SLIDE 1
- What is the utility of a social concept for self-
- rganizing systems ?
- What is required for its implementation ?
- How can/should it be adapted to specific
A few experiences on the use of trust for social control Laurent - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A few experiences on the use of trust for social control Laurent - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A few experiences on the use of trust for social control Laurent Vercouter Laurent.vercouter@insa-rouen.fr W h a t i s t h e u t i l i t y o f a s o c i a l c o n c e p t f o r s e l f - organizing systems ? What is required for its
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
1st case : Social control for P2P
- Observation = messages
- Expectations = norms +
violation detection
- Evaluation = Trust calculation,
gossiping, ...
- Sanction = re-wiring,
- stracism
Observation Observation Expectation Expectation Sanction Sanction Evaluation Evaluation
* Vercouter & Muller, « L.I.A.R.: achieving social control in open and decentralized multiagent systems »,
Applied Artificial Intelligence, 24 :723--768, September 2010
SLIDE 4
2nd case : Privacy preservation in a social network
Observation Observation Expectation Expectation Sanction Sanction Evaluation Evaluation
- Users are connected in a social network and
exchange information, that may be private or sensitive
- Privacy preservation is an issue
- Users should be assisted to protect their own
privacy and to prevent them from violating
- thers' privacy
SLIDE 5
2nd case : Privacy preservation
« We have a right to privacy, but that is neither a right to control personal information nor a right to have access to this information restricted. Instead, it is a right to live in a world in which
- ur expectations about the flow of
personal information are, for the most part, met; (...) This is the right I have called contextual integrity, achieved through the harmonious balance of social rules, or norms, with both local
- r general values, ends and
- purposes. » (H. Nissembaum)
SLIDE 6
Contextual integrity for social networks
Mapping for Privacy Enforcement Agents (PEA)
1) Transmission context matches the
nature of information
2) Recipient is part of the
transmission context
3) Agents do not have incompatible
relationships with the target
4) Privacy policies defined by the
information subjects are satisfied
Organisational model Social relation model Trust model
SLIDE 7
Contextual integrity for social networks
Obstacle, problems, opportunities...
- Expectation :
- Organisational/social models are only approximations
- Privacy violations can be detected but should be
confirmed
- User involvement is essential to deal with
subjectivity
- Many conflicts appear
- Sanction
- Users have to keep the control
- No automatic re-wiring
- PEA assists users to prevent privacy violations
- Explanations are essential
- Trust = privacy preserving behavior of an entity
Observation Observation Expectation Expectation
?
Sanction Sanction Evaluation Evaluation
?
* Krupa and Vercouter. « Handling privacy as contextual integrity in decentralized virtual communities :
the PrivaCIAS framework ». Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, 10(1) :105--116, 2012
SLIDE 8
3rd case : Social control for sensor networks
MANETs :
- Nodes with 2 roles : sensing
and routing
- Resource limitations (energy,
memory, communication)
Observation Observation Expectation Expectation
?
Sanction Sanction Evaluation Evaluation
?
Obstacle, problems, opportunities...
- Observation :
- Overhearing is an opportunity
- No identity management !
- Shift to consider trust in neighborhood
- Evaluation
- Trust calculation
- Almost binary (full trust or distrust)
- Distrust → backup mode (sensing only) →
contribute to a quarantine
- Nodes mobility
- A justification to integrate forgiveness
* Vercouter and Jamont. « Lightweight trusted routing for wireless sensor networks », Progress in AI, 1(2) :193--202, 2012
SLIDE 9