Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
This paper is concerned with unintentional information leakage (UIL) through social networks, and in particular, Facebook Organizations often use forms of self censorship in order to maintain security. Non-identification of individuals, products, or places is seen as a sufficient means of information protection. A prime example is the replacement of a name with a supposedly non-identifying initial. This has traditionally been effective in obfuscating the identity of military personnel, protected witnesses, minors, victims or suspects who need to be granted a level of protection through anonymity. We challenge the effectiveness of this form of censorship in light of current uses and ongoing developments in Social Networks showing that name-obfits cation mandated by court or military order can be systematically compromised through the unintentional actions of public social network commenters. We propose a qualitative method for recognition and characterization of UIL followed by a quantitative study that automatically detects UIL comments. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2014 | 10.1109/IRI.2014.7051874 | Information Reuse and Integration |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
data mining,data protection,military computing,social networking (online),Facebook,UIL characterization,UIL recognition,anonymity,automatic UIL comments detection,information protection,military personnel,minors protection,self-censorship,social media news comments,social networks,unintentional information leakage,victims,witnesses protection,Unintentional information leakage,censorship,comments,online news,privacy,social media,social networks,text mining | Military personnel,Data mining,Internet privacy,Social media,Social network,Information leakage,Computer science,Computer security,Censorship,Self-censorship,Information protection policy,Anonymity | Conference |
Citations | PageRank | References |
2 | 0.42 | 6 |
Authors | ||
3 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inbal Yahav | 1 | 2 | 1.09 |
| David G. Schwartz | 2 | 98 | 18.13 |
| Gahl Silverman | 3 | 2 | 0.75 |