Artificial Intelligence - What Is Computational Creativity?

 

Computational Creativity is a term used to describe a kind of creativity that is based on Computer-generated art is connected to computational creativity, although it is not reducible to it.

According to Margaret Boden, "CG-art" is an artwork that "results from some computer program being allowed to operate on its own, with zero input from the human artist" (Boden 2010, 141).

This definition is both severe and limiting, since it is confined to the creation of "art works" as defined by human observers.

Computational creativity, on the other hand, is a broader phrase that encompasses a broader range of actions, equipment, and outputs.

"Computational creativity is an area of Artificial Intelligence (AI) study... where we construct and engage with computational systems that produce products and ideas," said Simon Colton and Geraint A. Wiggins.

Those "artefacts and ideas" might be works of art, as well as other things, discoveries, and/or performances (Colton and Wiggins 2012, 21).

Games, narrative, music composition and performance, and visual arts are examples of computational creativity applications and implementations.

Games and other cognitive skill competitions are often used to evaluate and assess machine skills.

The fundamental criterion of machine intelligence, in fact, was established via a game, which Alan Turing dubbed "The Game of Imitation" (1950).

Since then, AI progress and accomplishment have been monitored and evaluated via games and other human-machine contests.

Chess has had a special status and privileged position among all the games in which computers have been involved, to the point where critics such as Douglas Hofstadter (1979, 674) and Hubert Dreyfus (1992) confidently asserted that championship-level AI chess would forever remain out of reach and unattainable.

After beating Garry Kasparov in 1997, IBM's Deep Blue modified the game's rules.

But chess was just the start.

In 2015, AlphaGo, a Go-playing algorithm built by Google DeepMind, defeated Lee Sedol, one of the most famous human players of this notoriously tough board game, in four out of five games.

Human observers, including as Fan Hui (2016), have praised AlphaGo's nimble play as "beautiful," "intuitive," and "innovative." 'Automated Insights' is a service provided by Automated Insights Natural Language Generation (NLG) techniques such as Wordsmith and Narrative Science's Quill are used to create human-readable tales from machine-readable data.

Unlike basic news aggregators or template NLG systems, these computers "write" (or "produce," as the case may be) unique tales that are almost indistinguishable from human-created material in many cases.

Christer Clerwall, for example, performed a small-scale research in 2014 in which human test subjects were asked to assess news pieces written by Wordsmith and a professional writer from the Los Angeles Times.

The study's findings reveal that, although software-generated information is often seen as descriptive and dull, it is also regarded as more impartial and trustworthy (Clerwall 2014, 519).

"Within 10 years, a digital computer would produce music regarded by critics as holding great artistic merit," Herbert Simon and Allen Newell predicted in their famous article "Heuristic Problem Solving" (1958). (Simon and Newell 1958, 7).

This prediction has come true.

Experiments in Musical Intelligence (EMI, or "Emmy") by David Cope is one of the most well-known works in the subject of "algorithmic composition." 

Emmy is a computer-based algorithmic composer capable of analyzing existing musical compositions, rearranging their fundamental components, and then creating new, unique scores that sound like and, in some circumstances, are indistinguishable from Mozart, Bach, and Chopin's iconic masterpieces (Cope 2001).

There are robotic systems in music performance, such as Shimon, a marimba-playing jazz-bot from Georgia Tech University, that can not only improvise with human musicians in real time, but also "is designed to create meaningful and inspiring musical interactions with humans, leading to novel musical experiences and outcomes" (Hoffman and Weinberg 2011).

Cope's method, which he refers to as "recombinacy," is not restricted to music.

It may be used and applied to any creative technique in which new works are created by reorganizing or recombining a set of finite parts, such as the alphabet's twenty-six letters, the musical scale's twelve tones, the human eye's sixteen million colors, and so on.

As a result, other creative undertakings, like as painting, have adopted similar computational creativity method.

The Painting Fool is an automated painter created by Simon Colton that seeks to be "considered seriously as a creative artist in its own right" (Colton 2012, 16).

To far, the algorithm has generated thousands of "original" artworks, which have been shown in both online and physical art exhibitions.

Obvious, a Paris-based collaboration comprised of the artists Hugo Caselles-Dupré, Pierre Fautrel, and Gauthier Vernie, uses a generative adversarial network (GAN) to create portraits of a fictitious family (the Belamys) in the manner of the European masters.

Christies auctioned one of these pictures, "Portrait of Edmond Belamy," for $432,500 in October 2018.

Designing ostensibly creative systems instantly runs into semantic and conceptual issues.

Creativity is an enigmatic phenomena that is difficult to pinpoint or quantify.

Are these programs, algorithms, and systems really "creative," or are they merely a sort of "imitation," as some detractors have labeled them? This issue is similar to John Searle's (1984, 32–38) Chinese Room thought experiment, which aimed to highlight the distinction between genuine cognitive activity, such as creative expression, and simple simulation or imitation.

Researchers in the field of computational creativity have introduced and operationalized a rather specific formulation to characterize their efforts: "The philosophy, science, and engineering of computational systems that, by taking on specific responsibilities, exhibit behaviors that unbiased observers would deem creative" (Colton and Wig gins 2012, 21).

The key word in this description is "responsibility." 

"The term responsibilities highlights the difference between the systems we build and creativity support tools studied in the HCI [human-computer interaction] community and embedded in tools like Adobe's Photoshop, to which most observers would probably not attribute creative intent or behavior," Colton and Wiggins explain (Colton and Wiggins 2012, 21).

"The program is only a tool to improve human creativity" (Colton 2012, 3–4) using a software application like Photoshop; it is an instrument utilized by a human artist who is and remains responsible for the creative choices and output created by the instrument.

Computational creativity research, on the other hand, "seeks to develop software that is creative in and of itself" (Colton 2012, 4).

On the one hand, one might react as we have in the past, dismissing contemporary technological advancements as simply another instrument or tool of human action—or what technology philosophers such as Martin Heidegger (1977) and Andrew Feenberg (1991) refer to as "the instrumental theory of technology." 

This is, in fact, the explanation supplied by David Cope in his own appraisal of his work's influence and relevance.

Emmy and other algorithmic composition systems, according to Cope, do not compete with or threaten to replace human composition.

They are just instruments used in and for musical creation.

"Computers represent just instruments with which we stretch our ideas and bodies," writes Cope.

Computers, programs, and the data utilized to generate their output were all developed by humanity.

Our algorithms make music that is just as much ours as music made by our greatest human inspirations" (Cope 2001, 139).

According to Cope, no matter how much algorithmic mediation is invented and used, the musical composition generated by these advanced digital tools is ultimately the responsibility of the human person.

The similar argument may be made for other supposedly creative programs, such as AlphaGo, a Go-playing algorithm, or The Painting Fool, a painting software.

When AlphaGo wins a big tournament or The Painting Fool creates a spectacular piece of visual art that is presented in a gallery, there is still a human person (or individuals) who is (or can reply or answer for) what has been created, according to the argument.

The attribution lines may get more intricate and drawn out, but there is always someone in a position of power behind the scenes, it might be claimed.

In circumstances where efforts have been made to transfer responsibility to the computer, evidence of this already exists.

Consider AlphaGo's game-winning move 37 versus Lee Sedol in game two.

If someone wants to learn more about the move and its significance, AlphaGo is the one to ask.

The algorithm, on the other hand, will remain silent.

In actuality, it was up to the human programmers and spectators to answer on AlphaGo's behalf and explain the importance and effect of the move.

As a result, as Colton (2012) and Colton et al. (2015) point out, if the mission of computational creativity is to succeed, the software will have to do more than create objects and behaviors that humans interpret as creative output.

It must also take ownership of the task by accounting for what it accomplished and how it did it.

"The software," Colton and Wiggins argue, "should be available for questioning about its motivations, processes, and products," eventually capable of not only generating titles for and explanations and narratives about the work but also responding to questions by engaging in critical dialogue with its audience (Colton and Wiggins 2012, 25). (Colton et al. 2015, 15).

At the same time, these algorithmic incursions into what had previously been a protected and solely human realm have created possibilities.

It's not only a question of whether computers, machine learning algorithms, or other applications can or cannot be held accountable for what they do or don't do; it's also a question of how we define, explain, and define creative responsibility in the first place.

This suggests that there is a strong and weak component to this endeavor, which Mohammad Majid al-Rifaie and Mark Bishop refer to as strong and weak forms of computational creativity, reflecting Searle's initial difference on AI initiatives (Majid al-Rifaie and Bishop 2015, 37).

The types of application development and demonstrations presented by people and companies such as DeepMind, David Cope, and Simon Colton are examples of the "strong" sort.

However, these efforts have a "weak AI" component in that they simulate, operationalize, and stress test various conceptualizations of artistic responsibility and creative expression, resulting in critical and potentially insightful reevaluations of how we have defined these concepts in our own thinking.

Nothing has made Douglas Hofstadter reexamine his own thinking about thinking more than the endeavor to cope with and make sense of David Cope's Emmy nomination (Hofstadter 2001, 38).

To put it another way, developing and experimenting with new algorithmic capabilities does not necessarily detract from human beings and what (hopefully) makes us unique, but it does provide new opportunities to be more precise and scientific about these distinguishing characteristics and their limits.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want to read more about Artificial Intelligence here.

See also: 

AARON; Automatic Film Editing; Deep Blue; Emily Howell; Generative Design; Generative Music and Algorithmic Composition.

Further Reading

Boden, Margaret. 2010. Creativity and Art: Three Roads to Surprise. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Clerwall, Christer. 2014. “Enter the Robot Journalist: Users’ Perceptions of Automated Content.” Journalism Practice 8, no. 5: 519–31.

Colton, Simon. 2012. “The Painting Fool: Stories from Building an Automated Painter.” In Computers and Creativity, edited by Jon McCormack and Mark d’Inverno, 3–38. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Colton, Simon, Alison Pease, Joseph Corneli, Michael Cook, Rose Hepworth, and Dan Ventura. 2015. “Stakeholder Groups in Computational Creativity Research and Practice.” In Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines, edited by Tarek R. Besold, Marco Schorlemmer, and Alan Smaill, 3–36. Amster￾dam: Atlantis Press.

Colton, Simon, and Geraint A. Wiggins. 2012. “Computational Creativity: The Final Frontier.” In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 242, edited by Luc De Raedt et al., 21–26. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Cope, David. 2001. Virtual Music: Computer Synthesis of Musical Style. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1992. What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Feenberg, Andrew. 1991. Critical Theory of Technology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. Translated by William Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row.

Hoffman, Guy, and Gil Weinberg. 2011. “Interactive Improvisation with a Robotic Marimba Player.” Autonomous Robots 31, no. 2–3: 133–53.

Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books.

Hofstadter, Douglas R. 2001. “Staring Emmy Straight in the Eye—And Doing My Best Not to Flinch.” In Virtual Music: Computer Synthesis of Musical Style, edited by David Cope, 33–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hui, Fan. 2016. “AlphaGo Games—English. DeepMind.” https://web.archive.org/web/20160912143957/

https://deepmind.com/research/alphago/alphago-games-english/.

Majid al-Rifaie, Mohammad, and Mark Bishop. 2015. “Weak and Strong Computational Creativity.” In Computational Creativity Research: Towards Creative Machines, edited by Tarek R. Besold, Marco Schorlemmer, and Alan Smaill, 37–50. Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.

Searle, John. 1984. Mind, Brains and Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Artificial Intelligence - What Is Biometric Technology?

 

The measuring of a human attribute is referred to as a biometric.

It might be physiological, like fingerprint or face identification, or behavioral, like keystroke pattern dynamics or walking stride length.

Biometric characteristics are defined by the White House National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Biometrics as "measurable biological (anatomical and physiological) and behavioral traits that may be employed for automated recognition" (White House, National Science and Technology Council 2006, 4).

Biometric technologies are "technologies that automatically confirm the identity of people by comparing patterns of physical or behavioral characteristics in real time against enrolled computer records of those patterns," according to the International Biometrics and Identification Association (IBIA) (International Biometrics and Identification Association 2019).

Many different biometric technologies are either in use or being developed.

Previously used to access personal smartphones, pay for goods and services, and verify identities for various online accounts and physical facilities, fingerprints are now used to access personal smartphones, pay for goods and services, and verify identities for various online accounts and physical facilities.

The most well-known biometric technology is finger print recognition.

Ultrasound, thermal, optical, and capacitive sensors may all be used to acquire fingerprint image collections.

In order to find matches, AI software applications often use minutia-based matching or pattern matching.

By lighting up the palm, sensors capture pictures of human veins, and vascular pattern identification is now feasible.

Other common biometrics are based on facial, iris, or voice characteristics.

Recognizing people by their faces Individual identification, verification, detection, and characterization may all be possible with AI technology.

Detection and characterization processes rarely involve determining an individual's identity.

Although current systems have great accuracy rates, privacy problems arise since a face might be gathered passively, that is, without the subject's awareness.

Iris identification makes use of near-infrared light to extract the iris's distinct structural characteristics.

The retinal blood vessels are examined using retinal technology, which employs a strong light.

The scanned eyeball is compared to the stored picture to evaluate recognition.

Voice recognition is a more advanced technology than voice activation, which identifies speech content.

Each individual user must be able to be identified via voice recognition.

To present, technology has not been sufficiently precise to allow for trustworthy identification in many situations.

For security and law enforcement applications, biometric technology has long been accessible.

However, in the private sector, these systems are increasingly being employed as a verification mechanism for authentication that formerly needed a password.

The introduction of Apple's iPhone fingerprint scanner in 2013 raised public awareness.

The company's newer models have shifted to face recognition access, which further normalizes the notion.

Financial services, transportation, health care, facility access, and voting are just a few of the industries where biometric technology is being used.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want to read more about Artificial Intelligence here.

See also: 

Biometric Privacy and Security.

Further Reading

International Biometrics and Identity Association. 2019. “The Technologies.” https://www.ibia.org/biometrics/technologies/.

White House. National Science and Technology Council. 2006. Privacy and Biometrics: Building a Conceptual Foundation. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council. Committee on Technology. Committee on Homeland and National Security. Subcommittee on Biometrics.

Artificial Intelligence - What Is Swarm Intelligence and Distributed Intelligence?

From developing single autonomous agents to building groups of distributed autonomous agents that coordinate themselves, distributed intelligence is the obvious next step.

A multi-agent system is made up of many agents.

Communication is a prerequisite for cooperation.

The fundamental concept is to allow for distributed problem-solving rather than employing a collection of agents as a simple parallelization of the single-agent technique.

Agents effectively cooperate, exchange information, and assign duties to one another.

Sensor data, for example, is exchanged to learn about the current condition of the environment, and an agent is given a task based on who is in the best position to complete that job at the time.

Agents might be software or embodied agents in the form of robots, resulting in a multi-robot system.

RoboCup Soccer (Kitano et al.1997) is an example of this, in which two teams of robots compete in soccer.

Typical challenges include detecting the ball cooperatively and sharing that knowledge, as well as assigning tasks, such as who will go after the ball next.

Agents may have a complete global perspective or simply a partial picture of the surroundings.

The agent's and the entire approach's complexity may be reduced by restricting information to the local area.

Regardless of their local perspective, agents may communicate, disseminate, and transmit information across the agent group, resulting in a distributed collective vision of global situations.

A scalable decentralized system, a non-scalable decentralized system, and a decentralized system are three separate concepts of distributed intelligence that may be used to construct distributed intelligence.

Without a master-slave hierarchy or a central control element, all agents in scalable decentralized systems function in equal roles.

Because the system only allows for local agent-to-agent communication, there is no need for all agents to coordinate with each other.

This allows for potentially huge system sizes.

All-to-all communication is an important aspect of the coordination mechanism in non-scalable decentralized systems, but it may become a bottleneck in systems with too many agents.

A typical RoboCup-Soccer system, for example, requires all robots to cooperate with all other robots at all times.

Finally, in decentralized systems with central components, the agents may interact with one another through a central server (e.g., cloud) or be coordinated by a central control.

It is feasible to mix the decentralized and central approaches by delegating basic tasks to the agents, who will complete them independently and locally, while more difficult activities will be managed centrally.

Vehicle ad hoc networks are an example of a use case (Liang et al.2015).

Each agent is self-contained, yet collaboration aids in traffic coordination.

For example, intelligent automobiles may build dynamic multi-hop networks to notify others about an accident that is still hidden from view.

For a safer and more efficient traffic flow, cars may coordinate passing moves.

All of this may be accomplished by worldwide communication with a central server or, depending on the stability of the connection, through local car-to-car communication.

Natural swarm systems and artificial, designed distributed systems are combined in swarm intelligence research.

Extracting fundamental principles from decentralized biological systems and translating them into design principles for decentralized engineering systems is a core notion in swarm intelligence (scalable decentralized systems as defined above).

Swarm intelligence was inspired by flocks, swarms, and herds' collective activities.

Social insects such as ants, honeybees, wasps, and termites are a good example.

These swarm systems are built on self-organization and work in a fundamentally decentralized manner.

Crystallization, pattern creation in embryology, and synchronization in swarms are examples of self-organization, which is a complex interaction of positive (deviations are encouraged) and negative feedback (deviations are damped).

In swarm intelligence, four key features of systems are investigated: • The system is made up of a large number of autonomous agents that are homogeneous in terms of their capabilities and behaviors.

• Each agent follows a set of relatively simple rules compared to the task's complexity.

• The resulting system behavior is heavily reliant on agent interaction and collaboration.

Reynolds (1987) produced a seminal paper detailing flocking behavior in birds based on three basic local rules: alignment (align direction of movement with neighbors), cohesiveness (remain near to your neighbors), and separation (stay away from your neighbors) (keep a minimal distance to any agent).

As a consequence, a real-life mimicked self-organizing flocking behavior emerges.

By depending only on local interactions between agents, a high level of resilience may be achieved.

Any agent, at any moment, has only a limited understanding of the system's global state (swarm-level state) and relies on communication with nearby agents to complete its duty.

Because the swarm's knowledge is spread, a single point of failure is rare.

An perfectly homogenous swarm has a high degree of redundancy; that is, all agents have the same capabilities and can therefore be replaced by any other.

By depending only on local interactions between agents, a high level of scalability may be obtained.

Due to the dispersed data storage architecture, there is less requirement to synchronize or maintain data coherent.

Because the communication and coordination overhead for each agent is dictated by the size of its neighborhood, the same algorithms may be employed for systems of nearly any scale.

Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) and Particle Swarm Optimization are two well-known examples of swarm intelligence in engineered systems from the optimization discipline (PSO).

Both are metaheuristics, which means they may be used to solve a wide range of optimization problems.

Ants and their use of pheromones to locate the shortest pathways inspired ACO.

A graph must be used to depict the optimization issue.

A swarm of virtual ants travels from node to node, choosing which edge to use next based on the likelihood of how many other ants have used it before (through pheromone, implementing positive feedback) and a heuristic parameter, such as journey length (greedy search).

Evaporation of pheromones balances the exploration-exploitation trade-off (negative feedback).

The traveling salesman dilemma, automobile routing, and network routing are all examples of ACO applications.

Flocking is a source of inspiration for PSO.

Agents navigate search space using average velocity vectors that are impacted by global and local best-known solutions (positive feedback), the agent's past path, and a random direction.

While both ACO and PSO conceptually function in a completely distributed manner, they do not need parallel computing to be deployed.

They may, however, be parallelized with ease.

Swarm robotics is the application of swarm intelligence to embodied systems, while ACO and PSO are software-based methods.

Swarm robotics applies the concept of self-organizing systems based on local information to multi-robot systems with a high degree of resilience and scalability.

Following the example of social insects, the goal is to make each individual robot relatively basic in comparison to the task complexity while yet allowing them to collaborate to perform complicated problems.

A swarm robot can only communicate with other swarm robots since it can only function on local information.

Given a fixed swarm density, the applied control algorithms are meant to allow maximum scalability (i.e., constant number of robots per area).

The same control methods should perform effectively regardless of the system size whether the swarm size is grown or lowered by adding or deleting robots.

A super-linear performance improvement is often found, meaning that doubling the size of the swarm improves the swarm's performance by more than two.

As a result, each robot is more productive than previously.

Swarm robotics systems have been demonstrated to be effective for a wide range of activities, including aggregation and dispersion behaviors, as well as more complicated tasks like item sorting, foraging, collective transport, and collective decision-making.

Rubenstein et al. (2014) conducted the biggest scientific experiment using swarm robots to date, using 1024 miniature mobile robots to mimic self-assembly behavior by arranging the robots in predefined designs.

The majority of the tests were conducted in the lab, but new research has taken swarm robots to the field.

Duarte et al. (2016), for example, built a swarm of autonomous surface watercraft that cruise the ocean together.

Modeling the relationship between individual behavior and swarm behavior, creating advanced design principles, and deriving assurances of system attributes are all major issues in swarm intelligence.

The micro-macro issue is defined as the challenge of identifying the ensuing swarm behavior based on a given individual behavior and vice versa.

It has shown to be a difficult challenge that manifests itself in both mathematical modeling and the robot controller design process as an engineering difficulty.

The creation of complex tactics to design swarm behavior is not only crucial to swarm intelligence research, but it has also proved to be very difficult.

Similarly, due to the combinatorial explosion of action-to-agent assignments, multi-agent learning and evolutionary swarm robotics (i.e., application of evolutionary computation techniques to swarm robotics) do not scale well with task complexity.

Despite the benefits of robustness and scalability, obtaining strong guarantees for swarm intelligence systems is challenging.

Swarm systems' availability and reliability can only be assessed experimentally in general. 

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want to read more about Artificial Intelligence here.

See also: 

AI and Embodiment.

Further Reading:

Bonabeau, Eric, Marco Dorigo, and Guy Theraulaz. 1999. Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial System. New York: Oxford University Press.

Duarte, Miguel, Vasco Costa, Jorge Gomes, Tiago Rodrigues, Fernando Silva, Sancho Moura Oliveira, Anders Lyhne Christensen. 2016. “Evolution of Collective Behaviors for a Real Swarm of Aquatic Surface Robots.” PloS One 11, no. 3: e0151834.

Hamann, Heiko. 2018. Swarm Robotics: A Formal Approach. New York: Springer.

Kitano, Hiroaki, Minoru Asada, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, Itsuki Noda, Eiichi Osawa, Hitoshi Matsubara. 1997. “RoboCup: A Challenge Problem for AI.” AI Magazine 18, no. 1: 73–85.

Liang, Wenshuang, Zhuorong Li, Hongyang Zhang, Shenling Wang, Rongfang Bie. 2015. “Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks: Architectures, Research Issues, Methodologies, Challenges, and Trends.” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11, no. 8: 1–11.

Reynolds, Craig W. 1987. “Flocks, Herds, and Schools: A Distributed Behavioral Model.” Computer Graphics 21, no. 4 (July): 25–34.

Rubenstein, Michael, Alejandro Cornejo, and Radhika Nagpal. 2014. “Programmable Self-Assembly in a Thousand-Robot Swarm.” Science 345, no. 6198: 795–99.

Cyber Security - Proposals for Context-Awareness

Many context-aware services have been suggested in recent years in attempt to make life simpler. 

Despite the fact that the word "context" was coined in 1994, the first context-aware solution in the literature was offered in 1991 [69]. 

They developed Active Badge, an unique technology for locating individuals in an office setting. 

This technology was able to determine the position of users in order to route calls to phones in close proximity to the user. 

Because users wore badges that sent signals to a centralized location system, the location of the users was known. 

Following that, many other solutions have been given in many fields, such as the one provided by Wood et al. in [70]. 

They suggested a teleporting system that could make the user's environment accessible from any machine having a Java-enabled web browser. 

Users did not need to take any computer platforms with them while utilizing this method, and they could run their programs on any nearby system. 

These context-aware systems gave consumers additional options for obtaining personalized services by collecting context information, which was particularly useful in situations where users' mobility was high. 

Context-aware solutions, such as car navigation systems, emergency services, and recommender systems, are well-known examples of mobile-friendly solutions. 

A current deep analysis on context-aware systems examines a significant number of solutions across a variety of issues [71]. 

Feel@Home [72], Hydra [73], CroCo [74], SOCAM [75], and CoBrA [76] are examples of systems that enable "security and privacy" characteristics. 

Feel@Home was a context-aware framework that allowed for communication across contexts or domains while also taking into account intra- and inter-domain interactions. 

Hydra was an IoT-focused ambient intelligence middleware that combined device, semantic, and application contexts to provide context-aware information. 

CroCo, on the other hand, was a cross-application context management service for diverse settings, while SOCAM shaped the quality, dependencies, and categorization of context information using a set of ontologies. 

This collection was constructed on a common higher ontology that defined ideas across all contexts, as well as domain-specific ontologies that defined concepts inside each one. 

CoCA [77] is another similar effort in this area that is not included in the survey reported in [71]. 

This concept proposed a collaborative context-aware service platform with a neighborhood-based resource sharing mechanism. 

By evaluating information about the context and the position of the pieces, CoCA was able to deduce the users' location. 

SHERLOCK [78] was a framework for location-based services that employed semantic technologies to assist consumers in selecting the service that best met their requirements in the current situation. 

Another IoT-focused solution was Hydra [73]. 

It was a middleware responsible for providing solutions to wireless devices and sensors in the context of ambient awareness. 

It considered a strong reasoning technique for a variety of context sources, such as physical device-based, semantic, and abstract layer-based context sources. 

PerDe [79] was a development environment for pervasive computing applications that were tailored to the demands of the user. 

It included a domain-specific design language as well as a collection of graphical tools to aid in the creation of ubiquitous applications at various phases. 

DiaSuite [80] was another development technique for developing applications in the Sense/Compute/Control (SCC) domain that employed a software design approach. 

DiaSuite also included a compiler that generated a specific Java programming framework that guided programmers through the implementation of the different components of the software system. 

Semantic rules were used in several of the solutions listed above for various goals. 

Hydra, CroCo, SHERLOCK, and SOCAM all employed semantic rules to infer new information about a given context while taking information from other sources into consideration. 

Instead, CoCA used semantic rules to govern the ontologies, such as a property being the opposite of another, as well as domain-specific information. 

Despite this, none of the four systems employed semantic rules to build policies aimed at safeguarding users' privacy choices. 

Any context-aware framework that allows users to dynamically limit or reveal information to others based on their location and privacy choices should support users' privacy. 

As a result, the current trend in context-aware systems is to utilize rules to govern the disclosure of users' location. 

There are many semantic web-based systems that administer rules to protect users' privacy. 

CoBrA, for example, demonstrated a context-aware design that enabled remote agents to communicate information. 

CoBrA established an ontology that formed places made up of smart agents, devices, and sensors while also protecting the privacy of its users via rules that determine if they have the appropriate rights to share and/or receive data. 

Another example is the Preserving Privacy in Context-aware Systems (PPCS) solution [81], which proposed a semantically rich, policy-based framework with several degrees of privacy to secure users' information in settings with mobile devices. 

To create access control choices, dynamic information seen or inferred from the context was combined with static information about the owner. 

Users' location and context information was shared (or not) in accordance with their privacy rules. 

CoPS [82] is another concept that supports privacy regulations without requiring semantic web technology. 

Users could decide who had access to their context data, when it was accessed, and at what degree of granularity in CoPS. 

A comparison of the preceding solutions is shown in the Table below, taking into consideration the contextual information they handle and their privacy support. 

SeCoMan [83] is a solution that obtains information from the context or environment in which users are placed, models and protects personal information, and provides context-aware applications, in addition to the preceding solutions and intended to safeguard users' privacy in context-aware situations. 

SeCoMan offers a semantic web-oriented architecture. 

On the one hand, information about users and situations is represented using an OWL 2-defined set of ontologies. 

Users' information, on the other hand, is safeguarded by policies described in the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL). 

These rules enable users to communicate their location with the individuals they want, at the granularity they want, at the proper time and place. 

This paper also provides a comparison and analysis of several context-aware systems. 

The Prophet architecture [84], on the other hand, offers an excellent security approach for enabling users to exchange their location data. 

To explain the users' activity patterns, the authors of this proposal establish a Fingerprint identification based on Markov chains and state categorization. 

Furthermore, they suggest a location-based anonymization system that uses an indistinguishability approach to secure users' sensitive information. 

Several tests show that the suggested method performs well and is effective. 

PRECISE [85] is another privacy-preserving and context-aware system that makes suggestions based on the information that users choose to divulge to certain services. 

Users can release their locations to specific services, hide their positions from specific users, mask their locations from other users by generating fictitious (fake) positions, set the granularity and proximity at which they want to be located by services or users, and maintain their anonymity to specific services by using this solution. 

In order to do this, an architecture based on the MCC paradigm was created. 

This architecture is made up of services that are assigned at the MCC paradigm's Software as a Service (SaaS) layer and provide users with context-aware information suggestions. 

The solution's major component is middleware deployed at the Platform as a Service (PaaS) layer, which maintains users' information and handles context and space information that might be given by independent systems. 

ProtectMyPrivacy (PmP) [86] is an Android privacy protection solution that was conceived and deployed. 

When privacy-sensitive data accesses occur, our concept may identify key contextual information at runtime. 

Based on crowd-sourced data, PmP infers the purpose of data access. 

The authors show that controlling sensitive data obtained by these libraries might be a useful tool for protecting users' privacy. 

The following set of solutions focuses on safeguarding users' data while they travel between different settings or situations (intraand inter-context scenarios). 

In this manner, CAPRIS [87] is a system that protects users' information regardless of their location. 

Users were allowed to choose what, where, when, how, to whom, and with what degree of accuracy they wanted to share their information using CAPRIS in real time. 

This information may include the space in which they are placed at various degrees of granularity, the users' personal information at various levels of accuracy, the users' activities, and information specific to the context in which they are positioned. 

Users did not have to control their privacy while using CAPRIS; instead, they only had to choose the best suited set of rules given by the system. 

MASTERY [88] proposes to users different sets of privacy-preserving and context-aware regulations, termed profiles, as an extension of CAPRIS, which has the same aims. 

Users just need to pick the most appropriate profile based on their interests in the setting in which they are, and they may edit these profiles by adding, removing, or changing some of the rules that shape them. 

Finally, when information is to be exchanged, the owner is notified in real time, and he or she chooses whether to allow or prohibit the information exchange. 

Finally, h-MAS [89] is a privacy-preserving and context-aware solution for health situations that aims to manage user privacy in both intra- and inter-context scenarios. 

In a health scenario, h-MAS recommends a set of privacy policies to users who are aware of their current health situation. 

Users may make changes to the policies based on their preferences. 

These rules safeguard users' health records, whereabouts, and context-aware data from being accessed by other parties without their permission. 

Semantic web approaches, which offer a common architecture that makes it easier to describe, analyze, and communicate information across separate systems, are used to manage patient information and the health context. 

In terms of network administration, controlling network resources at run-time and taking contextual information into account may result in significant benefits in terms of automated management, energy savings, and security. 

In this regard, [90] proposes a mobility-aware, policy-based system for lowering energy usage in networks based on the SDN paradigm. 

The rules proposed in this solution enable the SDN paradigm to turn on/off network resources that are inefficiently using energy, as well as to build virtualized network resources such as proxies to decrease network traffic created by users consuming services near to network infrastructure. 

In line with energy consumption, user mobility, and network statistics, network managers design rules that will determine the list of probable actions to be made by SDN components. 

This solution also includes an architecture for managing mobile network resources based on prior regulations and an ontology that represents the ideas associated with the mobile network subject. 

The ontology provides a set of primitives for describing a collection of the resources controlled by the SDN paradigm, as well as their relationships. 

Finally, in [91], a concept was made to maintain QoS and end-user experience in dynamic mobile network settings by taking contextual information into account. 

Using high-level rules, this approach presents an architecture for managing SDN resources at run-time. 

The authors highlight the usage of mobility-aware, management-oriented rules, which are developed by the service provider network administrator to determine the actions taken by the SDN based on network infrastructure data and location, as well as user and service mobility. 

These regulations are designed to provide end-users with a positive experience in very congested areas (e.g., stadiums, shopping malls, or unexpected traffic jams). 

To that end, the policies determine when the SDN should balance network traffic between infrastructure near the congested one, when the SDN should create or dismantle physical or virtual infrastructure if the congested one is insufficient to meet end-user demand, and when the SDN should restrict or limit specific services or network traffic in critical situations caused by large crowds using services in specific areas.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

Find Jai on Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram

You may also want to read and learn more Technology and Engineering here.

You may also want to read and learn more Cyber Security Systems here.

References & Further Reading:

1. OSI. Information Processing Systems-Open System Inteconnection-Systems Management Overview. ISO 10040, 1991.

2. Jefatura del Estado. Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal. www.boe.es/boe/dias/1999/12/14/pdfs/A43088-43099.pdf.

3. D. W. Samuel, and D. B. Louis. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5): 193–220, 1890.

4. A. Westerinen, J. Schnizlein, J. Strassner, M. Scherling, B. Quinn, S. Herzog, A. Huynh, M. Carlson, J. Perry, and S. Waldbusser. Terminology for Policy-Based Management. IETF Request for Comments 3198, November 2001.

5. B. Moore. Policy Core Information Model (PCIM) Extensions. IETF Request for Comments 3460, January 2003.

6. S. Godik, and T. Moses. OASIS EXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML). OASIS Committee Specification, 2002.

7. A. Dardenne, A. Van Lamsweerde and S. Fickas. Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming, 20(1–2): 3–50, 1993.

8. F. L. Gandon, and N. M. Sadeh. Semantic web technologies to reconcile privacy and context awareness. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 1(3): 241–260, April 2004.

9. I. Horrocks. Ontologies and the semantic web. Communications ACM, 51(12): 58–67, December 2008.

10. R. Boutaba and I. Aib. Policy-based management: A historical perspective. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 15(4): 447–480, 2007.

11. P. A. Carter. Policy-Based Management, In Pro SQL Server Administration, pages 859–886. Apress, Berkeley, CA, 2015.

12. D. Florencio, and C. Herley. Where do security policies come from? In Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pages 10:1–10:14, 2010.

13. K. Yang, and X. Jia. DAC-MACS: Effective data access control for multi-authority Cloud storage systems, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 8(11): 1790–1801, 2014.

14. B. W. Lampson. Dynamic protection structures. In Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, pages 27–38, 1969.

15. B. W. Lampson. Protection. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 8(1): 18–24, January 1974.

16. D. E. Bell and L. J. LaPadula. Secure Computer Systems: Mathematical Foundations. Technical report, DTIC Document, 1973.

17. D. F. Ferraiolo, and D. R. Kuhn. Role-based access controls. In Proceedings of the 15th NIST-NCSC National Computer Security Conference, pages 554–563, 1992.

18. V. P. Astakhov. Surface integrity: Definition and importance in functional performance, In Surface Integrity in Machining, pages 1–35. Springer, London, 2010.

19. K. J. Biba. Integrity Considerations for Secure Computer Systems. Technical report, DTIC Document, 1977.

20. M. J. Culnan, and P. K. Armstrong. Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 10(1): 104–115, 1999.

21. A. I. Antón, E. Bertino, N. Li, and T. Yu. A roadmap for comprehensive online privacy policy management. Communications ACM, 50(7): 109–116, July 2007.

22. J. Karat, C. M. Karat, C. Brodie, and J. Feng. Privacy in information technology: Designing to enable privacy policy management in organizations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 63(1–2): 153–174, 2005.

23. M. Jafari, R. Safavi-Naini, P. W. L. Fong, and K. Barker. A framework for expressing and enforcing purpose-based privacy policies. ACM Transaction Information Systesms Security, 17(1): 3:1–3:31, August 2014.

24. G. Karjoth, M. Schunter, and M. Waidner. Platform for enterprise privacy practices: Privacy-enabled management of customer data, In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, pages 69–84, 2003.

25. S. R. Blenner, M. Kollmer, A. J. Rouse, N. Daneshvar, C. Williams, and L. B. Andrews. Privacy policies of android diabetes apps and sharing of health information. JAMA, 315(10): 1051–1052, 2016.

26. R. Ramanath, F. Liu, N. Sadeh, and N. A. Smith. Unsupervised alignment of privacy policies using hidden Markov models. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 605–610, June 2014.

27. J. Gerlach, T. Widjaja, and P. Buxmann. Handle with care: How online social network providers’ privacy policies impact users’ information sharing behavior. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(1): 33–43, 2015.

28. O. Badve, B. B. Gupta, and S. Gupta. Reviewing the Security Features in Contemporary Security Policies and Models for Multiple Platforms. In Handbook of Research on Modern Cryptographic Solutions for Computer and Cyber Security, pages 479–504. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 2016.

29. K. Zkik, G. Orhanou, and S. El Hajji. Secure mobile multi cloud architecture for authentication and data storage. International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing 7(2): 62–76, 2017.

30. C. Stergiou, K. E. Psannis, B. Kim, and B. Gupta. Secure integration of IoT and cloud computing. In Future Generation Computer Systems, 78(3): 964–975, 2018.

31. D. C. Verma. Simplifying network administration using policy-based management. IEEE Network, 16(2): 20–26, March 2002.

32. D. C. Verma. Policy-Based Networking: Architecture and Algorithms. New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000.

33. J. Rubio-Loyola, J. Serrat, M. Charalambides, P. Flegkas, and G. Pavlou. A methodological approach toward the refinement problem in policy-based management systems. IEEE Communications Magazine, 44(10): 60–68, October 2006.

34. F. Perich. Policy-based network management for next generation spectrum access control. In Proceedings of International Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, pages 496–506, April 2007.

35. S. Shin, P. A. Porras, V. Yegneswaran, M. W. Fong, G. Gu, and M. Tyson. FRESCO: Modular composable security services for Software-Defined Networks. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, pages 1–16, 2013.

36. K. Odagiri, S. Shimizu, N. Ishii, and M. Takizawa. Functional experiment of virtual policy based network management scheme in Cloud environment. In International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems, pages 208–214, September 2014.

37. M. Casado, M. J. Freedman, J. Pettit, J. Luo, N. McKeown, and S. Shenker. Ethane: Taking control of the enterprise. In Proceedings of Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, pages 1–12, August 2007.

38. M. Wichtlhuber, R. Reinecke, and D. Hausheer. An SDN-based CDN/ISP collaboration architecture for managing high-volume flows. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 12(1): 48–60, March 2015.

39. A. Lara, and B. Ramamurthy. OpenSec: Policy-based security using Software-Defined Networking. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 13(1): 30–42, March 2016.

40. W. Jingjin, Z. Yujing, M. Zukerman, and E. K. N. Yung. Energy-efficient base stations sleep-mode techniques in green cellular networks: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 17(2): 803–826, 2015.

41. G. Auer, V. Giannini, C. Desset, I. Godor, P. Skillermark, M. Olsson, M. A. Imran, D. Sabella, M. J. Gonzalez, O. Blume, and A. Fehske. How much energy is needed to run a wireless network?IEEE Wireless Communications, 18(5): 40–49, 2011.

42. W. Yun, J. Staudinger, and M. Miller. High efficiency linear GaAs MMIC amplifier for wireless base station and Femto cell applications. In IEEE Topical Conference on Power Amplifiers for Wireless and Radio Applications, pages 49–52, January 2012.

43. M. A. Marsan, L. Chiaraviglio, D. Ciullo, and M. Meo. Optimal energy savings in cellular access networks. In IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops, pages 1–5, June 2009.

44. H. Claussen, I. Ashraf, and L. T. W. Ho. Dynamic idle mode procedures for femtocells. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 15(2): 95–116, 2010.

45. L. Rongpeng, Z. Zhifeng, C. Xianfu, J. Palicot, and Z. Honggang. TACT: A transfer actor-critic

learning framework for energy saving in cellular radio access networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 13(4): 2000–2011, 2014.

46. G. C. Januario, C. H. A. Costa, M. C. Amarai, A. C. Riekstin, T. C. M. B. Carvalho, and C. Meirosu. Evaluation of a policy-based network management system for energy-efficiency. In IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, pages 596–602, May 2013.

47. C. Dsouza, G. J. Ahn, and M. Taguinod. Policy-driven security management for fog computing: Preliminary framework and a case study. In Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, pages 16–23, August 2014.

48. H. Kim and N. Feamster. Improving network management with Software Defined Networking. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(2): 114–119, February 2013.

49. O. Gaddour, A. Koubaa, and M. Abid. Quality-of-service aware routing for static and mobile IPv6-based low-power and loss sensor networks using RPL. Ad Hoc Networks, 33: 233–256, 2015.

50. Q. Zhao, D. Grace, and T. Clarke. Transfer learning and cooperation management: Balancing the quality of service and information exchange overhead in cognitive radio networks. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 26(2): 290–301, 2015.

51. M. Charalambides, P. Flegkas, G. Pavlou, A. K. Bandara, E. C. Lupu, A. Russo, N. Dulav, M. Sloman, and J. Rubio-Loyola. Policy conflict analysis for quality of service management. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, pages 99–108, June 2005.

52. M. F. Bari, S. R. Chowdhury, R. Ahmed, and R. Boutaba. PolicyCop: An autonomic QoS policy enforcement framework for software defined networks. In 2013 IEEE SDN for Future Networks and Services, pages 1–7, November 2013.

53. C. Bennewith and R. Wickers. The mobile paradigm for content development, In Multimedia and E-Content Trends, pages 101–109. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, 2009.

54. I. A. Junglas, and R. T. Watson. Location-based services. Communications ACM, 51(3): 65–69, March 2008.

55. M. Weiser. The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3): 94–104, 1991.

56. G. D. Abowd, A. K. Dey, P. J. Brown, N. Davies, M. Smith, and P. Steggles. Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, pages 304–307, September 1999.

57. B. Schilit, N. Adams, and R. Want. Context-aware computing applications. In Proceeding of the 1st Workshop Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pages 85–90, December 1994.

58. N. Ryan, J. Pascoe, and D. Morse. Enhanced reality fieldwork: The context aware archaeological assistant. In Proceedings of the 25th Anniversary Computer Applications in Archaeology, pages 85–90, December 1997.

59. A. K. Dey. Context-aware computing: The CyberDesk project. In Proceedings of the AAAI 1998 Spring Symposium on Intelligent Environments, pages 51–54, 1998.

60. P. Prekop and M. Burnett. Activities, context and ubiquitous computing. Computer Communications, 26(11): 1168–1176, July 2003.

61. R. M. Gustavsen. Condor-an application framework for mobility-based context-aware applications. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Concepts and Models for Ubiquitous Computing, volume 39, September 2002.

62. C. Tadj and G. Ngantchaha. Context handling in a pervasive computing system framework. In 

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mobile Technology, Applications and Systems, 

pages 1–6, October 2006.

63. S. Dhar and U. Varshney. Challenges and business models for mobile location-based services and advertising. Communications ACM, 54(5): 121–128, May 2011.

64. F. Ricci, L. Rokach, and B. Shapira. Recommender Systems: Introduction and Challenges, pages In Recommender Systems Handbook, pages 1–34. Springer, Boston, MA, 2015.

65. J. B. Schafer, D. Frankowski, J. Herlocker, and S. Sen. Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems, In The Adaptive Web, pages 291–324. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.

66. P. Lops, M. de Gemmis, and G. Semeraro. Content-Based Recommender Systems: State of the Art and Trends, In Recommender Systems Handbook, pages 73–105. Springer, Boston, MA, 2011.

67. D. Slamanig and C. Stingl. Privacy aspects of eHealth. In Proceedings of Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pages 1226–1233, March 2008.

68. C. Wang. Policy-based network management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication Technology, volume 1, pages 101–105, 2000.

69. R. Want, A. Hopper, V. Falcao, and J. Gibbons. The active badge location system. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10(1): 91–102, January 1992.

70. K. R. Wood, T. Richardson, F. Bennett, A. Harter, and A. Hopper. Global teleporting with Java: Toward ubiquitous personalized computing. Computer, 30(2): 53–59, February 1997.

71. C. Perera, A. Zaslavsky, P. Christen, and D. Georgakopoulos. Context aware computing for the Internet of Things: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 16(1): 414–454, 2014.

72. B. Guo, L. Sun, and D. Zhang. The architecture design of a cross-domain context management system. In Proceedings of Conference Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, pages 499–504, April 2010.

73. A. Badii, M. Crouch, and C. Lallah. A context-awareness framework for intelligent networked embedded systems. In Proceedings of Conference on Advances in Human-Oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies and Services, pages 105–110, August 2010.

74. S. Pietschmann, A. Mitschick, R. Winkler, and K. Meissner. CroCo: Ontology-based, crossapplication context management. In Proceedings of Workshop on Semantic Media Adaptation and Personalization, pages 88–93, December 2008.

75. T. Gu, X. H. Wang, H. K. Pung, and D. Q. Zhang. An ontology-based context model in intelligent environments. In Proceedings of Communication Networks and Distributed Systems Modeling and Simulation Conference, pages 270–275, January 2004.

76. H. Chen, T. Finin, and A. Joshi. An ontology for context-aware pervasive computing environments. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(03): 197–207, September 2003.

77. D. Ejigu, M. Scuturici, and L. Brunie. CoCA: A collaborative context-aware service platform for pervasive computing. In Proceedings of Conference Information Technologies, pages 297–302, April 2007.

78. R. Yus, E. Mena, S. Ilarri, and A. Illarramendi. SHERLOCK: Semantic management of location based services in wireless environments. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 15: 87–99, 2014.

79. L. Tang, Z. Yu, H. Wang, X. Zhou, and Z. Duan. Methodology and tools for pervasive application development. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 10(4): 1–16, 2014.

80. B. Bertran, J. Bruneau, D. Cassou, N. Loriant, E. Balland, and C. Consel. DiaSuite: A tool suite to develop sense/compute/control applications. Science of Computer Programming, 79: 39–51, 2014.

81. P. Jagtap, A. Joshi, T. Finin, and L. Zavala. Preserving privacy in context-aware systems. In Proceedings of Conference on Semantic Computing, pages 149–153, September 2011.

82. V. Sacramento, M. Endler, and F. N. Nascimento. A privacy service for context-aware mobile computing. In Proceedings of Conference on Security and Privacy for Emergency Areas in Communication Networks, pages 182–193, September 2005.

83. A. Huertas Celdrán, F. J. García Clemente, M. Gil Pérez, and G. Martínez Pérez. SeCoMan: A 

semantic-aware policy framework for developing privacy-preserving and context-aware smart applications. IEEE Systems Journal, 10(3): 1111–1124, September 2016.

84. J. Qu, G. Zhang, and Z. Fang. Prophet: A context-aware location privacy-preserving scheme in location sharing service. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2017, 1–11, Article ID 6814832, 2017.

85. A. Huertas Celdrán, M. Gil Pérez, F. J. García Clemente, and G. Martínez Pérez. PRECISE: Privacy-aware recommender based on context information for Cloud service environments. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(8): 90–96, August 2014.

86. S. Chitkara, N. Gothoskar, S. Harish, J.I. Hong, and Y. Agarwal. Does this app really need my location? Context-aware privacy management for smartphones. In Proceedings of the ACM Interactive Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(3): 42:1–42:22, September 2017.

87. A. Huertas Celdrán, M. Gil Pérez, F. J. García Clemente, and G. Martínez Pérez. What private information are you disclosing? A privacy-preserving system supervised by yourself. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Cyberspace Safety and Security, pages 1221–1228, August 2014.

88. A. Huertas Celdrán, M. Gil Pérez, F. J. García Clemente, and G. Martínez Pérez. MASTERY: A multicontext-aware system that preserves the users’ privacy. In IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, pages 523–528, April 2016.

89. A. Huertas Celdrán, M. Gil Pérez, F. J. García Clemente, and G. Martínez Pérez. Preserving patients’ privacy in health scenarios through a multicontext-aware system. Annals of Telecommunications, 72(9–10): 577–587, October 2017.

90. A. Huertas Celdrán, M. Gil Pérez, F. J. García Clemente, and G. Martínez Pérez. Policy-based management for green mobile networks through software-defined networking. Mobile Networks and Applications, In Press, 2016.

91. A. Huertas Celdrán, M. Gil Pérez, F. J. García Clemente, and G. Martínez Pérez. Enabling highly dynamic mobile scenarios with software defined networking. IEEE Communications Magazine, Feature Topics Issue on SDN Use Cases for Service Provider Networks, 55(4): 108–113, April 2017.