Research: Risks of Friendships on Social Networks
Authors: Prepared by Cuneyt Gurcan Akcora, Barbara Carminati and Elena Ferrari (DISTA, Universita` degli Studi dell’Insubria Via Mazzini 5, Varese, Italy), Risks of Friendships on Social Networks is a prepared paper submitted and accepted by the 2012 IEEE Conference on Data Mining (ICDM).
Abstract: In this paper, the authors explore the risks of friends in social networks caused by their friendship patterns, by using real life social network data and starting from a previously defined risk model. Particularly, they observe that risks of friendships can be mined by analyzing users’ attitude towards friends of friends. This allows new insights into friendship and risk dynamics on social networks.
Analysis: Summarized analysis from this paper includes observations on:
Applicability: Risks of Friendships on Social Networks offers unique insight into the privacy risks of online friendships and provides salient considerations for the development of risk models that could be applied to social network users.
Access: (PDF) http://bit.ly/Xk5mlX (arXiv.org)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 19th, 2013 at 2:26 pm. It is filed under chronology, discover and tagged with research, social media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are closed.
Since its 2007 introduction, kCura’s Relativity product has become one of the world’s leading attorney review platforms. One of the elements of Relativity’s strong growth and marketplace acceptance has been kCura’s focus on and support of partnerships. Provided as a by-product of review platform research and presented in the form of a simple and sortable table is an aggregation of kCura Premium Hosting Partners and Consulting Partners.
Taken from a combination of public market sizing estimations as shared in leading electronic discovery reports, publications and posts over time, the following eDiscovery Market Size Mashup shares general worldwide market sizing considerations for both the software and service areas of the electronic discovery market for the years between 2013 and 2018.
By John Martin The ediscovery blogosphere and social media networks have been lighting up recently with the Great TAR 2.0 Debate with industry veterans John Tredennick, Maura Grossman, Gordon Cormack, and Ralph Losey launching persuasive arguments that the continuous-active learning version of technology-assisted review (“TAR 2.0″) is the superior method of ediscovery document review. Could […]
The Plan for AI-Enhanced search and review is in the form of a detailed 1,500 word outline. It looks like this Plan is commonly used in the future to obtain client and insurer approval of e-discovery review projects. I think that this review Plan of the future is part of a standardized approval process that is eventually set up for client protection. Obviously we have nothing like that now. The plan might even be shared with opposing counsel and the courts, but I cannot be sure of that. I had to make a quick exit from the NSA system before my intrusion was detected.
The goal of eDiscovery is not to achieve certain measures but to effectively identify the responsive documents. I fear that measurement has become an end itself, rather than a means to effective eDiscovery. Perhaps worse, there is a risk that parties may use measurement as a weapon in eDiscovery, imposing unreasonable burdens for dubious value. It’s time to bring a little more rationality to our measurement methods in eDiscovery.
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Updated 7/23/2013: Provided for your consideration and use are the in-progress results of the Predictive Coding and Provider Survey launched...