Privacy is of the utmost importance in genomic matching. Therefore a number of privacy-preserving protocols have been presented using secure computation. Nevertheless, none of these protocols prevents inferences from the result. Goodrich has shown that this resulting information is sufficient for an effective attack on genome databases. In this paper we present an approach that can detect and mitigate such an attack on encrypted messages while still preserving the privacy of both parties. Note that randomization, e.g. using differential privacy, will almost certainly destroy the utility of the matching result. We combine two known cryptographic primitives -- secure computation of the edit distance and fuzzy commitments -- in order to prevent submission of similar genome sequences. Particularly, we contribute an efficient zero-knowledge proof that the same input has been used in both primitives. We show that using our approach it is feasible to preserve privacy in genome matching and also detect and mitigate Goodrich's attack.
The guaranteed randomization approach to prevent inferences about the input is differential privacy @cite_21 . A randomized function @math gives @math -differential privacy if, for all data sets @math and @math differing on at most one element and all @math , @math It means, that the likelihood of any function result will only marginally change with the presence or absence of one additional element.
@cite_21
2951448804 2564029303 1603362050 2090593019
A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy , which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether or not a given database row is included or excluded. The goal of this paper is strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a loss function). Our main result is: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism @math -- a discrete variant of the simple and well-studied Laplace mechanism -- that is simultaneously expected loss-minimizing for every possible user, subject to the differential privacy constraint. This is an extremely strong utility guarantee: every potential user @math , no matter what its side information and preferences, derives as much utility from @math as from interacting with a differentially private mechanism @math that is optimally tailored to @math . This paper investigates the relation between three different notions of privacy: identifiability, differential privacy, and mutual-information privacy. Under a unified privacy-distortion framework, where the distortion is defined to be the expected Hamming distance between the input and output databases, we establish some fundamental connections between these three privacy notions. Given a maximum allowable distortion @math , we define the privacy-distortion functions @math , @math , and @math to be the smallest (most private best) identifiability level, differential privacy level, and mutual information between the input and the output, respectively. We characterize @math and @math , and prove that @math for @math within certain range, where @math is a constant determined by the prior distribution of the original database @math , and diminishes to zero when @math is uniformly distributed. Furthermore, we show that @math and @math can be achieved by the same mechanism for @math within certain range, i.e., there is a mechanism that simultaneously minimizes the identifiability level and achieves the best mutual-information privacy. Based on these two connections, we prove that this mutual-information optimal mechanism satisfies @math -differential privacy with @math . The results in this paper reveal some consistency between two worst case notions of privacy, namely, identifiability and differential privacy, and an average notion of privacy, mutual-information privacy. In this work we analyze the sample complexity of classification by differentially private algorithms. Differential privacy is a strong and well-studied notion of privacy introduced by (2006) that ensures that the output of an algorithm leaks little information about the data point provided by any of the participating individuals. Sample complexity of private PAC and agnostic learning was studied in a number of prior works starting with (, 2008) but a number of basic questions still remain open, most notably whether learning with privacy requires more samples than learning without privacy. We show that the sample complexity of learning with (pure) differential privacy can be arbitrarily higher than the sample complexity of learning without the privacy constraint or the sample complexity of learning with approximate differential privacy. Our second contribution and the main tool is an equivalence between the sample complexity of (pure) differentially private learning of a concept class @math (or @math ) and the randomized one-way communication complexity of the evaluation problem for concepts from @math . Using this equivalence we prove the following bounds: 1. @math , where @math is the Littlestone's (1987) dimension characterizing the number of mistakes in the online-mistake-bound learning model. Known bounds on @math then imply that @math can be much higher than the VC-dimension of @math . 2. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that @math but @math . 3. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that the sample complexity of (pure) @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math but the sample complexity of the relaxed @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math . This resolves an open problem of (2013b). A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Publishing fully accurate information maximizes utility while minimizing privacy, while publishing random noise accomplishes the opposite. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy, which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether a given database row is included. The goal of this paper is to formulate and provide strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a symmetric and monotone loss function). Our main result is the following: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism @math ---a discrete variant of the simple and well-studi...