# Toward Addressing Location Privacy Issues: New Affiliations with Social and Location Attributes
## 3 Results
### Identifying User's Identity--Location Privacy Concerns  
Making assumptions about a user's identity through the disclosure of their geolocation information trigged a number of potential concerns. The following paper [20] proposes a new approach on handling location privacy concerns in services where users tend to share geolocation with other users (\"friends\" or \"buddies\") in a predetermined way in a geosocial network. [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] review previous work on this topic by mentioning [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON], FriendLocator, and VicinityLocator, which are all different solutions in addressing privacy issues in proximity services. After carrying out a number of experiments, the authors evaluate the protocols according to a number of criteria. In other words, users share geolocation information among their friends while identifying each other as \"friends\". This absence of a more detailed way of distinguishing acquaintances from close friends opens a new discussion on who can have access to our location information. This question along with additional parameters is going to be addressed in the next two papers.  
In [21], [PERSON] focuses on the \"Who should have access to what location information under which circumstances?\" question in a way to identify location, the identity of the user, time, and speed. The authors underline the need of the user to manage the accuracy settings of the abovementioned categories to address a user's needs or identity parameters. The paper identifies a number of concepts that need to be determined before moving to designing privacy policies, paying special attention to language.  
In the next study [22], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] wanted to investigate whether and what location information users would be willing to share with their acquaintances. The results of the study reveal that the most crucial factors for a user to disclose his/her location information included who was making the request, why the request was made in the first place, and what detail was useful to the acquaintance making the request. Having the aforementioned factors in mind, the participant would decide whether or not he/she would reveal the information requested. Other factors that played an important role included a user's activity and mood. More specifically, there were activities that users were more willing to reveal in relation to other activities. Mood was also important, as users tended to disclose their geolocation information when feeling depressed. Another important aspect was that participants did not opt for blurring their location information, as it was preferable for them to set social boundaries when the request was considered inappropriate, or because they thought that this level of information was useful for the requester. For example, when participants opted for less descriptive location information, it was not because they were not willing to share them, but because they thought that a more general statement would be more useful to the requester. The last finding of the study [22] makes us go a step further and draw an analogy to [PERSON]'s Cooperative Principle [23], according to which participants follow specific rules (maxims) in order to convey meaning. [PERSON]'s linguistic maxims seem to be in accordance with the study above as the maxim of quantity, according to which the speaker conveys only the amount of information that is helpful to the listener, and the maxim of manner, according to which the speaker conveys only the clearest and briefest message possible and always expresses it in the most decent manner, are in harmony with the conclusion of the aforementioned paper.