Patent Grant
9704203
The present invention is related to the following applications, all of which are incorporated herein by reference:
Commonly assigned application entitled “MANAGING PRIVACY SETTINGS ON A SOCIAL NETWORK,” filed on Apr. 3, 2009.
Social-networking sites have grown tremendously in popularity in recent years. Services such as FACEBOOK™ and MYSPACE™ allow millions of users to create online profiles and to share details of their personal lives with networks of friends, and often, strangers. As the number of users of these sites and the number of sites themselves explode, securing individuals' privacy to avoid threats such as identity theft and digital stalking becomes an increasingly important issue. Although all major online social networks provide at least some privacy enhancing functionalities, the majority of users typically accept the default settings (which usually means that they let their information open to the public), and do not revisit their options until damage is done. This is either due to the poor user-interface design or the common belief that sharing personal information online is more cool than harmful.
Past research on privacy and social networks mainly focuses on corporate-scale privacy concerns, i.e., how to share a social network owned by one organization without revealing the identity or sensitive relationships among the registered users. Not much attention has been given to individual users' privacy risk posed by their information-sharing activities. Indeed, many privacy schemes are based on a one-dimensional analysis of the relative sensitivity of the data. That is, for example, a birth date may be deemed sensitive or not sensitive based on a subjective evaluation of the privacy value of that data. Sensitivity may, in this example be calculated based on survey or some other tool. However, evaluating only sensitivity may not accurately account for a privacy value across a number of social groups. For the birth date example, birth date may be perceived as less private in a social dating group, where birth date may be a factor in selecting a potential matching personality. On the other hand, birth date may be perceived as very private or merely not relevant in a hobby group where birth date may have no rational connection with the activities of the group. Thus, additional dimensions for calculating privacy scores may be desirable.
The following presents a simplified summary of some embodiments of the invention in order to provide a basic understanding of the invention. This summary is not an extensive overview of the invention. It is not intended to identify key/critical elements of the invention or to delineate the scope of the invention. Its sole purpose is to present some embodiments of the invention in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that is presented below.
Methods for providing a privacy setting for a target user in a social network utilizing an electronic computing device are presented, the method including: causing the electronic computing device to retrieve a current privacy setting for a common profile item, where the common profile item corresponds with the target user and each of a number of users, and where the common profile item is one of a number of common profile items; causing the electronic computing device to calculate a common profile item sensitivity value for the common profile item based on the current privacy setting; causing the electronic computing device to calculate a common profile item visibility value for the common profile item based on the a current privacy setting and the sensitivity value for the common profile item; and causing the electronic computing device to calculate the privacy score of the target user.
In some embodiments, methods further include: continuing the retrieving and the calculating until the common profile item sensitivity value for each of the number of common profile items is calculated; causing the electronic computing device to calculate a partial privacy score of the target user, where the partial privacy score combines the common profile item sensitivity value and the common profile item visibility value; and continuing the retrieving and the calculating until the partial privacy score for each of the number of common profile items is calculated. In some embodiments, the privacy score of the target user is a sum of the partial privacy scores. In some embodiments, the common profile item sensitivity value and the common profile item visibility value are based on sharing between the target user and the number of users. In some embodiments, the common profile item sensitivity value includes a proportion of the common profile item that is shared by the target user with the number of users. In some embodiments, the common profile item visibility value includes a product of: the common profile item sensitivity value; and a proportion of sharing of the number of common profile items for the target user. In some embodiments, the common profile item sensitivity value and the common profile item visibility value are further based on a relationship between the target user and the number of users. In some embodiments, the relationship is selected without limitation from the group consisting of a close friend relationship, a friend relationship, a friend of a friend relationship, an acquaintance relationship, a group relationship, and a network relationship and where the relationship is assigned a numeric level. In some embodiments, the common profile item sensitivity value, includes a proportion of the common profile item that is shared by the target user the number of users with respect to the relationship between the target user and each of the number of users. In some embodiments, the common profile item visibility value includes a product of: the common profile item sensitivity value; and a product of a proportion of sharing of the number of common profile items for the target user and the numeric level. In some embodiments, the partial privacy score is a product of the common profile item sensitivity value and the common profile item visibility value.
In other embodiments, computing device program products for providing a privacy setting for a target user in a social network using an electronic computing device are presented, the computing device program product including: a computer readable medium; first programmatic instructions for retrieving a current privacy setting for a common profile item, where the common profile item corresponds with the target user and each of a number of users, and where the common profile item is one of a number of common profile items; second programmatic instructions for calculating a common profile item sensitivity value for the common profile item based on the current privacy setting; third programmatic instructions for retrieving the current privacy setting of the common profile item of the target user; fourth programmatic instructions for calculating a common profile item visibility value for the common profile item based on the a current privacy setting and the sensitivity value for the common profile item; and fifth programmatic instructions for calculating the privacy score of the target user.
The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings and in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements and in which:
As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product. Accordingly, the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more non-transitory computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.
Any combination of one or more non-transitory computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electromagnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).
Aspects of the present invention are described below with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
Application server 110 may be configured with a number of components for enabling embodiments described herein. As illustrated, application server 110 may include controllers 112 for enabling interactions between privacy manager 120, user interface (UI) 114, and models component 116. UI 114 and models component 116 may be configured to cooperatively and graphically display privacy settings as determined by privacy manager 120 on an electronic computing device. A user interface embodiment, such as may be displayed on an electronic computing device, may be configured to display current and recommended privacy settings. As such, a user may, in embodiments, utilize UI 114 to select either current privacy settings, recommended privacy settings. In addition, UI 114 may be configured to accept custom user privacy settings in some embodiments. Displaying privacy settings on an electronic computing device will be discussed in further detail below for
Application seiver 110 further includes privacy manager 120. Privacy manager 120 may include several modules for enabling embodiments described herein. Privacy score calculator module 122 may be configured to determine a number of privacy indices in response to some triggering event associated with social network 102. Furthermore, privacy score calculator module 122 may be configured to implement any range of privacy score calculations. Privacy scores indicate a level of privacy or security. As utilized herein, a privacy score is an aggregation of all attribute scores of a user or target. In embodiments, a high privacy score is indicative of high privacy risk and, therefore, a weaker privacy setting. Likewise, in embodiments, a low privacy score is indicative of low privacy risk, and therefore a more secure privacy setting. Privacy scores will be discussed in further detail below for
Privacy manager 120 may further include privacy enforcer module 124. In embodiments, privacy manager 120 may be configured to manage conflicts associated with accepting privacy recommendations. As may be appreciated, in utilizing embodiments described herein, conflicts may arise in managing privacy settings. For example, in a preferred embodiment, a conflict will always be resolved to a more secure privacy setting. However, in other embodiments, conflicts may be resolved in any arbitrary fashion without limitation. Privacy manager 120 may further include privacy model module 126. In embodiments privacy model module 126 may be configured to manage a user relationship. A user relationship may be utilized to determine a user relationship distance value, which may be characterized as a quantification of trust between a user and target. In some embodiments, user relationships may include without limitation: a close friend relationship, a friend relationship, a friend of a friend relationship, an acquaintance relationship, a group relationship, and a network relationship. Each of these relationships defines a level of trust. For example, a close friend relationship may be more “trustworthy” than a network relationship. Thus, a user having a close friend relationship with a first target might logically be more inclined to share more sensitive information with the first target than with a second target where the second target has a network relationship with the user.
Privacy manager 120 may further include privacy elections module 128. In embodiments, privacy elections module 128 may be configured to designate a user relationship between a user and a target. As noted above, a user relationship may be utilized to determine a user relationship distance value, which may be characterized as a quantification of trust between a user and target. Privacy elections module 128 may be configured to establish what level of relationship is appropriate. In some embodiments, privacy elections module 128 may be configured to receive input from a user. In other embodiments, privacy elections module 128 may be configured to receive input from social network 102. Privacy manager 120 may be further configured to access repository 118. Repository 118 may be configured to store non-transient data associated with privacy mnanager 120. In some embodiments, repository 118 may include a database that is accessible via a database management system (DBMS). In other embodiments, repository 118 may include a hardware storage medium. In still other embodiments, repository 118 may be located locally or remotely and may be accessible through any method known in the art without limitation.
In addition to assisting users in determining privacy settings, privacy scores utilization 220 module may be provided. For example, privacy risk monitoring 222 may be configured to provide an indicator of the user's potential privacy risk. A system may estimate the sensitivity of each piece of information or profile item a user has shared, and send alert to the user if the sensitivity of some information is beyond the predefined threshold. Sensitivity of profile items will be discussed in further detail below for
At a step 302, the method retrieves current privacy settings of a common profile item with respect to all users. A common profile item is a profile item shared by all users such as, for example, birthday or hometown. Any number of common profile items may be available without departing from the present invention. Turning briefly to
At a next step 304, the method calculates a common profile sensitivity value with respect to all users. Generally, sensitivity is a measure of how private (i.e. sensitive) a particular common profile item is with respect to all other users. For example, if a common profile item is not shared across all users, it is deemed sensitive. Thus, sensitivity is based on the environment or context in which the common profile item is found. In other words, in embodiments, the common profile item sensitivity value represents a proportion of the common profile item that is shared by the target user with the other users. In other embodiments, the common profile item sensitivity value includes a proportion of the common profile item that is shared by the target user the other users with respect to a relationship between the target user and each of the plurality of users. In those embodiments, the relationship may include: a close friend relationship, a friend relationship, a friend of a friend relationship, an acquaintance relationship, a group relationship, and a network relationship. In embodiments, the relationship may be assigned a numeric level. Returning to
At a next step 306, the method determines whether the common profile item is the last common profile item. If the method determines at a step 306 that the common profile item is not the last common profile item, the method returns to a step 302 to retrieve another common profile item. In this manner, the method iterates until all common profile items are accounted for. If the method determines at a step 306 that the common profile item is the last common profile item, the method continues to a step 308 to receive a target user such that the target user's common profile items' visibilities may be calculated.
At a next step 310, the method retrieves a current privacy setting of the target user of a common profile item. Returning to
At a next step 314, the method calculates a partial privacy score of the target user. In an embodiment, a partial privacy score combines the common profile item sensitivity value and a common profile item visibility value. It may be appreciated that the partial privacy score may combine the common profile item sensitivity value and the common profile item visibility value in any manner known in the art as long as the partial privacy score is monotonically increasing with both sensitivity value and visibility value without departing from the present invention. Thus, in one embodiment, the partial privacy score is a product of the common profile item sensitivity value and the common profile item visibility value. In other embodiments, the partial the partial privacy score is a sum of the common profile item sensitivity value and the common profile item visibility value.
At a next step 316, the method determines whether the common profile item is the last profile item. If the method determines at a step 316 that the common profile item is not the last common profile item, the method returns to a step 310 to retrieve a privacy setting for another common profile item. In this manner, the method may iterate through all common profile items. If the method determines at a step 316 that the common profile item is the last common profile item, the method continues to a step 318 to calculate a privacy score of the user. Returning to
In some embodiments, UI 500 may include privacy graph 508. Privacy graph 508 may be utilized to easily indicate relative strength of privacy settings. In this example, privacy graph 508 indicates a privacy index of 30 out of 100, which is on a lower end of privacy indices. As noted above, in embodiments, a privacy index is a privacy score normalized to a range of approximately 0 to 100. In other embodiments, a privacy index is a privacy score normalized to a range of approximately 0 to 10. Privacy graph 508 may be further configured, in some embodiments, with color indicators indicating levels of risk. In one embodiment, red indicates a high level of risk and green indicates a low level of risk.
Further illustrated are current privacy settings 510 and recommended privacy settings 520. Privacy settings may include any number of attributes for a social network model. For example, business data attribute 512 is a description and business data attribute 514 is a time period. A checked attribute such as attribute 512 indicates that the attribute is not shared while a non-checked attribute such as attribute 514 indicates that the attribute is shared. In some embodiments, a checked attribute is shared and a non-checked attribute is not shared. Thus, checking or non-checking is merely an indication of whether or not an attribute is shared and should not be construed as limiting. In some embodiments, recommended privacy settings 520 include checked attributes such as attribute 522 which are not checked in current privacy settings. In some embodiments, recommended privacy settings 520 included non-checked attributes such as attribute 524 which are also non-checked in current privacy settings. In this manner, a user may quickly and easily determine which attributes have the same privacy settings between current and recommended privacy settings. In some embodiments, a user may select a subset of recommended privacy settings by checking or un-checking attributes on the UI.
In some embodiments, UI 700 may include privacy graph 708. Privacy graph 708 may be utilized to easily indicate relative strength of privacy settings. In this example, privacy graph 708 indicates a privacy index of 30 out of 100, which is on a lower end of privacy indices. As noted above, in embodiments, a privacy index is a privacy score normalized to a range of approximately 0 to 100. In other embodiments, a privacy index is a privacy score normalized to a range of approximately 0 to 10. Privacy graph 708 may be further configured, in some embodiments, with color indicators indicating levels of risk. In one embodiment, red indicates a high level of risk and green indicates a low level of risk.
Further illustrated are current privacy settings 710 and recommended privacy settings 720. Privacy settings may include any number of attributes for a social network model. For example, business data attribute 712 is a description and business data attribute 714 is a time period. An attribute may be checked or unchecked (indicating sharing or not sharing) based on relationship 730. Thus checked attribute 712 indicates that the attribute is shared with friends, but not with other relationships. In contrast, attribute 714 indicates that the attribute is shared for any relationship. It may be noted that in some embodiments, relationships may be overlapping or conflicting. For example, in one embodiment where “DO NOT SHARE” is checked, other overlapping or conflicting boxes may not be selectable. In another embodiment where “SHARE ALL” is checked, other overlapping or conflicting boxes may not be selectable. In some embodiments, a checked attribute is shared and a non-checked attribute is not shared. Thus, checking or non-checking is merely an indication of whether or not an attribute is shared and should not be construed as limiting. In some embodiments, recommended privacy settings 720 include checked attributes which are not checked in current privacy settings. In some embodiments, recommended privacy settings 720 included non-checked attributes which are also non-checked in current privacy settings. In this manner, a user may quickly and easily determine which attributes have the same privacy settings between current and recommended privacy settings. In some embodiments, a user may select a subset of recommended privacy settings by checking or un-checking attributes on the UI.
Examples are provided herein for clarity in understanding embodiments of the present invention and should not be construed as limiting.
In the illustrated table, common profile items are listed along the vertical axis while users are listed along the horizontal axis. Boxes having a “1” are considered shared. Boxes having a “0” are considered not shared. The equations along the bottom of the table are the sums of each columns namely |Rj| (see
Utilizing equation 440 (
βi=(N−|Ri|)/N
Thus, β1=(3−3)/3=0;
β2=(3−2)/3=⅓; and
β3=(3−1)/3=⅔.
In this example COMMON PROFILE ITEM 3 is the most sensitive common profile item as indicated by β3.
Utilizing equation 444 (
Pij=(1−βi)×|Rj|/n.
Thus, V11=(1−0)×⅓=⅓;
V21=(1−⅓)×⅓= 2/9; and
V31=(1−⅔)×⅓= 1/9.
In this example, among all the common profile items that belong to USER 1, V11 is the most visible item.
Utilizing equation 446 (
Thus, PR(1)=0×⅓+⅓× 2/9+⅔× 1/9=0.1481. This is the privacy score of USER 1. In some embodiments, a privacy score of USER 1 based on an observed visibility may be calculated. Thus,
V11=1 (because user 1 shared common profile item 1);
V21=0 (because user 1 did not shared common profile item 2); and
V31=0 (because user 1 did not shared common profile item 3).
As noted above, a polytomous example is one in which privacy scores are calculated with respect to a relationship. Further, as noted above, in embodiments, relationships may be assigned a numeric value for use in calculating privacy scores. In this example, a table having several levels of relationships may be transformed into three dichotomous tables. That is:
Becomes:
In the illustrated table, common profile items are listed along the horizontal axis while users are listed along the vertical axis, Boxes having a “1” are considered shared. Boxes having a “0” are considered not shared. The equations along the bottom of the table are the sums of each columns namely |Rj| (see also
1) An entry in Matrix0 is equal to 1, if and only if the corresponding entry in the original Matrix is greater than or equal to 0;
2) An entry in Matrix1 is equal to 1, if and only if the corresponding entry in the original Matrix is greater than or equal to 1; and
3) An entry in Matrix2 is equal to 1, if and only if the corresponding entry in the original Matrix is greater than or equal to 2.
Utilizing equation 640 (
Accordingly, a final common sensitivity value of item 1 with respect to levels 0, 1, and 2 becomes correspondingly:
β10=β11*=0;
β11=(β11*+β12*)/2=(0+½)/2=¼; and
β12=β12*=½(see 642 FIG. 6).
Additionally, a final common sensitivity value of item 2 with respect to levels 0, 1, and 2 becomes correspondingly:
B20=β21=½;
B21=(β21*+β22*)/2=(½+1)/2=¼; and
B22=β22*=1.
Utilizing equation 644 (
Thus, the common visibility value of item 1 belonging to user 1 with respect to levels 0, 1, and 2 becomes correspondingly:
V110=P110*0=(0*½)*0=0;
V111=P111*1=(½*½)*1=¼; and
V112=P112×2=(½*0)*2=0.
It may be noted that this is the expected visibility of item 1.
Thus, the common visibility value of item 2 belonging to user 1 with respect to levels 0, 1, and 2 becomes correspondingly:
V210=P210*0=(½*½)*0=0;
V211=P211*1=(½*½)*1=¼; and
V212=P212×2=(0*)*2=0.
Utilizing equation 646 (
Thus, the expected privacy score for user 1 is:
It may be appreciated that an expected privacy score for user 2 may be calculated in like manner.
Utilizing equation 648 (
Thus, the observed privacy score for user 2 is:
It may be appreciated that an observed privacy score for user 1 may be calculated in like manner. It may be further appreciated the above examples are provided herein for clarity in understanding embodiments of the present invention and should not be construed as limiting.
While this invention has been described in terms of several embodiments, there are alterations, permutations, and equivalents, which fall within the scope of this invention. It should also be noted that there are many alternative ways of implementing the methods and apparatuses of the present invention. Furthermore, unless explicitly stated, any method embodiments described herein are not constrained to a particular order or sequence. Further, the Abstract is provided herein for convenience and should not be employed to construe or limit the overall invention, which is expressed in the claims. It is therefore intended that the following appended claims be interpreted as including all such alterations, permutations, and equivalents as fall within the true spirit and scope of the present invention.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5614927 | Gifford | Mar 1997 | A |
| 6073196 | Goodrum | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6243613 | Desiraju et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6324646 | Chen | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6438666 | Cassagnol | Aug 2002 | B2 |
| 6904417 | Clayton | Jun 2005 | B2 |
| 6963908 | Lynch et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6968334 | Salmenkaita | Nov 2005 | B2 |
| 7162451 | Berger | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7216169 | Clinton et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7437763 | Guo | Oct 2008 | B2 |
| 7496751 | de Jong | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7765257 | Chen et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7949611 | Nielsen | May 2011 | B1 |
| 8026918 | Murphy | Sep 2011 | B1 |
| 8234688 | Grandison et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8782691 | Noble | Jul 2014 | B1 |
| 20020104015 | Barzilai et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020111972 | Lynch et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20030159028 | Mackin et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20040093224 | Vanska et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20050256866 | Lu et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20060047605 | Ahmad | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060123462 | Lunt et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060173963 | Roseway et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248573 | Pannu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248584 | Kelly et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060294134 | Berkhim et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070005695 | Chen et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070073728 | Klein et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070156614 | Flinn et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070271379 | Carlton et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070283171 | Breslin et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080005778 | Chen et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080016054 | Liska | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046976 | Zuckerberg | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080104679 | Craig | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080155534 | Boss et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189768 | Callahan et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080235168 | Chan et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20090013413 | Vera | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090070334 | Callahan et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090248602 | Frazier | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090248680 | Kalavade | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20100024042 | Motahari et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257577 | Grandison et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100274815 | Vanasco | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100306834 | Grandison | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100318571 | Pearlman et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20100325722 | Uchida | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110004922 | Bono et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110023129 | Vernal et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110289590 | Miettinen | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20120240050 | Goldfeder et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 2077522 | Jul 2009 | EP |
| 2006146314 | Jun 2006 | JP |
| 2006309737 | Nov 2006 | JP |
| 2007233610 | Sep 2007 | JP |
| 2007328766 | Dec 2007 | JP |
| 2008097485 | Apr 2008 | JP |
| 2008519332 | Jun 2008 | JP |
| 092135658 | Sep 2004 | TW |
| 1245510 | Dec 2005 | TW |
| 1255123 | May 2006 | TW |
| 200818834 | Apr 2008 | TW |
| 200908618 | Feb 2009 | TW |
| 2006115919 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| WO2006115919 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| 2007148562 | Dec 2007 | WO |
| 2009-033182 | Mar 2009 | WO |
| 2009033182 | Mar 2009 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Maximilien et al, “Enabling Privacy As a Fundamental Construct for Social Networks”, 2009. |
| Squicciarini et al, “Collective Privacy Management in Social Networks”, 2009. |
| PCT Int'l Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA (EPO), mailed Dec. 6, 2010, in case No. PCT/EP2010/055854. |
| Adams, “A Classification for Privacy Techniques”, (2006) U of Ottawa Law & Tech Jml., 3:1, pp. 35-52. |
| DiGioia, et al., “Social Navigation as a Model for Usable Security”, (Jul. 2005) Symp. on Usable Priv & Sec, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 6 pp. |
| Gross, et al., “Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks (The Facebook Case)”, ACM WPES Nov. 2005 (pre-proceedings version), Alexandria, VA, USA, 11 pp. |
| Lipford, et al., “Understanding Privacy Settings in Facebook with an Audience View”, Charlotte NC USA, 5 pp. |
| Liu, et al., “Privacy-Preserving Data Analysis on Graphs and Social Networks”, Ch. 1, 22 pp. |
| Lu, et al., “Trust-Based Privacy Preservation for Peer-to-peer Data Sharing”, West Lafayette, IN, USA, Purdue Univ—Dept of Computer Sciences, 7 pp. |
| Myers, et al., “Protecting Privacy Using the Decentralized Label Model”, (Oct. 2000) ACM Trans. on Software Eng. & Methodol., vol. 9/No. 4, pp. 410-442 |
| Howe, “The Problem with Privacy Policies & ‘Industry Self-Regulation’”, 19 pp., http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/priv-pol.htm. |
| Walter, et al., “A Model of a Trust-based Recommendation System on a Social Network”, JAAMAS (Sep. 2007), 22 pp. |
| Barnes, “A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States”, First Monday vol. 11, No. 9 (Sep. 2006) 12 pp. |
| Grandison, “Towards Privacy Propagation in the Social Web”, IBM Almaden Research Center, 2 pp. |
| Wang et al., “Privacy Protection in Social Network Data Disclosure Based on Granular Computing”, (Jul. 2006), IEEE Int'l Conf. on Fuzzy Systems, Vancouver, BC (CA) pp. 997-1003. |
| Zhou et al., “Preserving Privacy in Social Networks Against Neighborhood Attacks”, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser Univ., Bumaby, BC (CA) 10 pp. |
| Grandison, U.S. Appl. No. 12/418,511, filed Apr. 3, 2009. |
| Liu et al.—A Framework for Computing the Privacy Scores of Users in Online Social Networks. ACM Transactions on KnowledgeDiscovery from Data, vol. 5, No. 1, Article 6. Dec. 2010. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1870102. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/418,511, dated Sep. 23, 2011. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 12/418,511, dated Feb. 2, 2012. |
| Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 12/418,511, dated Mar. 23, 2012. |
| Walter et al., “A Model of a Trust-Based Recommendation System on a Social Network,” Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, Oct. 2007, pp. 18, Retrieved From www.ppgia.pucpr.br/˜fabricio/ftp/Aulas/Mestrado/AS/Artigos . . .Agente/trust.pdf. |
| Appeal Brief from U.S. Appl. No. 12/468,738, dated Apr. 1, 2015. |
| Barnes, “A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the Unites States,” vol. 11, No. 9-4, Sep. 2006, pp. Retrieved From http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1394/1312. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/468,738, dated Aug. 19, 2011. |
| Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/468,738, dated Nov. 10, 2014. |
| Gross et al., “Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks (The Facebook case),” ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), 2005, pp. 11, Retrieved From https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/˜acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf. |
| Lu et al., “Trust-Based Privacy Preservation for Peer-to-peer Data Sharing,” May 2006, pp. 7, Retrieved From https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/bb/SKM-P2P-Stream.pdf. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/468,738, dated Apr. 22, 2011. |
| Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/468,738, dated Jul. 25, 2014. |
| Reply Brief from U.S. Appl. No. 12/468,738, dated Aug. 25, 2015. |
| Tyrone W.A. Grandison, U.S. Appl. No. 12/468,738, filed May 19, 2009. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20110029566 A1 | Feb 2011 | US |
