skip to main content
research-article

Scalable Privacy-preserving Geo-distance Evaluation for Precision Agriculture IoT Systems

Published:22 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Precision agriculture has become a promising paradigm to transform modern agriculture. The recent revolution in big data and Internet-of-Things (IoT) provides unprecedented benefits including optimizing yield, minimizing environmental impact, and reducing cost. However, the mass collection of farm data in IoT applications raises serious concerns about potential privacy leakage that may harm the farmers’ welfare. In this work, we propose a novel scalable and private geo-distance evaluation system, called SPRIDE, to allow application servers to provide geographic-based services by computing the distances among sensors and farms privately. The servers determine the distances without learning any additional information about their locations. The key idea of SPRIDE is to perform efficient distance measurement and distance comparison on encrypted locations over a sphere by leveraging a homomorphic cryptosystem. To serve a large user base, we further propose SPRIDE+ with novel and practical performance enhancements based on pre-computation of cryptographic elements. Through extensive experiments using real-world datasets, we show SPRIDE+ achieves private distance evaluation on a large network of farms, attaining 3+ times runtime performance improvement over existing techniques. We further show SPRIDE+ can run on resource-constrained mobile devices, which offers a practical solution for privacy-preserving precision agriculture IoT applications.

References

  1. Martín Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. 2016. Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 308–318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Miguel E. Andrés, Nicolás E. Bordenabe, Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis, and Catuscia Palamidessi. 2013. Geo-indistinguishability: Differential Privacy for Location-based Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’13). 901–914. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Apple. 2017. Accessed at October 9, 2019. Differential Privacy. Retrieved from https://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/Differential_Privacy_Overview.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. BlueKrypt. 2020. Accessed at Oct. 17, 2020. Cryptographic key length recommendation. Retrieved from https://www.keylength.com/en/8/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Aida Boghossian, Scott Linsky, Alicia Brown, Peter Mutschler, Brian Ulicny, Larry Barrett, Glenn Bethel, Michael Matson, Thomas Strang, Kellyn Ramsdell, and Susan Koehler. 2018. Threats to precision agriculture (2018 public private analytic exchange program report). Department of Homeland Security. DOI:https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20693.37600Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kamalika Chaudhuri and Claire Monteleoni. 2009. Privacy-preserving logistic regression. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 289–296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kamalika Chaudhuri, Anand D. Sarwate, and Kaushik Sinha. 2013. A near-optimal algorithm for differentially private principal components. J. Mach. Learn.ing Res. 14, 1 (2013), 2905–2943. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. X. Chen, X. Wu, X. Y. Li, Y. He, and Y. Liu. 2014. Privacy-preserving high-quality map generation with participatory sensing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. 2310–2318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi-Yin Chow, Mohamed F. Mokbel, and Xuan Liu. 2006. A Peer-to-peer spatial cloaking algorithm for anonymous location-based service. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (GIS’06). 171–178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Graham Cluley. 2018. Accessed at Jan 24, 2021. Privacy of fitness tracking apps in the spotlight after soldiers’ exercise routes shared online. Retrieved from https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/01/30/privacy-fitness-tracking-apps-spotlight-soldiers-exercise-routes-shared-online/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sabrina De Capitani Di Vimercati, Sara Foresti, Sushil Jajodia, Stefano Paraboschi, and Pierangela Samarati. 2007. Over-encryption: Management of access control evolution on outsourced data. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on very Large Data Bases. 123–134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Wenliang Du, Yunghsiang S. Han, and Shigang Chen. 2004. Privacy-preserving multivariate statistical analysis: Linear regression and classification. In Proceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. 222–233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Cynthia Dwork. 2011. Differential privacy. In Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security. Springer, Boston, MA. 338–340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Esri. 2008. GIS for sustainable agriculture. GIS Best Pract. (Sep. 2008) ESRI Publications, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jody L. Ferris. 2017. Data privacy and protection in the agriculture industry: Is federal regulation necessary?Minnesota J. Law, Sci. Technol. 18, 1 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dario Freni, Carmen Ruiz Vicente, Sergio Mascetti, Claudio Bettini, and Christian S. Jensen. 2010. Preserving location and absence privacy in geo-social networks. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM’10). 309–318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Robin Gebbers and Viacheslav I. Adamchuk. 2010. Precision agriculture and food security. Science 327, 5967 (Feb. 2010), 828–831.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Craig Gentry. 2009. A Fully Homomorphic Encryption Scheme. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Geokov. 2014. Accessed at October 9, 2019. UTM Projection. Retrieved from http://geokov.com/education/utm.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. P. Hallgren, M. Ochoa, and A. Sabelfeld. 2015. InnerCircle: A parallelizable decentralized privacy-preserving location proximity protocol. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST). 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Informationisbeautiful. 2021. Accessed at October 9, 2019. World’s Biggest Data Breaches. Retrieved from http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizat ions/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Suat Irmak, Jennifer M. Rees, Gary L. Zoubek, Brandy S. van DeWalle, William R. Rathje, Rodney DeBuhr, Dan Leininger, Darrel D. Siekman, James W. Schneider, and Andrew P. Christiansen. 2010. Nebraska agricultural water management demonstration network (NAWMDN): Integrating research and extension/outreach. Appl. Eng. Agric. 26, 4 (2010), 599–613.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Suat Irmak and Vivek Sharma. 2015. Large-scale and long-term trends and magnitudes in irrigated and rainfed maize and soybean water productivity: Grain yield and evapotranspiration frequency, crop water use efficiency, and production functions. Trans. ASABE 58, 1 (2015), 103–120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Geetha Jagannathan and Rebecca N. Wright. 2005. Privacy-preserving distributed k-means clustering over arbitrarily partitioned data. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Conference. 593–599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Charles F. F. Karney. 2011. Transverse Mercator with an accuracy of a few nanometers. J. Geodesy 85, 8 (2011), 475–485.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. H. Kido, Y. Yanagisawa, and T. Satoh. 2005. Protection of location privacy using dummies for location-based services. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops. 1248–1248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. John Krumm. 2009. Realistic Driving Trips for Location Privacy. Springer Berlin, 25–41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. John Krumm. 2009. A survey of computational location privacy. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 13, 6 (Aug. 2009), 391–399. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. X. Y. Li and T. Jung. 2013. Search me if you can: Privacy-preserving location query service. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. 2013. 2760–2768.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yehuda Lindell and Benny Pinkas. 2000. Privacy preserving data mining. In Proceedings of the Advances in Cryptology Conference. 36–54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Chris Y. T. Ma, David K. Y. Yau, Nung Kwan Yip, and Nageswara S. V. Rao. 2010. Privacy vulnerability of published anonymous mobility traces. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’10). 185–196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Sergio Mascetti, Dario Freni, Claudio Bettini, X. Sean Wang, and Sushil Jajodia. 2011. Privacy in geo-social networks: Proximity notification with untrusted service providers and curious buddies. VLDB J. 20, 4 (Aug. 2011), 541–566. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Samuel K. Moore. 2017. Accessed at October 9, 2019. Superaccurate GPS Chips Coming to Smartphones in 2018. Retrieved from https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/design/superaccurate-gps-chips-coming-to-smartphones-in-2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Michael Naehrig, Kristin Lauter, and Vinod Vaikuntanathan. 2011. Can homomorphic encryption Be practical? In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Cloud Computing Security Workshop (CCSW’11). 113–124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. A. Narayanan, N. Thiagarajan, M. Lakhani, M. Hamburg, and Dan Boneh. 2011. Location privacy via private proximity testing. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS’11).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Pascal Paillier. 1999. Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques (EUROCRYPT’99). 223–238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Vern Paxson. 2001. An analysis of using reflectors for distributed denial-of-service attacks. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 31, 3 (2001), 38–47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Benjamin I. P. Rubinstein, Peter L. Bartlett, Ling Huang, and Nina Taft. 2009. Learning in a large function space: Privacy-preserving mechanisms for SVM learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.5708 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Anand D. Sarwate and Kamalika Chaudhuri. 2013. Signal processing and machine learning with differential privacy: Algorithms and challenges for continuous data. IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag. 30, 5 (Aug. 2013), 86–94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Vivek Sharma, Suat Irmak, Koffi Djaman, and Vasudha Sharma. 2015. Large-scale spatial and temporal variability in evapotranspiration, crop water-use efficiency, and evapotranspiration water-use efficiency of irrigated and rainfed maize and soybean. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 142, 3 (2015), 04015063.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Reza Shokri and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2015. Privacy-preserving deep learning. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1310–1321. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Reza Shokri, George Theodorakopoulos, Jean-Yves Le Boudec, and Jean-Pierre Hubaux. 2011. Quantifying location privacy. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’11). 247–262. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. John V. Stafford. 2000. Implementing precision agriculture in the 21st century. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 76, 3 (Jul. 2000), 267–275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Jun Tang, Aleksandra Korolova, Xiaolong Bai, Xueqiang Wang, and Xiaofeng Wang. 2017. Privacy loss in Apple’s implementation of differential privacy on MacOS 10.12. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.02753 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. TOR. 2021. Accessed at October 9, 2019. TOR Project. Retrieved from https://www.torproject.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. USDA. 2019. Accessed at Jan. 30, 2021. Which are the top 10 agricultural producing states?Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs/#Q1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jaideep Vaidya and Chris Clifton. 2002. Privacy preserving association rule mining in vertically partitioned data. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Conference. 639–644. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Jaideep Vaidya, Murat Kantarcıoğlu, and Chris Clifton. 2008. Privacy-preserving naive Bayes classification. VLDB J. 17, 4 (2008), 879–898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Thaddeus Vincenty. 1975. Direct and inverse solutions of geodesics on the ellipsoid with application of nested equations. Surv. Rev. 23, 176 (1975), 88–93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Jaroslav Šeděnka and Paolo Gasti. 2014. Privacy-preserving distance computation and proximity testing on earth, done right. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security (ASIACCS’14). 99–110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Wikipedia. 2021. Accessed at June 29, 2020. Figure of the Earth. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth#Ellipsoid_of_revolution.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Wikipedia. 2021. Accessed at June 29, 2020. Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Transverse_Mercator_coordinate_system.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Wikipedia. 2021. Accessed at October 9, 2019. Haversine formula. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Sjaak Wolfert, Lan Ge, Cor Verdouw, and Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt. 2017. Big data in smart farming–a review. Agric. Syst. 153 (2017), 69–80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Yonghui Xiao and Li Xiong. 2015. Protecting locations with differential privacy under temporal correlations. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1298–1309. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Jia Xu, Ee-Chien Chang, and Jianying Zhou. 2013. Weak leakage-resilient client-side deduplication of encrypted data in cloud storage. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSAC Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security. 195–206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Shucheng Yu, Cong Wang, Kui Ren, and Wenjing Lou. 2010. Achieving secure, scalable, and fine-grained data access control in cloud computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. 1–9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Jun Zhang, Zhenjie Zhang, Xiaokui Xiao, Yin Yang, and Marianne Winslett. 2012. Functional mechanism: Regression analysis under differential privacy. Proc. VLDB Endow. 5, 11 (2012), 1364–1375. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Yu Zheng, Xing Xie, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2010. GeoLife: A collaborative social networking service among user, location and trajectory. IEEE Data(base) Eng. Bull. (June 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Ge Zhong, Ian Goldberg, and Urs Hengartner. 2007. Louis, Lester and Pierre: Three protocols for location privacy. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET’07). 62–76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Scalable Privacy-preserving Geo-distance Evaluation for Precision Agriculture IoT Systems

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks
        ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks  Volume 17, Issue 4
        November 2021
        403 pages
        ISSN:1550-4859
        EISSN:1550-4867
        DOI:10.1145/3472298
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 22 July 2021
        • Accepted: 1 April 2021
        • Revised: 1 February 2021
        • Received: 1 October 2020
        Published in tosn Volume 17, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format