可遵守的隐私承诺:一种应用于HIPAA隐私规则的策略分析方法

Omar Chowdhury, Andreas Gampe, Jianwei Niu, J. Ronne, Jared Bennatt, Anupam Datta, Limin Jia, W. Winsborough
{"title":"可遵守的隐私承诺:一种应用于HIPAA隐私规则的策略分析方法","authors":"Omar Chowdhury, Andreas Gampe, Jianwei Niu, J. Ronne, Jared Bennatt, Anupam Datta, Limin Jia, W. Winsborough","doi":"10.1145/2462410.2462423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Organizations collect personal information from individuals to carry out their business functions. Federal privacy regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), mandate how this collected information can be shared by the organizations. It is thus incumbent upon the organizations to have means to check compliance with the applicable regulations. Prior work by Barth et. al. introduces two notions of compliance, weak compliance (WC) and strong compliance (SC). WC ensures that present requirements of the policy can be met whereas SC also ensures obligations can be met. An action is compliant with a privacy policy if it is both weakly and strongly compliant. However, their definitions of compliance are restricted to only propositional linear temporal logic (pLTL), which cannot feasibly specify HIPAA. To this end, we present a policy specification language based on a restricted subset of first order temporal logic (FOTL) which can capture the privacy requirements of HIPAA. We then formally specify WC and SC for policies of our form. We prove that checking WC is feasible whereas checking SC is undecidable. We then formally specify the property WC entails SC, denoted by Δ, which requires that each weakly compliant action is also strongly compliant. To check whether an action is compliant with such a policy, it is sufficient to only check whether the action is weakly compliant with that policy. We also prove that when a policy ℘ has the Δ-property, the present requirements of the policy reduce to the safety requirements imposed by ℘. We then develop a sound, semi-automated technique for checking whether practical policies have the Δ-property. We finally use HIPAA as a case study to demonstrate the efficacy of our policy analysis technique.","PeriodicalId":74509,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ... ACM symposium on access control models and technologies. ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies","volume":"7 1","pages":"3-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privacy promises that can be kept: a policy analysis method with application to the HIPAA privacy rule\",\"authors\":\"Omar Chowdhury, Andreas Gampe, Jianwei Niu, J. Ronne, Jared Bennatt, Anupam Datta, Limin Jia, W. Winsborough\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2462410.2462423\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Organizations collect personal information from individuals to carry out their business functions. Federal privacy regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), mandate how this collected information can be shared by the organizations. It is thus incumbent upon the organizations to have means to check compliance with the applicable regulations. Prior work by Barth et. al. introduces two notions of compliance, weak compliance (WC) and strong compliance (SC). WC ensures that present requirements of the policy can be met whereas SC also ensures obligations can be met. An action is compliant with a privacy policy if it is both weakly and strongly compliant. However, their definitions of compliance are restricted to only propositional linear temporal logic (pLTL), which cannot feasibly specify HIPAA. To this end, we present a policy specification language based on a restricted subset of first order temporal logic (FOTL) which can capture the privacy requirements of HIPAA. We then formally specify WC and SC for policies of our form. We prove that checking WC is feasible whereas checking SC is undecidable. We then formally specify the property WC entails SC, denoted by Δ, which requires that each weakly compliant action is also strongly compliant. To check whether an action is compliant with such a policy, it is sufficient to only check whether the action is weakly compliant with that policy. We also prove that when a policy ℘ has the Δ-property, the present requirements of the policy reduce to the safety requirements imposed by ℘. We then develop a sound, semi-automated technique for checking whether practical policies have the Δ-property. We finally use HIPAA as a case study to demonstrate the efficacy of our policy analysis technique.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the ... ACM symposium on access control models and technologies. ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"3-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the ... ACM symposium on access control models and technologies. ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2462410.2462423\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ... ACM symposium on access control models and technologies. ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2462410.2462423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

组织从个人收集个人信息以执行其业务功能。联邦隐私法规,如《健康保险流通与责任法案》(HIPAA),规定了组织如何共享这些收集到的信息。因此,各组织有责任有办法检查对适用条例的遵守情况。Barth等人之前的工作介绍了两个顺从概念,弱顺从(WC)和强顺从(SC)。WC确保目前的政策要求能够得到满足,而SC也确保义务能够得到满足。如果一个操作既弱又强地符合隐私策略,那么它就是符合隐私策略的。然而,他们对遵从性的定义仅限于命题线性时间逻辑(pLTL),这不能可行地指定HIPAA。为此,我们提出了一种基于一阶时间逻辑(FOTL)的受限子集的策略规范语言,该语言可以捕获HIPAA的隐私需求。然后,我们正式地为表单的策略指定WC和SC。我们证明了检验WC是可行的,而检验SC是不可判定的。然后,我们正式指定WC包含SC的属性,用Δ表示,这要求每个弱兼容的动作也是强兼容的。要检查操作是否符合这样的策略,只需检查操作是否弱地符合该策略就足够了。我们还证明了当一个政策p具有Δ-property时,该政策的现有要求降低为p所施加的安全要求。然后,我们开发了一种可靠的、半自动化的技术,用于检查实际策略是否具有Δ-property。最后,我们以HIPAA作为案例研究来证明我们的政策分析技术的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Privacy promises that can be kept: a policy analysis method with application to the HIPAA privacy rule
Organizations collect personal information from individuals to carry out their business functions. Federal privacy regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), mandate how this collected information can be shared by the organizations. It is thus incumbent upon the organizations to have means to check compliance with the applicable regulations. Prior work by Barth et. al. introduces two notions of compliance, weak compliance (WC) and strong compliance (SC). WC ensures that present requirements of the policy can be met whereas SC also ensures obligations can be met. An action is compliant with a privacy policy if it is both weakly and strongly compliant. However, their definitions of compliance are restricted to only propositional linear temporal logic (pLTL), which cannot feasibly specify HIPAA. To this end, we present a policy specification language based on a restricted subset of first order temporal logic (FOTL) which can capture the privacy requirements of HIPAA. We then formally specify WC and SC for policies of our form. We prove that checking WC is feasible whereas checking SC is undecidable. We then formally specify the property WC entails SC, denoted by Δ, which requires that each weakly compliant action is also strongly compliant. To check whether an action is compliant with such a policy, it is sufficient to only check whether the action is weakly compliant with that policy. We also prove that when a policy ℘ has the Δ-property, the present requirements of the policy reduce to the safety requirements imposed by ℘. We then develop a sound, semi-automated technique for checking whether practical policies have the Δ-property. We finally use HIPAA as a case study to demonstrate the efficacy of our policy analysis technique.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sidecar-based Path-aware Security for Microservices Poster: How to Raise a Robot - Beyond Access Control Constraints in Assistive Humanoid Robots Demo: A Multimodal Behavioral Biometric Scheme for Smartphone User Authentication (MBBS) Qualitative Intention-aware Attribute-based Access Control Policy Refinement SpaceMediator: Leveraging Authorization Policies to Prevent Spatial and Privacy Attacks in Mobile Augmented Reality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1