On the Privacy Implications of Location Semantics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mobile users increasingly make use of location-based online services enabled by localization systems. Not only do they share their locations to obtain contextual services in return (e.g., ‘nearest restaurant’), but they also share, with their friends, information about the venues (e.g., the type, such as a restaurant or a cinema) they visit. This introduces an additional dimension to the threat to location privacy: location semantics, combined with location information, can be used to improve location inference by learning and exploiting patterns at the semantic level (e.g., people go to cinemas after going to restaurants). Conversely, the type of the venue a user visits can be inferred, which also threatens her semantic location privacy. In this paper, we formalize this problem and analyze the effect of venue-type information on location privacy. We introduce inference models that consider location semantics and semantic privacy-protection mechanisms and evaluate them by using datasets of semantic check-ins from Foursquare, totaling more than a thousand users in six large cities. Our experimental results show that there is a significant risk for users’ semantic location privacy and that semantic information improves inference of user locations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.036 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it