Publications by Year: 2016

Sofya Raskhodnikova and Adam Smith. 2016. “Lipschitz Extensions for Node­Private Graph Statistics and the Generalized Exponential Mechanism.” Proceedings of the 57th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).
Kobbi Nissim, Uri Stemmer, and Salil Vadhan. 2016. “Locating a Small Cluster Privately.” In PODS 2016. ACM SIGMOD/PODS Conference, San Francisco, USA, 2016.Abstract

We present a new algorithm for locating a small cluster of points with differential privacy [Dwork, McSherry, Nissim,and Smith, 2006]. Our algorithm has implications to private data exploration, clustering, and removal of outliers. Furthermore, we use it to significantly relax the requirements of the sample and aggregate technique [Nissim, Raskhodnikova,and Smith, 2007], which allows compiling of "off the shelf" (non-private) analyses into analyses that preserve differential privacy.

Mark Bun and Mark Zhandry. 2016. “Order revealing encryption and the hardness of private learning.” In Proceedings of the 12th Theory of Cryptography Conference (TCC 2016). Tel-Aviv, Israel.Abstract

An order-revealing encryption scheme gives a public procedure by which two ciphertexts can be compared to reveal the ordering of their underlying plaintexts. We show how to use order-revealing encryption to separate computationally efficient PAC learning from efficient (ϵ,δ)-differentially private PAC learning. That is, we construct a concept class that is efficiently PAC learnable, but for which every efficient learner fails to be differentially private. This answers a question of Kasiviswanathan et al. (FOCS '08, SIAM J. Comput. '11).
To prove our result, we give a generic transformation from an order-revealing encryption scheme into one with strongly correct comparison, which enables the consistent comparison of ciphertexts that are not obtained as the valid encryption of any message. We believe this construction may be of independent interest.

Micah Altman, Alexandra Wood, David R. O'Brien, and Urs Gasser. 2016. “Practical Approaches to Big Data Privacy Over Time.” Brussels Privacy Symposium.Abstract

Increasingly, governments and businesses are collecting, analyzing, and sharing detailed information about individuals over long periods of time. Vast quantities of data from new sources and novel methods for large-scale data analysis promise to yield deeper understanding of human characteristics, behavior, and relationships and advance the state of science, public policy, and innovation. At the same time, the collection and use of fine-grained personal data over time is associated with significant risks to individuals, groups, and society at large. In this article, we examine a range of longterm data collections, conducted by researchers in social science, in order to identify the characteristics of these programs that drive their unique sets of risks and benefits. We also examine the practices that have been established by social scientists to protect the privacy of data subjects in light of the challenges presented in long-term studies. We argue that many uses of big data, across academic, government, and industry settings, have characteristics similar to those of traditional long-term research studies. In this article, we discuss the lessons that can be learned from longstanding data management practices in research and potentially applied in the context of newly emerging data sources and uses.

Ryan Rogers, Aaron Roth, Jonathan Ullman, and Salil Vadhan. 2016. “Privacy Odometers and Filters: Pay-as-you-Go Composition.” Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS).Abstract

In this paper we initiate the study of adaptive composition in differential privacy when the length of the composition, and the privacy parameters themselves can be chosen adaptively, as a function of the outcome of previously run analyses. This case is much more delicate than the setting covered by existing composition theorems, in which the algorithms themselves can be chosen adaptively, but the privacy parameters must be fixed up front. Indeed, it isn't even clear how to define differential privacy in the adaptive parameter setting. We proceed by defining two objects which cover the two main use cases of composition theorems. A privacy filter is a stopping time rule that allows an analyst to halt a computation before his pre-specified privacy budget is exceeded. A privacy odometer allows the analyst to track realized privacy loss as he goes, without needing to pre-specify a privacy budget. We show that unlike the case in which privacy parameters are fixed, in the adaptive parameter setting, these two use cases are distinct. We show that there exist privacy filters with bounds comparable (up to constants) with existing privacy composition theorems. We also give a privacy odometer that nearly matches non-adaptive private composition theorems, but is sometimes worse by a small asymptotic factor. Moreover, we show that this is inherent, and that any valid privacy odometer in the adaptive parameter setting must lose this factor, which shows a formal separation between the filter and odometer use-cases.

Myrto Arapinis, Diego Figueira, and Marco Gaboardi. 2016. “Sensitivity of Counting Queries.” 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming.Abstract

In the context of statistical databases, the release of accurate statistical information about the collected data often puts at risk the privacy of the individual contributors. The goal of differential privacy is to maximize the utility of a query while protecting the individual records in the database. A natural way to achieve differential privacy is to add statistical noise to the result of the query. In this context, a mechanism for releasing statistical information is thus a trade-off between utility and privacy. In order to balance these two "conflicting" requirements, privacy preserving mechanisms calibrate the added noise to the so-called sensitivity of the query, and thus a precise estimate of the sensitivity of the query is necessary to determine the amplitude of the noise to be added. In this paper, we initiate a systematic study of sensitivity of counting queries over relational databases. We first observe that the sensitivity of a Relational Algebra query with counting is not computable in general, and that while the sensitivity of Conjunctive Queries with counting is computable, it becomes unbounded as soon as the query includes a join. We then consider restricted classes of databases (databases with constraints), and study the problem of computing the sensitivity of a query given such constraints. We are able to establish bounds on the sensitivity of counting conjunctive queries over constrained databases. The kind of constraints studied here are: functional dependencies and cardinality dependencies. The latter is a natural generalization of functional dependencies that allows us to provide tight bounds on the sensitivity of counting conjunctive queries.

Mark Bun, Yi Hsiu Chen, and Salil Vadhan. 2016. “Separating Computational and Statistical Differential Privacy in the Client-Server Model.” Proceedings of the 14th Theory of Cryptography Conference (TCC 2016-B).Abstract

Differential privacy is a mathematical definition of privacy for statistical data analysis. It guarantees that any (possibly adversarial) data analyst is unable to learn too much information that is specific to an individual. Mironov et al. (CRYPTO 2009) proposed several computational relaxations of differential privacy (CDP), which relax this guarantee to hold only against computationally bounded adversaries. Their work and subsequent work showed that CDP can yield substantial accuracy improvements in various multiparty privacy problems. However, these works left open whether such improvements are possible in the traditional client-server model of data analysis. In fact, Groce, Katz and Yerukhimovich (TCC 2011) showed that, in this setting, it is impossible to take advantage of CDP for many natural statistical tasks. Our main result shows that, assuming the existence of sub-exponentially secure one-way functions and 2-message witness indistinguishable proofs (zaps) for NP, that there is in fact a computational task in the client-server model that can be efficiently performed with CDP, but is infeasible to perform with information-theoretic differential privacy.

Micah Altman, Alexandra Wood, David O'Brien, Salil Vadhan, and Urs Gasser. 2016. “Towards a Modern Approach to Privacy-Aware Government Data Releases.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30, 3.Abstract

This article summarizes research exploring various models by which governments release data to the public and the interventions in place to protect the privacy of individuals in the data. Applying concepts from the recent scientific and legal literature on privacy, the authors propose a framework for a modern privacy analysis and illustrate how governments can use the framework to select appropriate privacy controls that are calibrated to the specific benefits and risks in individual data releases.

Thomas Steinke. 2016. “Upper and Lower Bounds for Privacy and Adaptivity in Algorithmic Data Analysis.” Computer Science Department at Harvard University. steinke-dissertation-2016.pdf