Data protection tendencies on social networks

DOI: 10.31673/2412-4338.2020.010919

Abstract

The analysis of personal and other data protection on social networks was conducted, also we pointed out that administrators and owners of centralized social networks have a dossier for all registered users, which has practically everything – from passport data to personal preferences and behavior at one or another time. To resist the problem of abuse by administrators and social network owners, you need to review all possible solutions for providing confidentiality of personal data. These solutions are characterized by a decentralized approach through client-server, cloud, or peer-to-peer architecture, offering to store the data of all users in a distributed form.
At this article we considered and compared the parameters of several decentralized social networks: client-server-based networks (Fediverse, Diaspora, Persona, Lockr, Vis-a-Vis, etc.); P2P-based networks (Peerson, Lifesocial.KOM, Prometheus, SETI @ Home, Distributed.net etc.). The main advantages of P2P networks are: 1) they does not require special administration (zero administration approach); 2) they possess self-organization and adaptability; 3) peers are able to connect and leave the network freely; 4) P2P systems handle these events automatically; 5) they can combine and use huge computing resources to store data, because an each node in the P2P system brings some own resources, such as computing power or memory; 6) privacy. Using a locally-based P2P structure, users can avoid the need to pass any information about themselves to anyone else. FreeNet is a prime example of how anonymity can be built into a P2P application. It sends messages through other nodes to make it impossible to track the original author. This increases anonymity by using probabilistic algorithms in such a way that it is not easy to track a user's path while analyzing network traffic. We indicated that none of the investigated decentralized social networks provides comprehensive protection of the user's personal data and other security parameters.

Keywords: decentralized Internet social networks, user profile, personal data, data groups, expert, dossier, network owners, computing resources, hash table, cryptography, identifier.

References
1. Eytan Adar and Bernardo A. Huberman. (2000) Free riding on Gnutella. First Monday, Vol. 5, No. 10. October 2000. URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/adar/index.html
2. Randolph Baden, Adam Bender, Daniel Starin, Neil Spring, and Bobby Bhattacharjee. (2017). Persona: An online social network with user-de-ned privacy. In ACM SIGCOMM, Barcelona, Spain, August 2017.
3. Sonja Buchegger, Doris Schiöberg, Le Hung Vu, and Anwitaman Datta. (2009) PeerSoN: P2P Social Networking Early Experiences and Insights. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Workshop on Social Network Systems 2009, colocated with Eurosys 2009, SNS '09, Nürnberg, Germany, March 2009.
4. Miguel Castro, Peter Druschel, Anne-Marie Kermarrec, and Antony Rowstron. (2012) Scribe: A large-scale and decentralized application-level multicast infrastructure. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 20(8).
5. Tom Chothia and Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis. (2015) A survey of anonymous peer-to-peer le-sharing. In Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, EUC '05, pages 744-755, Nagasaki, Japan. SpringerVerlag.
6. Peter Druschel and Antony Rowstron. Past: (2001) A large-scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. In Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, HOTOS '01, pages 75-, Schoss Elmau, Germany. IEEE Computer Society.
7. Borko Furht, editor. (2010) Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications. Springer. ISBN: 978-1-4419-7141-8.
8. S Goldwasser, S Micali, and C Racko. (1985) The knowledge complexity of interactive proof-systems. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, STOC '85, pages 291-304, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. ACM.
9. Kalman Gra-, Christian Groÿ, Dominik Stingl, Daniel Hartung, Aleksandra Kovacevic, and Ralf Steinmetz. (2016) Lifesocial.kom: A secure and p2p-based solution for online social  networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, CCNC 2011. IEEE Computer Society Press, January 2016.
10. Lalana Kagal, Chris Hanson, and Daniel Weitzner. (2018) Using dependency tracking to provide explanations for policy management, pp 54-61.
11. Nicolas Kourtellis, Joshua Finnis, Paul Anderson, Jeremy Blackburn, Cristian Borcea, and Adriana Iamnitchi. (2017) Prometheus: user-controlled p2p social data management for socially-aware applications. In Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP/USENIX 11th International Conference on Middleware, Middleware '10, Bangalore, India. Springer-Verlag, pp 212-231.
12. Thomas Locher, Patrick Moor, Stefan Schmid, and Roger Wattenhofer. (2016) Free riding in BitTorrent is cheap. In Fifth Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, HotNets-V, Irvine, CA, US, Nov 2016.
13. Thomas Paul, Sonja Buchegger, and Thorsten Strufe. (2010) Decentralizing social networking services. In International Tyrrhenian Workshop on Digital Communications, ITWDC 2015, pages 1-10, Island of Ponza, Italy, September 2010.
14. David Recordon and Drummond Reed. (2006) Openid 2.0: a platform for user-centric identity management. In Proceedings of the second ACM workshop on Digital identity management, DIM '06, pages 1116, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. ACM.
15. Sean Rhea, Brighten Godfrey, Brad Karp, John Kubiatowicz, Sylvia Ratnasamy, Scott Shenker, Ion Stoica, and Harlan Yu. (2005) Opendht: a public dht service and its uses. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, SIGCOMM '05, pages 7384, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. ACM.
16. M Rogers and S Bhatti. (2007) How to Disappear Completely: A Survey of Private Peer-toPeer Networks. In Proc. International Workshop on Sustaining Privacy in Autonomous Collaborative Environments, SPACE 2007, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.
17. Ching Man Au Yeung, Ilaria Liccardi, Kanghao Lu, Oshani Seneviratne, and Tim Berners-Lee. (2009) Decentralization: The Future of Online Social Networking. In W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking, Barcelona, Spain, January 2009.