Publishing data about individuals without revealing sensitive information about them is an important problem. In recent years, a new definition of privacy called k-anonymity has gained popularity. In a k-anonymized dataset, each record is indistinguishable from at least k − 1 other records with respect to certain identifying attributes.In this article, we show using two simple attacks that a k-anonymized dataset has some subtle but severe privacy problems. First, an attacker can discover the values of sensitive attributes when there is little diversity in those sensitive attributes. This is a known problem. Second, attackers often have background knowledge, and we show that k-anonymity does not guarantee privacy against attackers using background knowledge. We give a detailed analysis of these two attacks, and we propose a novel and powerful privacy criterion called e-diversity that can defend against such attacks. In addition to building a formal foundation for e-diversity, we show in an experimental evaluation that e-diversity is practical and can be implemented efficiently.

/pdf/l-diversity-privacy-beyond-k-anonymity-54qdj1526d.pdf

L-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity

Over the past five years a new approach to privacy-preserving data analysis has born fruit [13, 18, 7, 19, 5, 37, 35, 8, 32]. This approach differs from much (but not all!) of the related literature in the statistics, databases, theory, and cryptography communities, in that a formal and ad omnia privacy guarantee is defined, and the data analysis techniques presented are rigorously proved to satisfy the guarantee. The key privacy guarantee that has emerged is differential privacy. Roughly speaking, this ensures that (almost, and quantifiably) no risk is incurred by joining a statistical database.

In this survey, we recall the definition of differential privacy and two basic techniques for achieving it. We then show some interesting applications of these techniques, presenting algorithms for three specific tasks and three general results on differentially private learning.

/pdf/differential-privacy-a-survey-of-results-36msco9vw4.pdf

Differential privacy: a survey of results

The k-anonymity privacy requirement for publishing microdata requires that each equivalence class (ie, a set of records that are indistinguishable from each other with respect to certain "identifying" attributes) contains at least k records Recently, several authors have recognized that k-anonymity cannot prevent attribute disclosure The notion of l-diversity has been proposed to address this; l-diversity requires that each equivalence class has at least l well-represented values for each sensitive attribute In this paper we show that l-diversity has a number of limitations In particular, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent attribute disclosure We propose a novel privacy notion called t-closeness, which requires that the distribution of a sensitive attribute in any equivalence class is close to the distribution of the attribute in the overall table (ie, the distance between the two distributions should be no more than a threshold t) We choose to use the earth mover distance measure for our t-closeness requirement We discuss the rationale for t-closeness and illustrate its advantages through examples and experiments

/pdf/t-closeness-privacy-beyond-k-anonymity-and-l-diversity-g56og4c91q.pdf

t-Closeness: Privacy Beyond k-Anonymity and l-Diversity

25. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. By D. B. Rubin. ISBN 0 471 08705 X. Wiley, Chichester, 1987. 258 pp. £30.25.

Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys

The PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge

Publishing data about individuals without revealing sensitive information about them is an important problem. In recent years, a new definition of privacy called \kappa-anonymity has gained popularity. In a \kappa-anonymized dataset, each record is indistinguishable from at least k—1 other records with respect to certain "identifying" attributes. In this paper we show with two simple attacks that a \kappa-anonymized dataset has some subtle, but severe privacy problems. First, we show that an attacker can discover the values of sensitive attributes when there is little diversity in those sensitive attributes. Second, attackers often have background knowledge, and we show that \kappa-anonymity does not guarantee privacy against attackers using background knowledge. We give a detailed analysis of these two attacks and we propose a novel and powerful privacy definition called \ell-diversity. In addition to building a formal foundation for \ell-diversity, we show in an experimental evaluation that \ell-diversity is practical and can be implemented efficiently.

/pdf/l-diversity-privacy-beyond-k-anonymity-43op5i6gzs.pdf

L-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity

Differential privacy is a powerful tool for providing privacy-preserving noisy query answers over statistical databases. It guarantees that the distribution of noisy query answers changes very little with the addition or deletion of any tuple. It is frequently accompanied by popularized claims that it provides privacy without any assumptions about the data and that it protects against attackers who know all but one record. In this paper we critically analyze the privacy protections offered by differential privacy.First, we use a no-free-lunch theorem, which defines non-privacy as a game, to argue that it is not possible to provide privacy and utility without making assumptions about how the data are generated. Then we explain where assumptions are needed. We argue that privacy of an individual is preserved when it is possible to limit the inference of an attacker about the participation of the individual in the data generating process. This is different from limiting the inference about the presence of a tuple (for example, Bob's participation in a social network may cause edges to form between pairs of his friends, so that it affects more than just the tuple labeled as "Bob"). The definition of evidence of participation, in turn, depends on how the data are generated -- this is how assumptions enter the picture. We explain these ideas using examples from social network research as well as tabular data for which deterministic statistics have been previously released. In both cases the notion of participation varies, the use of differential privacy can lead to privacy breaches, and differential privacy does not always adequately limit inference about participation.

/pdf/no-free-lunch-in-data-privacy-29uglws80z.pdf

No free lunch in data privacy

This tutorial brings together perspectives on ER from a variety of fields, including databases, machine learning, natural language processing and information retrieval, to provide, in one setting, a survey of a large body of work. We discuss both the practical aspects and theoretical underpinnings of ER. We describe existing solutions, current challenges, and open research problems.

https://vldb.org/pvldb/vol5/p2018_lisegetoor_vldb2012.pdf

Entity resolution: theory, practice & open challenges

In this article, we introduce a new and general privacy framework called Pufferfish. The Pufferfish framework can be used to create new privacy definitions that are customized to the needs of a given application. The goal of Pufferfish is to allow experts in an application domain, who frequently do not have expertise in privacy, to develop rigorous privacy definitions for their data sharing needs. In addition to this, the Pufferfish framework can also be used to study existing privacy definitions. We illustrate the benefits with several applications of this privacy framework: we use it to analyze differential privacy and formalize a connection to attackers who believe that the data records are independent; we use it to create a privacy definition called hedging privacy, which can be used to rule out attackers whose prior beliefs are inconsistent with the data; we use the framework to define and study the notion of composition in a broader context than before; we show how to apply the framework to protect unbounded continuous attributes and aggregate information; and we show how to use the framework to rigorously account for prior data releases.

Ashwin Machanavajjhala

Papers

L-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity

L-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity

No free lunch in data privacy

Entity resolution: theory, practice & open challenges

Pufferfish: A framework for mathematical privacy definitions