• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.79-84
• /
• 2018

Cloud services are readily available through a variety of media, attracting a lot of attention from users. However, there are various security damages that abuse the privacy of users who use cloud services, so there is not enough technology to prevent them. In this paper, we propose a protection model to safeguard user's privacy in a cloud environment so as not to illegally exploit user's privacy. The proposed model randomly manages the user's signature to strengthen the role of the middle manager and the cloud server. In the proposed model, the user's privacy information is provided illegally by the cloud server to the user through the security function and the user signature. Also, the signature of the user can be safely used by bundling the random number of the multiplication group and the one-way hash function into the hash chain to protect the user's privacy. As a result of the performance evaluation, the proposed model achieved an average improvement of data processing time of 24.5% compared to the existing model and the efficiency of the proposed model was improved by 13.7% than the existing model because the user's privacy information was group managed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.175-209
• /
• 2019

The bundled discounting which the dominant undertakings engage in is problematic in terms of competition restraint. Bundled discounts generally benefit not only buyers but also sellers. Specifically, bundled discounts usually costs a firm less to sell multiple products. In addition, Bundled discounts always provide some immediate consumer benefit in the form of lower prices. Therefore, competition authorities and courts should not be too quick to condemn bundled discounts and apply the neutral and objective standard in bundled discounting cases. Cascade Health v. Peacehealth decision starts ruling from this prerequisite. This decision pointed out that the dominant undertaking can exclude rivals through bundled discounting without pricing its products below its cost when rivals do not sell as great a number of product lines. So bundled discounting may have the anticompetitive impact by excluding less diversified but more efficient producers. This decision did not adopt Lepage case's standard which does not require the court to consider whether the competitor was at least as efficient of a producer as the bundled discounter. Instead of that, based on cost based approach, this decision said that the exclusionary element can not be satisfied unless the discounts result in prices that are below an appropriate measures of the defendant's costs. By adopting a discount attribution standard, this decision said that the full amount of the discounts should be allocated to the competitive products. As the seller can easily ascertain its own prices and costs of production and calculate whether its discounting practices exclude competitors, not the competitor's costs but the dominant undertaking's costs should be considered in applying discount attribution standard. This case deals with bundled discounting practice of multiple healthcare services by the dominant undertaking in healthcare market. Under the Korean healthcare system and public health insurance system, the price competition primarily exists in non-medical care benefits because public healthcare insurance in Korea is in combination with the compulsory medical care institution system. The cases that Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law deals with, such as cartel and the abuse of monopoly power, also mainly exist in non-medical care benefits. The dominant undertaking's exclusionary bundled discounting in Korean healthcare markets may be practiced in the contracts between the dominant undertaking and private insurance companies with regards to non-medical care benefits.