# Toward Addressing Location Privacy Issues: New Affiliations with Social and Location Attributes
## 3 Results
### Identifying User's Identity--Privacy Threats in Geolocation Apps/Services
Some of the most popular approaches for preserving location privacy can be divided in three categories: Location protection through user-defined or system-supplied privacy policies, Location protection through the anonymous usage of information, and Location protection through applying the pseudonymity of user identities. The authors claim that \"location privacy is context sensitive\" (p. 2); in that way, there seems to be a continuous fluctuation between users' need for using location services appropriately and their need for protecting their privacy. In that way, by using k-anonymity, users can address their anonymity set among users, and by using l-diversity, they can address their set of possible locations. M-variant can also provide different routes for mobile users. In [33], [PERSON] and [PERSON] underline that sensitive location information can potentially threaten a \"user's identity and integrity\" (p. 2). This type of information should be put under meticulous analysis in order to identify both possible attacks and handling mechanisms. The article draws attention to two different ways that location privacy may be affected, more precisely, the kind of information that may be derived and the amount of time that the respective information is stored. The authors list a number of possible privacy attacks along with a proposition for handling them, namely, spatial knowledge attack, location-dependent attacks, multi-query attack, maximum movement boundary attack, trajectory attacks, inversion attacks, query tracking attacks, inference attacks, and other attacks. The authors argue that despite researchers' privacy protection methods in use, especially after the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011, there is a considerable number of open issues to address, such as the use of semantics, privacy-preserving location information collection, the application of PIR, and the formalizing of location privacy preservation mechanisms. Additional techniques for handling a user's location information are under discussion in [34]. [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] focus on location privacy, meaning information provided as far as a user's presence in a place is concerned, and absence privacy, meaning information provided as far as a user's absence from a place is concerned at a specific time. Users and service providers are highly interested in identifying and putting into practice mutually accepted privacy preferences, as it is common knowledge that geospatial and temporal content may be retrieved through a service provider. Another paper that deals with privacy threats associated with location privacy and friendship relation privacy while at the same time providing enough information on a user's location is [35]. According to [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON], privacy is addressed as multidimensional, consisting of location privacy and identity privacy. According to [PERSON] et al. 's definition of complete privacy, it is possible to refer to complete privacy when both location privacy and identity privacy are met. The authors developed a new cryptographic primitive, so that users can be protected from untrusted users while keeping their identity visible to their \"friends\". More precisely, the paper identifies three possible attacks, namely, attacks on pseudonym, attacks on location information, and attacks on friendship relation, which are respectively linked to pseudonym indistinguishability, identity/location privacies, and friendship relation privacy as security goals. [PERSON] and [PERSON] also discuss the appropriate level of obfuscation for users to experience the benefits of online location services while at the same time maintaining the desired level of location privacy [8].