A wide variety of privacy metrics have been proposed in the literature to evaluate the level of protection offered by privacy enhancing-technologies. Most of these metrics are specific to concrete systems and adversarial models, and are difficult to generalize or translate to other contexts. Furthermore, a better understanding of the relationships between the different privacy metrics is needed to enable more grounded and systematic approach to measuring privacy, as well as to assist systems designers in selecting the most appropriate metric for a given application. In this work we propose a theoretical framework for privacy-preserving systems, endowed with a general definition of privacy in terms of the estimation error incurred by an attacker who aims to disclose the private information that the system is designed to conceal. We show that our framework permits interpreting and comparing a number of well-known metrics under a common perspective. The arguments behind these interpretations are based on fundamental results related to the theories of information, probability and Bayes decision.
All these vulnerabilities motivated the appearance of a number of proposals, some of which we now overview. An enhancement of @math anonymity called @math sensitive @math anonymity @cite_7 incorporates the additional restriction that there be at least @math distinct values for each confidential attribute within each @math anonymous group. With the aim of addressing the data utility loss incurred by large values of @math , @math diversity @cite_6 proposes instead that there be at least @math well represented'' values for each confidential attribute. Unfortunately, both proposals are still vulnerable to similarity attacks and skewness attacks.
@cite_6 @cite_7
2164649498 2136114025 1992286709 2564029303
The k-anonymity privacy requirement for publishing microdata requires that each equivalence class (i.e., 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 (in Section 2) 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. Motivated by these limitations, we propose a new notion of privacy called “closeness.” We first present the base model 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 (i.e., the distance between the two distributions should be no more than a threshold t). We then propose a more flexible privacy model called (n,t)-closeness that offers higher utility. We describe our desiderata for designing a distance measure between two probability distributions and present two distance measures. We discuss the rationale for using closeness as a privacy measure and illustrate its advantages through examples and experiments. The k-anonymity privacy requirement for publishing microdata requires that each equivalence class (i.e., 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 (i.e., 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. It is not uncommon in the data anonymization literature to oppose the "old" @math k -anonymity model to the "new" differential privacy model, which offers more robust privacy guarantees. Yet, it is often disregarded that the utility of the anonymized results provided by differential privacy is quite limited, due to the amount of noise that needs to be added to the output, or because utility can only be guaranteed for a restricted type of queries. This is in contrast with @math k -anonymity mechanisms, which make no assumptions on the uses of anonymized data while focusing on preserving data utility from a general perspective. In this paper, we show that a synergy between differential privacy and @math k -anonymity can be found: @math k -anonymity can help improving the utility of differentially private responses to arbitrary queries. We devote special attention to the utility improvement of differentially private published data sets. Specifically, we show that the amount of noise required to fulfill @math ? -differential privacy can be reduced if noise is added to a @math k -anonymous version of the data set, where @math k -anonymity is reached through a specially designed microaggregation of all attributes. As a result of noise reduction, the general analytical utility of the anonymized output is increased. The theoretical benefits of our proposal are illustrated in a practical setting with an empirical evaluation on three data sets. 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.