Status Report - A COGNITIVE PRIVACY FRAMEWORK TO A SMART CITY ARCHITECTURE BASED ON PEOPLE AS SENSORS
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Status Report - A COGNITIVE PRIVACY FRAMEWORK TO A SMART CITY ARCHITECTURE BASED ON PEOPLE AS SENSORS

on

  • 261 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
261
Views on SlideShare
261
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Status Report - A COGNITIVE PRIVACY FRAMEWORK TO A SMART CITY ARCHITECTURE BASED ON PEOPLE AS SENSORS Presentation Transcript

  • 1. A COGNITIVE PRIVACY FRAMEWORK TO ASMART CITY ARCHITECTURE BASED ONPEOPLE AS SENSORSWelington Manoel da SilvaOrientação: Prof. Dr. Vinícius Cardoso Garcia (UFPE)Co-orientação: Prof. Dr. Alexandre Álvaro (UFSCar)Universidade Federal de PernambucoCentro de InformáticaPós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação
  • 2. What is happening out there…• The value of our digital identity• Unlocking the value of personal data: from collection to usage• Personal Data Management, The Users Perspective• Midata 2012, Review and Consultation• Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics• Big Data - The End of Privacy or a New Beginning• Personal Data, The Emergence of a New Asset Class• How does the data protection reform strengthen citizens rights• Regulation of the European parliament and of the council• Attitudes on data protection and electronic identity in the EU• How will the EUs reform adapt data protection rules to the newtechnological development• Safeguarding privacy in a connected world2Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 3. What I found out• Digital identity: set of individual preferences,acquired attributes and inherentcharacteristics.• Personal data: any information related to anidentifiable individual; not necessarily aperson would be explicitly identified but oneor more aspects of the data could be used totrace it back to a specific individual3Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 4. What I found out• Traditional data protection approach (70s)– Suitable to silos– User consent to data use at the time of collection– Data deleted after use• Too specific• Single use4Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 5. What I found out• Common usage:– Process automation– User enablement– Personalization– Enhanced delivery– Personal data-driven R&D– Monetization5Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 6. What I found out• Most people don’t feel safe out there• Most consumers have little idea of whathappens to their data, but when they do theyprioritize benefit (value proposition);awareness• Users that have control on their data are morewilling to share6Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 7. What I found out• User consent according to data sensitivity(control vs convenience)– Opt-out (less sensitive)– Opt-in (more sensitive)• Data types, sectors, collection methods anduses7Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 8. What I found out• User concern do not necessarily translate intochanged behavior• Fair relationship between users and serviceproviders in smart contexts:– Benefits exceeding cost (value proposition)– Transparency on data use– Control• Transparency to understanding8Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 9. What I found out• Evolve from passive consent to engagedindividual (smart people)• Context makes it harder– It is private, in what context?– Shift the focus from collection to usage• Constant feedback• Personal issues x societal benefits9Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 10. What I found out• What influences sharing?– Data type– Service provider– Compensation– Sector– Use– Collection method– The right to be forgotten– Free vs paid service10Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 11. What I found out• (Mixing with Big Data we get…) Big concerns?– Incremental effect (opposite to right to beforgotten)– Predictive Analysis (Target’s case)– Lack of access and exclusion– Organizations must exposes their DBs and/ordecision-making criterias?11Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 12. Open issues• Data portability• Exposure level• Monetizing12Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 13. The framework13Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013
  • 14. Requirements (SR)14Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013• Accountability• Data degradation• Virtual territory• Data disguise• Data sensitivity• Secure communication• Trust with no interaction• User interactionminimization• Access control• Anonymization• Informationtype/purpose• Interaction history• Multiple identity• Interests match• Adaptable controls• Policy enforcement• Data minimization• User feedback/control• Preferences specification
  • 15. Now what?• How to validate the proposal?15Smart Cities and Internet of Things Research Group | Recife, 2013