Data privacy is an important issue for "machine learning as a service" providers. We focus on the problem of membership inference attacks: given a data sample and black-box access to a model's API, determine whether the sample existed in the model's training data. Our contribution is an investigation of this problem in the context of sequence-to-sequence models, which are important in applications such as machine translation and video captioning. We define the membership inference problem for sequence generation, provide an open dataset based on state-of-the-art machine translation models, and report initial results on whether these models leak private information against several kinds of membership inference attacks.
A large body of work exists in differential privacy @cite_10 @cite_11 . Differential privacy provides guarantees that a model trained on some dataset will produce statistically similar predictions as a model trained on another dataset which differs in exactly one sample. This is one way in which Alice can defend her model @cite_1 , but note that differential privacy is a stronger notion and often involves a cost in Alice's model accuracy. Membership inference assumes that content of the data is known to Bob and only is concerned whether it was used. Differential privacy also protects the content of the data (i.e., the actual words in should not be inferred).
@cite_1 @cite_10 @cite_11
2054922243 2950527268 43706173 2294907105
Differential privacy is a powerful tool for providing privacy-preserving noisy query answers over statistical databases. It guarantees that the distribution of noisy query answers changes very little with the addition or deletion of any tuple. It is frequently accompanied by popularized claims that it provides privacy without any assumptions about the data and that it protects against attackers who know all but one record. In this paper we critically analyze the privacy protections offered by differential privacy. First, we use a no-free-lunch theorem, which defines non-privacy as a game, to argue that it is not possible to provide privacy and utility without making assumptions about how the data are generated. Then we explain where assumptions are needed. We argue that privacy of an individual is preserved when it is possible to limit the inference of an attacker about the participation of the individual in the data generating process. This is different from limiting the inference about the presence of a tuple (for example, Bob's participation in a social network may cause edges to form between pairs of his friends, so that it affects more than just the tuple labeled as "Bob"). The definition of evidence of participation, in turn, depends on how the data are generated -- this is how assumptions enter the picture. We explain these ideas using examples from social network research as well as tabular data for which deterministic statistics have been previously released. In both cases the notion of participation varies, the use of differential privacy can lead to privacy breaches, and differential privacy does not always adequately limit inference about participation. We demonstrate that it is possible to train large recurrent language models with user-level differential privacy guarantees with only a negligible cost in predictive accuracy. Our work builds on recent advances in the training of deep networks on user-partitioned data and privacy accounting for stochastic gradient descent. In particular, we add user-level privacy protection to the federated averaging algorithm, which makes "large step" updates from user-level data. Our work demonstrates that given a dataset with a sufficiently large number of users (a requirement easily met by even small internet-scale datasets), achieving differential privacy comes at the cost of increased computation, rather than in decreased utility as in most prior work. We find that our private LSTM language models are quantitatively and qualitatively similar to un-noised models when trained on a large dataset. Differential privacy is a notion of privacy that has become very popular in the database community. Roughly, the idea is that a randomized query mechanism provides sufficient privacy protection if the ratio between the probabilities of two different entries to originate a certain answer is bound by e^e. In the fields of anonymity and information flow there is a similar concern for controlling information leakage, i.e. limiting the possibility of inferring the secret information from the observables. In recent years, researchers have proposed to quantify the leakage in terms of the information-theoretic notion of mutual information. There are two main approaches that fall in this category: One based on Shannon entropy, and one based on Renyi's min entropy. The latter has connection with the so-called Bayes risk, which expresses the probability of guessing the secret. In this paper, we show how to model the query system in terms of an information-theoretic channel, and we compare the notion of differential privacy with that of mutual information. We show that the notion of differential privacy is strictly stronger, in the sense that it implies a bound on the mutual information, but not viceversa. Private regression has received attention from both database and security communities. Recent work by (USENIX Security 2014) analyzed the functional mechanism ( VLDB 2012) for training linear regression models over medical data. Unfortunately, they found that model accuracy is already unacceptable with differential privacy when @math . We address this issue, presenting an explicit connection between differential privacy and stable learning theory through which a substantially better privacy utility tradeoff can be obtained. Perhaps more importantly, our theory reveals that the most basic mechanism in differential privacy, output perturbation, can be used to obtain a better tradeoff for all convex-Lipschitz-bounded learning tasks. Since output perturbation is simple to implement, it means that our approach is potentially widely applicable in practice. We go on to apply it on the same medical data as used by Encouragingly, we achieve accurate models even for @math . In the last part of this paper, we study the impact of our improved differentially private mechanisms on model inversion attacks, a privacy attack introduced by We observe that the improved tradeoff makes the resulting differentially private model more susceptible to inversion attacks. We analyze this phenomenon formally.