research-article

Automated privacy negotiations with preference uncertainty

Authors:

Dorota Filipczuk,

Enrico H. Gerding,

m. c. schraefelAuthors Info & Claims

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Volume 36, Issue 2

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-022-09579-1

Published: 01 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Many service providers require permissions to access privacy-sensitive data that are not necessary for their core functionality. To support users’ privacy management, we propose a novel agent-based negotiation framework to negotiate privacy permissions between users and service providers using a new multi-issue alternating-offer protocol based on exchanges of partial and complete offers. Additionally, we introduce a novel approach to learning users’ preferences in negotiation and present two variants of this approach: one variant personalised to each individual user, and one personalised depending on the user’s privacy type. To evaluate them, we perform a user study with participants, using an experimental tool installed on the participants’ mobile devices. We compare the take-it-or-leave-it approach, in which users are required to accept all permissions requested by a service, to negotiation, which respects their preferences. Our results show that users share personal data 2.5 times more often when they are able to negotiate while maintaining the same level of decision regret. Moreover, negotiation can be less mentally demanding than the take-it-or-leave-it approach and it allows users to align their privacy choices with their preferences. Finally, our findings provide insight into users’ data sharing strategies to guide the future of automated and negotiable privacy management mechanisms.

References

[1]

Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005). Uncertainty, ambiguity and privacy. In Fourth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS), pp. 2–3.

[2]

Amadeo, R. (2013). App ops: Android 4.3’s hidden app permission manager, control permissions for individual apps! http://www.androidpolice.com

[3]

Aydoğan, R., Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Mell, J., Gratch, J., Jonge, D.d., Mohammad, Y., Nakadai, S., Morinaga, S., & Osawa, H., et al. (2020). Challenges and main results of the automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC) 2019. In Multi-agent systems and agreement technologies, pp. 366–381. Springer

[4]

Aydoğan, R., Festen, D., Hindriks, K.V., & Jonker, C.M. (2017). Alternating offers protocols for multilateral negotiation. In Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation, pp. 153–167. Springer.

[5]

Baarslag, T. (2016). Exploring the strategy space of negotiating agents: A framework for bidding, learning and accepting in automated negotiation. Springer.

[6]

Baarslag, T., Alan, A.T., Gomer, R., Alam, M., Perera, C., & Gerding, E.H., et al. (2017). An automated negotiation agent for permission management. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 380–390. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

[7]

Baarslag, T., & Gerding, E.H. (2015). Optimal incremental preference elicitation during negotiation. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3–9.

[8]

Baarslag, T., Gerding, E.H., Aydoğan, R., & schraefel, m.c. (2015). Optimal negotiation decision functions in time-sensitive domains. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), vol. 2, pp. 190–197. IEEE.

[9]

Baarslag, T., Hendrikx, M. J., Hindriks, K. V., & Jonker, C. M. (2012). Measuring the performance of online opponent models in automated bilateral negotiation. Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceIn M. Thielscher & D. Zhang (Eds.), AI 2012: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 7691, pp. 1–14). Springer.

[10]

Baarslag T, Hendrikx MJ, Hindriks KV, and Jonker CM Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation: A comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2016 30 5 849-898

[11]

Barth S and de Jong MD The privacy paradox–investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior–a systematic literature review Telematics and Informatics 2017 34 7 1038-1058

[12]

Bender S Privacy in the cloud frontier: Abandoning the take it or leave it approach Drexel Law Review 2011 4 487

[13]

Benisch M, Kelley PG, Sadeh N, and Cranor LF Capturing location-privacy preferences: Quantifying accuracy and user-burden tradeoffs Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2011 15 7 679-694

[14]

Bennicke, M., & Langendörfer, P. (2003). Towards automatic negotiation of privacy contracts for internet services. In The 11th IEEE International Conference on Networks, pp. 319–324. IEEE.

[15]

Beresford, A.R., Rice, A., Skehin, N., & Sohan, R. (2011). MockDroid: trading privacy for application functionality on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pp. 49–54. ACM.

[16]

Bokhurst, M. (2015). Xprivacy. https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy.

[17]

Bonné, B., Peddinti, S.T., Bilogrevic, I., & Taft, N. (2017). Exploring decision making with android’s runtime permission dialogs using in-context surveys. In Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. USENIX Association.

[18]

Boutilier, C. (2002). A POMDP formulation of preference elicitation problems. In Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 239–246. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA, USA. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=777092.777132.

[19]

Boutilier C, Brafman RI, Domshlak C, Hoos HH, and Poole D Cp-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning withconditional ceteris paribus preference statements Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 2004 21 135-191

[20]

Campbell AJ Relationship marketing in consumer markets: A comparison of managerial and consumer attitudes about information privacy Journal of Direct Marketing 1997 11 3 44-57

[21]

Cate, F.H. (2006). The failure of fair information practice principles. In J.K. Winn (ed.) Consumer Protection in the Age of the Information Economy, chap. 13, pp. 343–379. Ashgate.

[22]

Cate FH The limits of notice and choice IEEE Security & Privacy 2010 8 2 59-62

[23]

Chajewska, U., Getoor, L., Norman, J., & Shahar, Y. (1998). Utility elicitation as a classification problem. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI’98, pp. 79–88. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2074094.2074104

[24]

Chajewska, U., Koller, D., & Parr, R. (2000). Making rational decisions using adaptive utility elicitation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 363–369.

[25]

Chen, S., Ammar, H.B., Tuyls, K., & Weiss, G. (2013). Optimizing complex automated negotiation using sparse pseudo-input gaussian processes. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS ’13, pp. 707–714. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC.

[26]

Cheng, V.S., Hung, P.C., & Chiu, D.K. (2007). Enabling web services policy negotiation with privacy preserved using XACML. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 33–33. IEEE.

[27]

Choi H, Park J, and Jung Y The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior Computers in Human Behavior 2018 81 42-51

[28]

Conen, W., & Sandholm, T. (2001). Minimal preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Workshop on Economic Agents, Models, and Mechanisms, pp. 71–80.

[29]

Cranor, L.F. (2002). Web privacy with P3P. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

[30]

Cranshaw, J., Mugan, J., & Sadeh, N. (2011). User-controllable learning of location privacy policies with gaussian mixture models. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,25(1).

[31]

Do, Q., Martini, B., & Choo, K.K. (2014). Enhancing user privacy on android mobile devices via permissions removal. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 5070–5079.

[32]

European Parliament and the Council: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union pp. 1–88 (2016).

[33]

European Parliament and the Council: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts. Official Journal of the European Union pp. 1–107 (2021).

[34]

Fatima, S., Kraus, S., & Wooldridge, M. (2014). Principles of automated negotiation. Cambridge University Press.

[35]

Fatima S and Wooldridge M The negotiation game Intelligent Systems 2014 29 57-61

[36]

Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N.R. (2003). Optimal Agendas for Multi-Issue Negotiation. In Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 129–136. ACM.

[37]

Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M.J., & Jennings, N.R. (2002). Multi-issue negotiation under time constraints. In AAMAS ’02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 143–150. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

[38]

Greco S, Kadziński M, Mousseau V, and Słowiński R Robust ordinal regression for multiple criteria group decision: Utagms-group and utadisgms-group Decision Support Systems 2012 52 3 549-561

[39]

Hao, J., & Leung, H. (2014). CUHK agent: an adaptive negotiation strategy for bilateral negotiations over multiple items. Studies in Computational IntelligenceNovel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation (Vol. 535, pp. 171–179). Japan: Springer.

[40]

Harris, L., Westin, A.F.: E-commerce and privacy: What net users want. Privacy and American Business, (1998).

[41]

Hart, S.G., & Staveland, L.E. (1988). Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Advances in psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183. Elsevier.

[42]

Hornyack, P., Han, S., Jung, J., Schechter, S., & Wetherall, D. (2011). These aren’t the droids you’re looking for: Retrofitting android to protect data from imperious applications. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 639–652. ACM.

[43]

Hutton, L., & Henderson, T. (2015). “I didn’t sign up for this!”: Informed consent in social network research. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.

[44]

Ilany, L., & Gal, Y. K. (2014). The simple-meta agent. Studies in Computational IntelligenceNovel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation (Vol. 535, pp. 197–200). Japan: Springer.

[45]

Jacquet-Lagreze E and Siskos J Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the uta method European Journal of Operational Research 1982 10 2 151-164

[46]

Jang, I., & Yoo, H.S. (2009). Personal information classification for privacy negotiation. In 2009 Fourth International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology, pp. 1117–1122. IEEE.

[47]

Jang, I.J., Shi, W., & Yoo, H.S. (2008). Policy negotiation system architecture for privacy protection. In 2008 Fourth International Conference on Networked Computing and Advanced Information Management, vol. 2, pp. 592–597. IEEE.

[48]

Jennings NR, Faratin P, Lomuscio AR, Parsons S, Wooldridge MJ, and Sierra C Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges Group Decision and Negotiation 2001 10 2 199-215

[49]

Jeon, J., Micinski, K.K., Vaughan, J.A., Fogel, A., Reddy, N., Foster, J.S., & Millstein, T. (2012). Dr. Android and Mr. Hide: Fine-grained permissions in android applications. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Workshop on Security and Privacy in Smartphones and Mobile Devices, SPSM ’12, pp. 3–14. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

[50]

Jonker, C., Aydogan, R., Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Ito, T., & Hindriks, K. (2017). Automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC). In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 31.

[51]

Kalyani, Y., & Adams, C. (2006). Privacy negotiation using a mobile agent. In Electrical and Computer Engineering, 2006. CCECE’06. Canadian Conference on,

[52]

Karunatillake, N.C. (2006). Argumentation–based negotiation in a social context. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton.

[53]

Kawaguchi, S., Fujita, K., & Ito, T. (2012). Compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotiating agents. Series of Studies in Computational IntelligenceNew Trends in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (pp. 137–144). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

[54]

Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge University Press.

[55]

Kekulluoglu D, Kokciyan N, and Yolum P Preserving privacy as social responsibility in online social networks ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 2018 18 4 1-22

[56]

Kelley, P.G., Hankes Drielsma, P., Sadeh, N., & Cranor, L.F. (2008). User-controllable learning of security and privacy policies. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Workshop on AISec, pp. 11–18. ACM.

[57]

Klein M and Lu SCY Conflict resolution in cooperative design Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 1989 4 4 168-180

[58]

Knijnenburg, B.P., Reijmer, N.J., & Willemsen, M.C. (2011). Each to his own: how different users call for different interaction methods in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems, pp. 141–148. ACM.

[59]

Kökciyan N, Yaglikci N, and Yolum P An argumentation approach for resolving privacy disputes in online social networks ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 2017 17 3 1-22

[60]

Kökciyan N and Yolum P Priguard: A semantic approach to detect privacy violations in online social networks IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 2016 28 10 2724-2737

[61]

Kraus, S. (2001). Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments. MIT press.

[62]

Krol K and Preibusch S Effortless privacy negotiations IEEE Security & Privacy 2015 13 3 88-91

[63]

Krol, K., & Preibusch, S. (2016). Control versus effort in privacy warnings for webforms. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, pp. 13–23. ACM.

[64]

Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L.F.: Privacy indexes: a survey of Westin’s studies. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research International (2005).

[65]

Larson, K., & Sandholm, T. (2001). Costly valuation computation in auctions. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, TARK ’01, pp. 169–182. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1028128.1028148.

[66]

Liccardi I, Pato J, and Weitzner DJ Improving user choice through better mobile apps transparency and permissions analysis Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 2014 5 2 1

[67]

Lin, J., Amini, S., Hong, J.I., Sadeh, N., Lindqvist, J., & Zhang, J. (2012). Expectation and purpose: understanding users’ mental models of mobile app privacy through crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 501–510. ACM.

[68]

Lin, J., Liu, B., Sadeh, N., & Hong, J.I. (2014). Modeling users’ mobile app privacy preferences: Restoring usability in a sea of permission settings. In Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 199–212.

[69]

Linden T, Khandelwal R, Harkous H, and Fawaz K The privacy policy landscape after the GDPR Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2020 2020 1 47-64

[70]

Liu, B., Lin, J., & Sadeh, N. (2014). Reconciling mobile app privacy and usability on smartphones: Could user privacy profiles help? In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web, pp. 201–212. ACM.

[71]

Maaser, M., & Langendoerfer, P. (2005). Automated negotiation of privacy contracts. In Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2005. COMPSAC 2005. 29th Annual International, vol. 1, pp. 505–510. IEEE.

[72]

Maaser, M., Ortmann, S., & Langendörfer, P. (2006). NEPP: Negotiation enhancements for privacy policies. In W3C Workshop on Languages for Privacy Policy Negotiation and Semantics-Driven Enforcement.

[73]

Mariel, P., Hoyos, D., Meyerhoff, J., Czajkowski, M., Dekker, T., Glenk, K., Jacobsen, J.B., Liebe, U., Olsen, S.B., & Sagebiel, J., et al. (2021). Environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments: Guidance on design, implementation and data analysis. Springer Nature.

[74]

Matte, C., Bielova, N., & Santos, C. (2020). Do cookie banners respect my choice?: Measuring legal compliance of banners from iab europe’s transparency and consent framework. In Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 791–809. IEEE.

[75]

d. Melo, L.L., & Zorzo, S.D. (2012) PUPDroid - personalized user privacy mechanism for Android. In International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 1479–1484. IEEE, Seoul, South Korea.

[76]

Mester, Y., Kökciyan, N., & Yolum, P. (2015). Negotiating privacy constraints in online social networks. In Advances in Social Computing and Multiagent Systems, pp. 112–129. Springer.

[77]

Milne GR, Pettinico G, Hajjat FM, and Markos E Information sensitivity typology: Mapping the degree and type of risk consumers perceive in personal data sharing Journal of Consumer Affairs 2017 51 1 133-161

[78]

Mohammad, Y., & Nakadai, S. (2018). Fastvoi: Efficient utility elicitation during negotiations. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 560–567. Springer.

[79]

Mugan J, Sharma T, and Sadeh N Understandable learning of privacy preferences through default personas and suggestions. Institute for Software Research Technical Report CMU-ISR-11-112 2011 Pittsburgh, PA Carnegie Mellon University

[80]

Nauman, M., Khan, S., & Zhang, X. (2010). Apex: extending android permission model and enforcement with user-defined runtime constraints. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, pp. 328–332. ACM.

[81]

Nissen, B., Neumann, V., Mikusz, M., Gianni, R., Clinch, S., Speed, C., & Davies, N. (2019). Should i agree? delegating consent decisions beyond the individual. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–13.

[82]

Nissenbaum, H.: Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press, (2009).

[83]

Nissenbaum H A contextual approach to privacy online Daedalus 2011 140 4 32-48

[84]

O’Hara, K. (2019). Data Trusts: Ethics, Architecture and Governance for Trustworthy Data Stewardship (WSI White Papers, 1) Southampton. University of Southampton.

[85]

Ongtang, M., McLaughlin, S., Enck, W., & McDaniel, P. (2009). Semantically rich application-centric security in android. In AnnualComputer Security Applications Conference, 2009, pp. 340–349. IEEE, Honolulu, HI, US.

[86]

Osborne, M.J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory, 1st edn. The MIT Press.

[87]

Parkes DC Auction design with costly preference elicitation Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 2005 44 3 269-302

[88]

Perera, C. (2017). Sensing as a service for internet of things: A roadmap. Lulu.com.

[89]

Perera C, Ranjan R, and Wang L End-to-end privacy for open big data markets IEEE Cloud Computing 2015 2 4 44-53

[90]

Polykalas, S.E. (2017). Assessing general data protection regulation for personal data privacy: is the end of “take it or leave it” approach for downloading apps? In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Social Media Technologies, Communication, and Informatics.

[91]

Popescu E On the approximation of inconsistent inequality systems Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii Ovidius 2003 11 2 109-118

[92]

Preibusch, S. (2006). Implementing privacy negotiations in e-commerce. In Asia-Pacific Web Conference, pp. 604–615. Springer.

[93]

Preibusch, S., Krol, K., & Beresford, A.R. (2013). The privacy economics of voluntary over-disclosure in web forms. In The Economics of Information Security and Privacy, pp. 183–209. Springer.

[94]

Ravichandran, R., Benisch, M., Kelley, P.G., & Sadeh, N.M. (2009). Capturing social networking privacy preferences. In Goldberg I., Atallah M.J. (eds) Privacy Enhancing Technologies. PETS 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5672, pp. 1–18. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[95]

Robinson, W.N. (1990). Negotiation behavior during requirement specification. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 268–276. IEEE.

[96]

Rosenschein, J.S. (1986). Rational interaction: cooperation among intelligent agents. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

[97]

Rosenschein, J.S., & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. MIT Press.

[98]

Roszkowska E et al. The application of uta method for support evaluation negotiation offers Optimum Economic Studies 2016 80 2 144-162

[99]

Rubinstein A Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model Econometrica 1982 50 1 97-109

[100]

Sadeh N, Hong J, Cranor L, Fette I, Kelley P, Prabaker M, and Rao J Understanding and capturing people’s privacy policies in a mobile social networking application Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2009 13 6 401-412

[101]

Salmanian, F., Jazayeriy, H., & Kazemitabar, J. (2021). User preferences elicitation in bilateral automated negotiation using recursive least square estimation. In 2021 12th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Technology (IKT), pp. 1–5. IEEE.

[102]

Sanchez-Rola, I., Dell’Amico, M., Kotzias, P., Balzarotti, D., Bilge, L., Vervier, P.A., & Santos, I. (2019). Can I opt out yet? GDPR and the global illusion of cookie control. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 340–351.

[103]

Schermer BW, Custers B, and van der Hof S The crisis of consent: How stronger legal protection may lead to weaker consent in data protection Ethics and Information Technology 2014 16 2 171-182

[104]

Schwab, K., Marcus, A., Oyola, J., Hoffman, W., & Luzi, M. (2011). Personal data: The emergence of a new asset class. In An Initiative of the World Economic Forum.

[105]

Smith RG The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver IEEE Transactions on Computers 1980 29 12 1104-1113

[106]

Squicciarini AC, Bertino E, Ferrari E, and Ray I Achieving privacy in trust negotiations with an ontology-based approach IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 2006 3 1 13-30

[107]

Such JM and Criado N Resolving multi-party privacy conflicts in social media IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 2016 28 7 1851-1863

[108]

Such JM, Espinosa A, and García-Fornes A A survey of privacy in multi-agent systems The Knowledge Engineering Review 2014 29 03 314-344

[109]

Such JM and Rovatsos M Privacy policy negotiation in social media ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 2016 11 1 4

[110]

Susser D Notice after notice-and-consent: Why privacy disclosures are valuable even if consent frameworks aren’t Journal of Information Policy 2019 9 148-173

[111]

Sycara, K. (1988). Resolving goal conflicts via negotiation. In Proceedings of the Seventh AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 88, pp. 245–250.

[112]

Sycara-Cyranski, K. (1985). Arguments of persuasion in labour mediation. In Proceedings of the 9th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pp. 294–296. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.

[113]

Taddicken M The ‘privacy paradox’in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self-disclosure Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2014 19 2 248-273

[114]

Train, K.E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press.

[115]

Tsai JY, Egelman S, Cranor L, and Acquisti A The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: An experimental study Information Systems Research 2011 22 2 254-268

[116]

Tsimpoukis, D., Baarslag, T., Kaisers, M., & Paterakis, N.G. (2018). Automated negotiations under user preference uncertainty: A linear programming approach. In International Conference on Agreement Technologies, pp. 115–129. Springer.

[117]

Ulusoy O and Yolum P Panola: A personal assistant for supporting users in preserving privacy ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 2021 22 1 1-32

[118]

Van Nguyen D Global maximization of uta functions in multi-objective optimization European Journal of Operational Research 2013 228 2 397-404

[119]

Vollmer, R. (2015). Xposed framework. http://repo.xposed.info/.

[120]

Weitzman ML Optimal search for the best alternative Econometrica 1979 47 3 641-654

[121]

Wilkinson, D., Namara, M., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Wisniewski, P.J., Knijnenburg, B.P., Page, X., & Toch, E., Romano-Bergstrom, J. (2018). Moving beyond a“ one-size fits all” exploring individual differences in privacy. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–8. ACM.

[122]

Williams, C. R., Robu, V., Gerding, E. H., & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Iamhaggler: A negotiation agent for complex environments. Studies in Computational IntelligenceNew Trends in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (pp. 151–158). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

[123]

Wilson, S., Cranshaw, J., Sadeh, N., Acquisti, A., Cranor, L.F., Springfield, J., Jeong, S.Y., & Balasubramanian, A. (2013). Privacy manipulation and acclimation in a location sharing application. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 549–558. ACM.

[124]

Woodruff, A., Pihur, V., Consolvo, S., Brandimarte, L., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Would a Privacy Fundamentalist Sell Their DNA for $1000... If Nothing Bad Happened as a Result? The Westin Categories, Behavioral Intentions, and Consequences. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 1–18.

[125]

Yassine, A., & Shirmohammadi, S. (2009). An intelligent agent-based framework for privacy payoff negotiation in virtual environments. In Computational Intelligence in Virtual Environments, 2009. CIVE’09. IEEE Workshop on, pp. 20–25. IEEE.

[126]

Yassine, A., & Shirmohammadi, S. (2009). Measuring users’ privacy payoff using intelligent agents. In Computational Intelligence for Measurement Systems and Applications, 2009. CIMSA’09. IEEE International Conference on, pp. 169–174. IEEE.

Cited By

Zhou HGoel MAgarwal Y(2024)Bring Privacy To The Table: Interactive Negotiation for Privacy Settings of Shared Sensing DevicesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642897(1-22)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642897
Shafipour EStein SAhipasaoglu S(2024)Personalised electric vehicle charging stop planning through online estimatorsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-024-09671-838:2Online publication date: 1-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-024-09671-8
Stein SYazdanpanah VAgmon NAn BRicci AYeoh W(2023)Citizen-Centric Multiagent SystemsProceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3545946.3598843(1802-1807)Online publication date: 30-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3545946.3598843

Index Terms

Automated privacy negotiations with preference uncertainty
1. Social and professional topics

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Bayesian-based preference prediction in bilateral multi-issue negotiation between intelligent agents

Agent negotiation is a form of decision making where two or more agents jointly search for a mutually agreed solution to a certain problem. In multi-issue negotiation, with information available about the agents' preferences, a negotiation may result in ...
Automated Negotiating Agent with Strategy Adaptation for Multi-times Negotiations
SOCA '13: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 6th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications

International Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC) was held in conjunction with International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS). This competition brings together researchers from the negotiation community ...
Automated formal analysis of human multi-issue negotiation processes

This paper reports on experiments in (human) multi-issue negotiation and their analysis, and presents a generic software environment supporting such an analysis. First, the paper presents a System for Analysis of Multi-Issue Negotiation (SAMIN). SAMIN ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Volume 36, Issue 2

Oct 2022

919 pages

ISSN:1387-2532

Issue’s Table of Contents

© The Author(s) 2022.

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2022

Accepted: 27 July 2022

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 25 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Zhou HGoel MAgarwal Y(2024)Bring Privacy To The Table: Interactive Negotiation for Privacy Settings of Shared Sensing DevicesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642897(1-22)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642897
Shafipour EStein SAhipasaoglu S(2024)Personalised electric vehicle charging stop planning through online estimatorsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-024-09671-838:2Online publication date: 1-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-024-09671-8
Stein SYazdanpanah VAgmon NAn BRicci AYeoh W(2023)Citizen-Centric Multiagent SystemsProceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3545946.3598843(1802-1807)Online publication date: 30-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3545946.3598843

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents