The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Limiting privacy breaches in privacy preserving data mining
Abstract
There has been increasing interest in the problem of building accurate data mining models over aggregate data, while protecting privacy at the level of individual records. One approach for this problem is to randomize the values in individual records, and only disclose the randomized values. The model is then built over the randomized data, after first compensating for the randomization (at the aggregate level). This approach is potentially vulnerable to privacy breaches: based on the distribution of the data, one may be able to learn with high confidence that some of the randomized records satisfy a specified property, even though privacy is preserved on average.In this paper, we present a new formulation of privacy breaches, together with a methodology, "amplification", for limiting them. Unlike earlier approaches, amplification makes it is possible to guarantee limits on privacy breaches without any knowledge of the distribution of the original data. We instantiate this methodology for the problem of mining association rules, and modify the algorithm from [9] to limit privacy breaches without knowledge of the data distribution. Next, we address the problem that the amount of randomization required to avoid privacy breaches (when mining association rules) results in very long transactions. By using pseudorandom generators and carefully choosing seeds such that the desired items from the original transaction are present in the randomized transaction, we can send just the seed instead of the transaction, resulting in a dramatic drop in communication and storage cost. Finally, we define new information measures that take privacy breaches into account when quantifying the amount of privacy preserved by randomization.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems
Shannon, C. E. (1949) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1949.tb00928.x · Cited by 9,440 · cited 1×
“In this section we consider a class of privacy measures inspired by Shannon’s information theo ry [19], adjusted so that they bound privacy breaches.”
Method
Cited by
Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis
Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., & Smith, A. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11681878_14 · Cited by 7,272
L -diversity: Privacy beyond k -anonymity
Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Gehrke, J., & Venkitasubramaniam, M. (2007) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/1217299.1217302 · Cited by 3,617
Self-citationDifferential Privacy: A Survey of Results
Dwork, C. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79228-4_1 · Cited by 3,542
Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation
Dwork, C., Kenthapadi, K., McSherry, F., Mironov, I., & Naor, M. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11761679_29 · Cited by 1,835
(2011) · PubMed · Cited by 990
Differential Privacy for Deep and Federated Learning: A Survey
Ouadrhiri, A. E., & Abdelhadi, A. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3151670 · Cited by 445
Prochlo: Strong Privacy for Analytics in the Crowd
Bittau, A., Erlingsson, Ú., Maniatis, P., Mironov, I., Raghunathan, A., Lie, D., Rudominer, M., Kode, U., Tinnes, J., & Seefeld, B. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles · doi:10.1145/3132747.3132769 · Cited by 378
Distributed Differential Privacy via Shuffling
Cheu, A., Smith, A., Ullman, J., Zeber, D., & Zhilyaev, M. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17653-2_13 · Cited by 268
Managing Your Private and Public Data: Bringing Down Inference Attacks Against Your Privacy
Salamatian, S., Zhang, A., du Pin Calmon, F., Bhamidipati, S., Fawaz, N., Kveton, B., Oliveira, P., & Taft, N. (2015) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/jstsp.2015.2442227 · Cited by 66
Practical and private (deep) learning without sampling or shuffling
Kairouz, P., McMahan, B., Song, S., Thakkar, O., Thakurta, A., & Xu, Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00039 · Cited by 52
(2011) · Cited by 34
Privacy preserving and secure robust federated learning: A survey
Han, Q., Lu, S., Wang, W., Qu, H., Li, J., & Gao, Y. (2024) · Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.8084 · Cited by 29
AirGapAgent: Protecting Privacy-Conscious Conversational Agents
Bagdasarian, E., Yi, R., Ghalebikesabi, S., Kairouz, P., Gruteser, M., Oh, S., Balle, B., & Ramage, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3658644.3690350 · Cited by 28
“Other methods that protect data, like local differential privacy (DP) [23, 24, 33, 61], are not context-aware and therefore reduce the agent’s utility by always introducing noise on user data [17, 22, 32].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Evfimievski, A., Gehrke, J., & Srikant, R.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the twenty-second ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2003-06-09
- Pages
- 211-222
- OpenAlex
- W2130099852
- Cited by
- 815
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 30.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.