Cited by 3,617Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionAccess Control and Trust

L -diversity: Privacy beyond k -anonymity

Machanavajjhala, Ashwin, Kifer, Daniel, Gehrke, Johannes, Venkitasubramaniam, Muthuramakrishnan·2007·ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data

Abstract

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 ℓ-diversity that can defend against such attacks. In addition to building a formal foundation for ℓ-diversity, we show in an experimental evaluation that ℓ-diversity is practical and can be implemented efficiently.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1217299.1217302

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machanavajjhala et al. proposed l-diversity, which ensures that each sensitive attribute of the user should have l distinct values for every equivalence class, which share the same quasi-identifier values.

    “To address these shortcomings, Machanavajjhala et al. [162] proposed l-diversity, which ensures that each sensitive attribute of the user should have l distinct values for every equivalence class, which share the same quasi-identifier values.”
  • Key approaches seek to protect specific individuals and groups from being identifiable, i.e., minimize disclosure risk.

    “Key approaches (e.g.[194,205,276]) seek to protect speciic individuals and groups from being identiiable, i.e., minimize disclosure risk.”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [205]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Gehrke, J., & Venkitasubramaniam, M.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data
Published
2007-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
3
ISSN
  • 1556-4681 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-472X
OpenAlex
W2134167315
Cited by
3,617
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 96 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 152 · 2023: 179 · 2022: 179 · 2021: 237 · 2020: 199 · 2019: 183 · 2018: 245 · 2017: 248 · 2016: 232 · 2015: 246 · 2014: 264 · 2013: 219 · 2012: 189
FWCI
155.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
Keywords
l-diversity, k-anonymity, privacy preservation, data anonymization, background knowledge attack, privacy attacks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review