We quantitatively investigate how machine learning models leak information about the individual data records on which they were trained. We focus on the basic membership inference attack: given a data record and black-box access to a model, determine if the record was in the model's training dataset. To perform membership inference against a target model, we make adversarial use of machine learning and train our own inference model to recognize differences in the target model's predictions on the inputs that it trained on versus the inputs that it did not train on. We empirically evaluate our inference techniques on classification models trained by commercial "machine learning as a service" providers such as Google and Amazon. Using realistic datasets and classification tasks, including a hospital discharge dataset whose membership is sensitive from the privacy perspective, we show that these models can be vulnerable to membership inference attacks. We then investigate the factors that influence this leakage and evaluate mitigation strategies.
We initiate the study of privacy in pharmacogenetics, wherein machine learning models are used to guide medical treatments based on a patient's genotype and background. Performing an in-depth case study on privacy in personalized warfarin dosing, we show that suggested models carry privacy risks, in particular because attackers can perform what we call model inversion: an attacker, given the model and some demographic information about a patient, can predict the patient's genetic markers. As differential privacy (DP) is an oft-proposed solution for medical settings such as this, we evaluate its effectiveness for building private versions of pharmacogenetic models. We show that DP mechanisms prevent our model inversion attacks when the privacy budget is carefully selected. We go on to analyze the impact on utility by performing simulated clinical trials with DP dosing models. We find that for privacy budgets effective at preventing attacks, patients would be exposed to increased risk of stroke, bleeding events, and mortality. We conclude that current DP mechanisms do not simultaneously improve genomic privacy while retaining desirable clinical efficacy, highlighting the need for new mechanisms that should be evaluated in situ using the general methodology introduced by our work.