A new approach for sharing location info


Published on

Presentation from ruSmart-2012

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A new approach for sharing location info

  1. 1. Where Are They Now – safe location sharing.A new model for location sharing services Dmitry Namiot Lomonosov Moscow State University Manfred Sneps-Sneppe Ventspils University College ruSMART 2012
  2. 2. What are we talking about?• “Where are you” is one of the most often askedquestion during the communications. 600 billion textmessages per year in the US• Sharing location info is one of the popular functionsfor LBS applications• Mostly – via sharing location info through socialnetworks. Could be either direct settings or “check-ins”• One of the biggest concerns for all location-basedservices is user’s privacy. The biggest problem forLBS adoption. Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  3. 3. Existing solutions• Access restriction: only part of the social graphcan see location• Location obfuscation. It could be social graphdependent too.• K-anonymity• The central store knows all. It is trusted source inthe existing models.• Can we share location info without the centralserver? Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  4. 4. Geo Messages • Lets you add signature with location info to messages (email, SMS) • It is peer to peer sharing • Difficulty to operate if you have many peersDmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  5. 5. WATN Where Are They Now• Key moment for privacy related problems: central store with IDs and location info• WATN – share location information without the entity that knows all• Developed and implemented as mobile web application (HTML5)• HTML5 is significant here Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  6. 6. WATN• Distributed database: identification and locationshould be separated• Social graph and anonymous location infoshould be saved server-side• Identification info should be saved locally• Each participant should have own copy ofidentification database• There is no global ID for the participant Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  7. 7. WATN• Run: a) get unique ID or read it from local storage b) perform check-in (save location info)• Share:a) send a link with own ID. It is an ordinary message (outside of this application)b) two IDs for ‘share location’ link Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  8. 8. WATNDmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  9. 9. WATN• Server keeps two things. a) location info with meaningless IDs. Just a set of current coordinates for users (presented via own IDs) ID1 -> (latitude, longitude) ID2 -> (latitude, longitude) ID3 -> (latitude, longitude) etc. b) social graph – who is sharing location to whom: ID1-> (ID2, ID3) ID3 -> (ID1) etc. Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  10. 10. WATNDmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  11. 11. WATN• Client side: keeps legend ID1 -> (name or nick) ID2 -> (name or nick)• Data flow: a) request social graph by ID b) obtain data from server (JSON) c) map data against locally saved legend and replace IDs with nick names Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  12. 12. WATNDmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com
  13. 13. Conclusion• A new approach for sharing location information• There is no central server with IDs for allparticipants• Separated location info and identity• Shortly: peer to peer location sharing system withdistributed database for location info and identity Dmitry Namiot http://servletsuite.blogspot.com