; (3) authenticating a member of the social network for access to online content; and (4) authenticating a member of the social network for access to a loan. In each of these examples, the decision on whether to authorize the information flow to B (examples 1 and 2), or to authenticate B for access to information or service (examples 3 and 4), will be based on a black list and B's social network.
A black list used in authorizing information flow to a member (examples 1 and 2), or in authenticating the member for access to a loan (example 4) is defined with respect to the member. In the example given here, a single black list is maintained for a member. However, the black list may be defined separately for different types of activity. For example, the black list used in authorizing e-mail communication to B may be different from the black list used in authorizing content made available by an individual to be transmitted to B for viewing.
A black list that is defined with respect to a member is typically updated by that member. For example, if B received an unwanted communication (e.g., SPAM) from D and L, or while browsing profiles of other members in the social network, came across D's content and L's content that B found to be offensive, B will add D and L to its black list. This black list is shown in
A black list used in authenticating a member for access to online content or service (example 3) is defined globally with respect to everyone seeking access, but it is maintained separately for each different online content/service provider. For example, a black list used in authenticating a member for access to information or service made available by a provider ABC is different from a black list used in authenticating a member for access to information or service made available by provider XYZ. This type of black list is typically updated by the provider of the information or service. For example, if the black list shown in
A gray list is derived from a black list and the social network of the member with respect to whom authorization and authentication is being carried out. In examples 1, 2 and 4, the gray list is derived from the black list of member B and B's social network. In example 3, the gray list is derived from the black list of the provider of content or service to which member B is seeking access and B's social network. The gray list simply includes all members of B's social network who are one degree separated from any member of B's social network who is on the black list. The gray list derived from the black list of
Alternatively, the gray list may be limited to all members of B's social network who are: (i) one degree separated from any member of B's social network who is on the black list, and (ii) included in a path between the black list member and the member with respect to whom authorization and authentication is being carried out. The gray list derived in this manner would include members C and F, but not members I, J and M.
Individuals identified in the gray list of a member become non-traversing nodes with respect to that member. A “non-traversing node” with respect to a member is a node through which a connection to the member cannot be made. For example, referring to
In the example given above, the party that is providing the e-mail communication service and the search engine service and carrying out the authorizations is the operator of B's social network. The invention is applicable to situations where the party that is providing the e-mail communication service and the search engine service and carrying out the authorizations is a third party that has access to the database containing B's black list and information about B's social network. In such a case, the third party will retrieve B's black list and a graph representation of B's social network from this database in accordance with the methods described in the application, “Method of Sharing Social Network Information with Existing User Databases,” (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/854,610, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,478,078), filed Jun. 14, 2004. The third party carries out the remaining steps described above (Steps 620-670) in the same manner.
Also, a person who is not a member of B's social network may be permitted to communicate with B, if the person is identified in a contact list of a member who is not identified in the gray list and connected to B along a path that does not pass through a non-traversing node. For example, referring to
In an alternative embodiment, a white list identifying all members of B's social network who are authorized to transmit content to B may be generated, either real-time or off-line as a batch process, and searched each time content transmission to B is attempted. The white list generated in this manner includes all members of B's social network who are connected to B along a path that does not traverse through a member identified in B's gray list, and e-mail addresses stored in the contact lists of members who are identified in the white list and not in the gray list. The white list can be further narrowed by limiting it to those members who are within a maximum degree of separation from B, where the maximum degree of separation may be specified by either B or the operator of the social network.
The above examples of the white list, the black list, and the gray list store member identifiers (e.g., A, B, C, etc.) to identify members of the social network. Other identifying information, such as e-mail addresses, may be stored in these lists. In cases where the lists identify persons who are outside the social network, the e-mail address is stored in place of the member identifier. For example, a SPAM e-mail address, not corresponding to any e-mail address within the social network, may be added to a member's black list. Any future attempts to send e-mail from this e-mail address will be prohibited pursuant to the decision block in Step 620 of
While particular embodiments according to the invention have been illustrated and described above, those skilled in the art understand that the invention can take a variety of forms and embodiments within the scope of the appended claims.
This application is a continuation under 35 U.S.C. §120 of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/565,475, filed 2 Aug. 2012, which is a continuation under 35 U.S.C. §120 of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/897,766, filed 22 Jul. 2004, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,302,164 on 30 Oct. 2012, each of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5950200 | Sudai | Sep 1999 | A |
5963951 | Collins | Oct 1999 | A |
5978768 | McGovern | Nov 1999 | A |
6052122 | Sutcliffe | Apr 2000 | A |
6061681 | Collins | May 2000 | A |
6073105 | Sutcliffe | Jun 2000 | A |
6073138 | de l'Etraz | Jun 2000 | A |
6175831 | Weinrich | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6249282 | Sutcliffe | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6269369 | Robertson | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6324541 | de l'Etraz | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6363427 | Teibel | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366962 | Teibel | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6370510 | McGovern | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6408309 | Agarwal | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6542748 | Hendrey | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6735568 | Buckwalter | May 2004 | B1 |
7069308 | Abrams | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7478078 | Lunt | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7546338 | Schran | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7613776 | Ben-Yoseph | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7653693 | Heikes | Jan 2010 | B2 |
8010458 | Galbreath | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8291477 | Lunt | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8302164 | Lunt | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8782753 | Lunt | Jul 2014 | B2 |
20020086676 | Hendrey | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020087466 | Fais | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020124053 | Adams | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020124188 | Sherman | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020196159 | Lesenne | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030050970 | Akiyama | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030078972 | Tapissier | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030097597 | Lewis | May 2003 | A1 |
20030154194 | Jonas | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030167308 | Schran | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040003071 | Mathew | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040034601 | Kreuzer | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040064734 | Ehrlich | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088325 | Elder | May 2004 | A1 |
20040122803 | Dom | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122855 | Ruvolo | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040144301 | Neudeck | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148275 | Achlioptas | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040205126 | Ben-Yoseph | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210639 | Ben-Yoseph | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215648 | Marshall | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215793 | Ryan | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040236836 | Appelman | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040255032 | Danieli | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050026696 | Hashimoto | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055416 | Heikes | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050066219 | Hoffman | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050076241 | Appelman | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097170 | Zhu | May 2005 | A1 |
20050097319 | Zhu | May 2005 | A1 |
20050144279 | Wexelblat | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149606 | Lyle | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050197846 | Pezaris | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050198031 | Pezaris | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050209999 | Jou | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216300 | Appelman | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050246420 | Little | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256866 | Lu | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050267940 | Galbreath | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050273378 | MacDonald-Korth | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060031313 | Libbey, IV | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060168006 | Shannon | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070214001 | Patron | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080082541 | Davidson | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20090016499 | Hullfish | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090112827 | Achlioptas | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20100180032 | Lunt | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20120311680 | Lunt | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130198169 | Lunt | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130198809 | Lunt | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130198810 | Lunt | Aug 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1782604 | Mar 2001 | EP |
1085707 | May 2011 | EP |
WO 03030051 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO 2006019752 | Feb 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Office Action for EP Patent Application 05 771 078.2, Mar. 31, 2010. |
Notice of Opposition to EP 05771078.2 (EP 21782604), Feb. 16, 2012. |
European Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings and Summons for Application for EP 05771078, Nov. 18, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/299,391, filed Jun. 9, 2014, Lunt. |
3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; International Mobile station Equipment Identities (IMEI)(Release 5) 3GPP TS 22.016 V5.0.0, Jun. 2002. |
PCT Invitation to Pay Additional Fees and Communication Relating to the Results of the Partial International Search for PCT/US2005/024741, Oct. 25, 2005. |
ESR for EP Patent Application EP 10182314.4, Nov. 17, 2010. |
Breslin, et al., “The Future of Social Networks on the Internet—The Need for Semantics,” IEEE, pp. 86-90, 2007. |
Boykin, et al., “Leveraging Social Networks to Fight Spam,” IEEE, pp. 61-69, 2005. |
Martin, M., “Can Social Networking Stop Spam?” Sci-Tech Today, Mar. 2004 http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story—id=23355, Mar. 1, 2004. |
Rosenberg, J., et al., “The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Spam.” Internet Engineering Task Force, Jul. 2004: pp. 1-19. Soft Armor Systems; http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/draft-rosenberg-sipping-spam-00.txt, Nov. 10, 2005. |
Zhou et al., “Preserving Privacy in Social Networks Against Neighborhood Attacks,” IEEE, pp. 506-516, 2008. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/715,266, filed May 18, 2015, Lunt. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140280945 A1 | Sep 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13565475 | Aug 2012 | US |
Child | 14289984 | US | |
Parent | 10897766 | Jul 2004 | US |
Child | 13565475 | US |