Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Relational Database Systems

1983, Springer eBooks

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-68847-8

Abstract

In this paper, we present a comprehensive approach for privacy preserving access control based on the notion of purpose. Purpose information associated with a given data element specifies the intended use of the data element, and our model allows multiple purposes to be associated with each data element. A key feature of our model is that it also supports explicit prohibitions, thus allowing privacy officers to specify that some data should not be used for certain purposes. Another important issue addressed in this paper is the granularity of data labeling, that is, the units of data with which purposes can be associated. We address this issue in the context of relational databases and propose four different labeling schemes, each providing a different granularity. In the paper we also propose an approach to representing purpose information, which results in very low storage overhead, and we exploit query modification techniques to support data access control based on purpose information.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

How do hierarchical structures influence access control models for privacy management?add

The study highlights that incorporating a hierarchical structure for purposes simplifies management, allowing dynamic adjustments based on user needs. For example, purposes organized in a tree can provide generalization, ensuring broader compliance across contexts.

What are the implications of purpose-based access control for data privacy practices?add

The findings demonstrate that purpose-based access control directly aligns data access with user consent, thus enhancing compliance with privacy regulations like COPPA. For instance, explicit prohibitions can be used to enforce restrictions on sensitive data access, defining clearer usage boundaries.

How does the granularity of data labeling affect privacy compliance and performance?add

The research outlines four labeling schemes with varying granularities, which impact compliance checks and query performance. Notably, element-based labeling introduces significant overhead increases as the number of attributes accessed simultaneously grows, highlighting trade-offs between privacy enforcement and system efficiency.

What methodologies were used to evaluate performance impacts of privacy-preserving access controls?add

The paper details experiments performed on a 2.66 GHz Intel machine using Oracle Database, measuring response times across different labeling schemes. Results indicated that greater labeling granularity correlates with increased response time for compliance checks, particularly in large datasets.

What future developments are suggested for enhancing privacy management systems?add

Future work aims to introduce high-level languages for managing intended purposes, addressing compatibility with existing standards like P3P. The authors also intend to explore event-based privacy management utilizing trigger mechanisms to refine data control practices.

References (24)

  1. REFERENCES
  2. R. Agrawal, J. Kiernan, R. Srikant, and Y. Xu. Hippocratic databases. In The 28th International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), 2002.
  3. P. Ashley, C. S. Powers, and M. Schunter. Privacy promises, access control, and privacy management. In Third International Symposium on Electronic Commerce, 2002.
  4. D. E. Bell and L. J. LaPadula. Secure computer systems: mathematical foundations and model. Technical report, MITRE Corporation, 1974.
  5. E. Bertino, S. Jajodia, and P. Samarati. Database security: Research and practice. In Information Systems, 1996.
  6. D. Bitton, D. J. DeWitt, and C. Turbyfill. Benchmarking database systems: a systematic approach. In Ninth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Nov. 1983.
  7. F. T. Commision. Children's online privacy protection act of 1998. Available at www.cdt.org/legislation/105th/privacy/coppa.html.
  8. F. T. Commission. Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace: A report to congress. Technical report, May 2000. Available at www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy2000/privacy2000.pdf.
  9. D. Denning, T. Lunt, R. Schell, W. Shockley, and M. Heckman. The seaview security model. In The IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, 1998.
  10. IBM. The Enterprise Privacy Authorization Language (EPAL). Available at www.zurich.ibm.com/security/enterprise-privacy/epal.
  11. G. Karjoth, M. Schunter, and M. Waidner. Platform for enterprise privacy practice: Privacy-enabled management of customer data. In The 2nd Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET 2002), Apr. 2002.
  12. A. Kobsa. Personalized hypermedia and international privacy. Communications of the ACM, 2000.
  13. K. LeFevre, R. Agrawal, V. Ercegovac, R. Ramakrishnan, Y. Xu, and D. DeWitt. Disclosure in hippocratic databases. In The 30th International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), Aug. 2004.
  14. Oracle. The Oracle Database SQL References, Dec. 2003. Availabe at www.oracle.com.
  15. R. Sandhu and F. Chen. The multilevel relational data model. In ACM Transaction on Information and System Security, 1998.
  16. R. Sandhu and S. Jajodia. Toward a multilevel secure relational data model. In ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), 1991.
  17. M. Stonebraker and E. Wong. Access control in a relational data base management system by query modification. In ACM CSC-ER Proceedings of the 1974 Annual Conference, Jan. 1974.
  18. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). A P3P Preference Exchange Language 1.0 (APPEL 1.0). Available at www.w3.org/TR/P3P-preferences.
  19. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P). Available at www.w3.org/P3P.
  20. A.3 Purpose Management Language(PML)
  21. Purpose Creation) The root of the purpose tree (e.g., General-Purpose) is initially created by the sys- tem. Create Purpose purpose-name Parent purpose-name
  22. Purpose Deletion) If the purpose is not a leaf, the descendants of the purpose will be deleted as well. Delete Purpose purpose-name
  23. Intended Purpose View ) If the table is element- or tuple-based labeling, both column-name and value must be provided. For attribute-based labeling, only column-name is required. For relation-based labeling, none is required. View Purpose table-name [column-name] [= value]
  24. Intended Purpose Update) If the table is element- or tuple based labeling, both column-name1 and Where clause must be provided. For attribute-based labeling, only column-name1 is required. For relation-based la- beling, none is required. Update table-names Set Purpose [column-name1 =] new-Purpose [Where column-name2 = some-value]