Document Open Access Logo

On Privacy and Accuracy in Data Releases (Invited Paper)

Authors Mário S. Alvim, Natasha Fernandes, Annabelle McIver, Gabriel H. Nunes

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.CONCUR.2020.1.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.62 MB
  • 18 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Mário S. Alvim
  • Computer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brasil
Natasha Fernandes
  • Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Annabelle McIver
  • Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Gabriel H. Nunes
  • Computer Science Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brasil

Funding

  • Alvim, Mário S.: Supported by CNPq, CAPES, and FAPEMIG.
  • Nunes, Gabriel H.: Supported by CNPq, CAPES, and FAPEMIG.

Cite As Get BibTex

Mário S. Alvim, Natasha Fernandes, Annabelle McIver, and Gabriel H. Nunes. On Privacy and Accuracy in Data Releases (Invited Paper). In 31st International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 2020). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 171, pp. 1:1-1:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.CONCUR.2020.1

Abstract

In this paper we study the relationship between privacy and accuracy in the context of correlated datasets. We use a model of quantitative information flow to describe the the trade-off between privacy of individuals' data and and the utility of queries to that data by modelling the effectiveness of adversaries attempting to make inferences after a data release.
We show that, where correlations exist in datasets, it is not possible to implement optimal noise-adding mechanisms that give the best possible accuracy or the best possible privacy in all situations. Finally we illustrate the trade-off between accuracy and privacy for local and oblivious differentially private mechanisms in terms of inference attacks on medium-scale datasets.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Security and privacy
Keywords
  • Privacy/utility trade-off
  • Quantitative Information Flow
  • inference attacks

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Mário S. Alvim, Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis, Pierpaolo Degano, and Catuscia Palamidessi. Differential privacy versus quantitative information flow. CoRR, abs/1012.4250, 2010. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4250.
  2. Mário S. Alvim, Kostas Chatzikokolakis, Catuscia Palamidessi, and Geoffrey Smith. Measuring information leakage using generalized gain functions. In Proc. 25th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF 2012), pages 265-279, June 2012. Google Scholar
  3. David Clark, Sebastian Hunt, and Pasquale Malacaria. Quantitative analysis of the leakage of confidential data. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 59(3):238-251, 2001. Google Scholar
  4. David Clark, Sebastian Hunt, and Pasquale Malacaria. Quantified interference for a while language. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 112:149-166, 2005. Google Scholar
  5. Damien Desfontaines and Balázs Pejó. Sok: Differential privacies. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2020(2):288-313, 2020. Google Scholar
  6. Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam D. Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Shai Halevi and Tal Rabin, editors, Theory of Cryptography, Third Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2006, New York, NY, USA, March 4-7, 2006, Proceedings, volume 3876 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 265-284. Springer, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/11681878_14.
  7. Xi He, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, and Bolin Ding. Blowfish privacy: Tuning privacy-utility trade-offs using policies. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 1447-1458, 2014. Google Scholar
  8. Bargav Jayaraman and David Evans. Evaluating differentially private machine learning in practice. In Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, SEC'19, page 18951912, USA, 2019. USENIX Association. Google Scholar
  9. Bargav Jayaraman, Lingxiao Wang, David Evans, and Quanquan Gu. Revisiting membership inference under realistic assumptions. arXiv preprint, 2020. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10881.
  10. C. Palamidessi K. Chatzikokolakis, N. Fernandes. Comparing systems: Max-case refinement orders and application to differential privacy. In Proc. CSF. IEEE Press, 2019. Google Scholar
  11. Daniel Kifer and Ashwin Machanavajjhala. No free lunch in data privacy. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD Õ11, page 193Ð204, New York, NY, USA, 2011. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1989323.1989345.
  12. Daniel Kifer and Ashwin Machanavajjhala. Pufferfish: A framework for mathematical privacy definitions. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 39(1), January 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2514689.
  13. Changchang Liu, Supriyo Chakraborty, and Prateek Mittal. Dependence makes you vulnberable: Differential privacy under dependent tuples. In NDSS, volume 16, pages 21-24, 2016. Google Scholar
  14. Alvim M, K. Chatzikokolakis, A.K. McIver, C.C. Morgan, G. Smith, and C. Palamidessi. The Science of Quantitative Information Flow. Information Security and Cryptography. Springer, 2020. To appear. Google Scholar
  15. Arvind Narayanan, Hristo S. Paskov, Neil Zhenqiang Gong, John Bethencourt, Emil Stefanov, Eui Chul Richard Shin, and Dawn Song. On the feasibility of internet-scale author identification. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP 2012, 21-23 May 2012, San Francisco, California, USA, pages 300-314. IEEE Computer Society, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2012.46.
  16. Md Atiqur Rahman, Tanzila Rahman, Robert Laganière, Noman Mohammed, and Yang Wang. Membership inference attack against differentially private deep learning model. Trans. Data Priv., 11(1):61-79, 2018. Google Scholar
  17. Salman Salamatian, Amy Zhang, Flavio du Pin Calmon, Sandilya Bhamidipati, Nadia Fawaz, Branislav Kveton, Pedro Oliveira, and Nina Taft. Managing your private and public data: Bringing down inference attacks against your privacy. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 9(7):1240-1255, 2015. Google Scholar
  18. C.E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27:379-423, 623-656, 1948. Google Scholar
  19. Geoffrey Smith. On the foundations of quantitative information flow. In Luca de Alfaro, editor, Proc. 12th International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computational Structures (FoSSaCS '09), volume 5504 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 288-302, 2009. Google Scholar
  20. S.L. Warner. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60:63Ð69, 1965. Google Scholar
  21. Tianqing Zhu, Ping Xiong, Gang Li, and Wanlei Zhou. Correlated differential privacy: Hiding information in non-iid data set. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 10(2):229-242, 2014. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact