Location Privacy in Spatial Crowdsourcing

Spatial crowdsourcing (SC) is a new platform that engages individuals in collecting and analyzing environmental, social and other spatiotemporal information. With SC, requesters outsource their spatiotemporal tasks to a set of workers, who will perform the tasks by physically traveling to the tasks' locations. This chapter identifies privacy threats toward both workers and requesters during the two main phases of spatial crowdsourcing, tasking and reporting. Tasking is the process of identifying which tasks should be assigned to which workers. This process is handled by a spatial crowdsourcing server (SC-server). The latter phase is reporting, in which workers travel to the tasks' locations, complete the tasks and upload their reports to the SC-server. The challenge is to enable effective and efficient tasking as well as reporting in SC without disclosing the actual locations of workers (at least until they agree to perform a task) and the tasks themselves (at least to workers who are not assigned to those tasks). This chapter aims to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in protecting users' location privacy in spatial crowdsourcing. We provide a comparative study of a diverse set of solutions in terms of task publishing modes (push vs. pull), problem focuses (tasking and reporting), threats (server, requester and worker), and underlying technical approaches (from pseudonymity, cloaking, and perturbation to exchange-based and encryption-based techniques). The strengths and drawbacks of the techniques are highlighted, leading to a discussion of open problems and future work

On efficient and scalable time-continuous spatial crowdsourcing

The proliferation of advanced mobile terminals opened up a new crowdsourcing avenue, spatial crowdsourcing, to utilize the crowd potential to perform real-world tasks. In this work, we study a new type of spatial crowdsourcing, called time-continuous spatial crowdsourcing (TCSC in short). It supports broad applications for long-term continuous spatial data acquisition, ranging from environmental monitoring to traffic surveillance in citizen science and crowdsourcing projects. However, due to limited budgets and limited availability of workers in practice, the data collected is often incomplete, incurring data deficiency problem. To tackle that, in this work, we first propose an entropy-based quality metric, which captures the joint effects of incompletion in data acquisition and the imprecision in data interpolation. Based on that, we investigate quality-aware task assignment methods for both single- and multi-task scenarios. We show the NP-hardness of the single-task case, and design polynomial-time algorithms with guaranteed approximation ratios. We study novel indexing and pruning techniques for further enhancing the performance in practice. Then, we extend the solution to multi-task scenarios and devise a parallel framework for speeding up the process of optimization. We conduct extensive experiments on both real and synthetic datasets to show the effectiveness of our proposals

Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexicon

Even though considerable attention has been given to the polarity of words (positive and negative) and the creation of large polarity lexicons, research in emotion analysis has had to rely on limited and small emotion lexicons. In this paper we show how the combined strength and wisdom of the crowds can be used to generate a large, high-quality, word-emotion and word-polarity association lexicon quickly and inexpensively. We enumerate the challenges in emotion annotation in a crowdsourcing scenario and propose solutions to address them. Most notably, in addition to questions about emotions associated with terms, we show how the inclusion of a word choice question can discourage malicious data entry, help identify instances where the annotator may not be familiar with the target term (allowing us to reject such annotations), and help obtain annotations at sense level (rather than at word level). We conducted experiments on how to formulate the emotion-annotation questions, and show that asking if a term is associated with an emotion leads to markedly higher inter-annotator agreement than that obtained by asking if a term evokes an emotion