Elie Chicha
Richard Chbeir
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
In this article, we present a privacy-preserving technique for user-centric multi-release graphs. Our technique consists of sequentially releasing anonymized versions of these graphs under Blowfish Privacy. To do so, we introduce a graph model that is augmented with a time dimension and sampled at discrete time steps. We show that the direct application of state-of-the-art privacy-preserving Differential Private techniques is weak against background knowledge attacker models. We present different scenarios where randomizing separate releases independently is vulnerable to correlation attacks. Our method is inspired by Differential Privacy (DP) and its extension Blowfish Privacy (BP). To validate it, we show its effectiveness as well as its utility by experimental simulations.
- Taras Agryzkov, Leandro Tortosa, and Jose F. Vicent. 2019. A variant of the current flow betweenness centrality and its application in urban networks. Appl. Math. Comput. 347 (2019), 600--615. DOI:10.1016/j.amc.2018.11.032Google Scholar
- Faraz Ahmed, Rong Jin, and Alex X. Liu. 2013. A random matrix approach to differential privacy and structure preserved social network graph publishing. arXiv:1307.0475. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.0475.Google Scholar
- Miguel E. Andrés, Nicolás E. Bordenabe, Konstantinos Chatzikokolakis, and Catuscia Palamidessi. 2013. Geo-indistinguishability: Differential privacy for location-based systems. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer 8 Communications Security. 901--914.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Barbaro, Tom Zeller, and Saul Hansell. A face is exposed for AOL searcher no. 4417749. New York Times, August 9, 2006.Google Scholar
- Smriti Bhagat, Graham Cormode, Balachander Krishnamurthy, and Divesh Srivastava. 2010. Privacy in dynamic social networks. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 1059--1060.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Smriti Bhagat, Graham Cormode, Divesh Srivastava, and B. Krishnamurthy. 2010. Prediction promotes privacy in dynamic social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Online Social Networks.Google Scholar
- Jeremiah Blocki, Avrim Blum, Anupam Datta, and Or Sheffet. 2012. The johnson-lindenstrauss transform itself preserves differential privacy. In Proceedings of the IEEE 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’12). IEEE, 410--419.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Phillip Bonacich. 2007. Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Soc. Netw. 29, 4 (2007), 555--564.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Piotr Bródka, Krzysztof Skibicki, Przemysław Kazienko, and Katarzyna Musiał. 2011. A degree centrality in multi-layered social network. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Computational Aspects of Social Networks (CASoN’11). IEEE, 237--242.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rui Chen, Noman Mohammed, Benjamin C. M. Fung, Bipin C. Desai, and Li Xiong. 2011. Publishing set-valued data via differential privacy. Proc. VLDB Endow. 4, 11 (2011), 1087--1098.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shixi Chen and Shuigeng Zhou. 2013. Recursive mechanism: Towards node differential privacy and unrestricted joins. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 653--664.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xihui Chen, Sjouke Mauw, and Yunior Ramírez-Cruz. 2020. Publishing community-preserving attributed social graphs with a differential privacy guarantee. Proc. Priv. Enhanc. Technol. 2020, 4 (2020), 131--152. DOI:10.2478/popets-2020-0066Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elie Chicha, Bechara Al Bouna, Mohamed Nassar, and Richard Chbeir. 2018. Cloud-based differentially private image classification. Wireless Netw. 24 (2018), 1--8. DOI:10.1007/s11276-018-1885-yGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Wei-Yen Day, Ninghui Li, and Min Lyu. 2016. Publishing graph degree distribution with node differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 123--138.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yitao Duan, Jingtao Wang, Matthew Kam, and John Canny. 2005. Privacy preserving link analysis on dynamic weighted graph. Comput. Math. Org. Theory 11, 2 (2005), 141--159.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cynthia Dwork. 2006. Differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Part II (ICALP’06), Vol. 4052. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1--12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Úlfar Erlingsson, Vasyl Pihur, and Aleksandra Korolova. 2014. Rappor: Randomized aggregatable privacy-preserving ordinal response. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1054--1067.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Linton C. Freeman. 1977. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40, 1 (1977), 35--41. DOI:10.2307/3033543Google ScholarCross Ref
- Linton C. Freeman. 1978. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1, 3 (1978), 215--239.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anupam Gupta, Aaron Roth, and Jonathan Ullman. 2012. Iterative constructions and private data release. In Proceedings of the Theory of Cryptography Conference. Springer, 339--356.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Hay, Chao Li, Gerome Miklau, and David Jensen. 2009. Accurate estimation of the degree distribution of private networks. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’09). IEEE, 169--178.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Hay, Gerome Miklau, David Jensen, Don Towsley, and Philipp Weis. 2008. Resisting structural re-identification in anonymized social networks. Proc. VLDB Endow. 1, 1 (2008), 102--114. DOI:10.14778/1453856.1453873Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xi He, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, and Bolin Ding. 2014. Blowfish privacy: Tuning privacy-utility trade-offs using policies. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 1447--1458.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shen-Shyang Ho and Shuhua Ruan. 2011. Differential privacy for location pattern mining. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Security and Privacy in GIS and LBS. ACM, 17--24.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vishesh Karwa, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Adam Smith, and Grigory Yaroslavtsev. 2011. Private analysis of graph structure. Proc. VLDB Endow. 4, 11 (2011), 1146--1157.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan, Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam Smith. 2013. Analyzing graphs with node differential privacy. In Proceedings of the Theory of Cryptography Conference (TCC’13). Springer, 457--476.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Kifer and Ashwin Machanavajjhala. 2011. No free lunch in data privacy. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 193--204.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jaewoo Lee and Chris Clifton. 2011. How much is enough? Choosing ϵ for differential privacy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Security. Springer, 325--340.Google Scholar
- Jure Leskovec. 2000. Autonomous Systems AS-733 @ONLINE. Retrieved from https://snap.stanford.edu/data/as-733.html.Google Scholar
- Jure Leskovec, Jon Kleinberg, and Christos Faloutsos. 2005. Graphs over time: Densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining. ACM, 177--187.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ninghui Li, Tiancheng Li, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2007. t-closeness: Privacy beyond k-anonymity and l-diversity. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE, 106--115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xiang-Yang Li, Chunhong Zhang, Taeho Jung, Jianwei Qian, and Linlin Chen. 2016. Graph-based privacy-preserving data publication. In Proceedings of the IEEE 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’16). 1--9.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhuolin Li, Xiaolin Zhang, Haochen Yuan, Yongping Wang, and Jian Li. 2019. Distributed privacy preserving technology in dynamic networks. Int. J. High Perf. Comput. Netw. 15, 3--4 (2019), 223--232.Google Scholar
- Kun Liu, Kamalika Das, Tyrone Grandison, and Hillol Kargupta. 2008. Privacy-preserving data analysis on graphs and social networks. In Next Generation of Data Mining. Chapman 8 Hall/Crc Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Series. 419--438.Google Scholar
- Kun Liu and Evimaria Terzi. 2008. Towards identity anonymization on graphs. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 93--106.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhenpeng Liu, Yawei Dong, Xuan Zhao, and Bin Zhang. 2017. A dynamic social network data publishing algorithm based on differential privacy. J. Inf. Secur. 8, 04 (2017), 328.Google Scholar
- Ashwin Machanavajjhala, Johannes Gehrke, Daniel Kifer, and Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam. 2006. l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE’06). IEEE, 24--24.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ashwin Machanavajjhala, Daniel Kifer, Johannes Gehrke, and Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam. 2007. l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 1, 1 (2007), 3--es. DOI:10.1145/1217299.1217302Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kamalkumar Macwan and Sankita Patel. 2019. Privacy preserving approach in dynamic social network data publishing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Security Practice and Experience. Springer, 381--398.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank D. McSherry. 2009. Privacy integrated queries: An extensible platform for privacy-preserving data analysis. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 19--30.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohamed Nassar., Elie Chicha., Bechara Al Bouna., and Richard Chbeir.2020. VIP Blowfish Privacy in communication graphs. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on e-Business and Telecommunications, Volume 3 (SECRYPT’20). INSTICC, SciTePress, 459--467. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5220/0009875704590467Google Scholar
- Hiep Nguyen, Abdessamad Imine, and Michaël Rusinowitch. 2016. Network structure release under differential privacy. Trans. Data Priv. 9, 3 (2016), 26.Google Scholar
- Kobbi Nissim, Thomas Steinke, Alexandra Wood, Micah Altman, Aaron Bembenek, Mark Bun, Marco Gaboardi, David R. O’Brien, and Salil Vadhan. 2017. Differential privacy: A primer for a non-technical audience. In Proceedings of the Privacy Law Scholars Conference.Google Scholar
- Kazuya Okamoto, Wei Chen, and Xiang-Yang Li. 2008. Ranking of closeness centrality for large-scale social networks. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Frontiers in Algorithmics. Springer, 186--195.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Davide Proserpio, Sharon Goldberg, and Frank McSherry. 2012. A workflow for differentially-private graph synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Workshop on Online Social Networks. ACM, 13--18.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Davide Proserpio, Sharon Goldberg, and Frank McSherry. 2014. Calibrating data to sensitivity in private data analysis: A platform for differentially-private analysis of weighted datasets. Proc. VLDB Endow. 7, 8 (2014), 637--648.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gu Qiuyang, Ni Qilian, Meng Xiangzhao, and Yang Zhijiao. 2019. Dynamic social privacy protection based on graph mode partition in complex social network. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 23, 3--4 (2019), 511--519.Google Scholar
- Alessandra Sala, Xiaohan Zhao, Christo Wilson, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y. Zhao. 2011. Sharing graphs using differentially private graph models. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, 81--98.Google Scholar
- Pierangela Samarati and Latanya Sweeney. 1998. Protecting privacy when disclosing information: k-anonymity and its enforcement through generalization and suppression. In Technical Report SRI-CSL-98-04, SRI Computer Science Laboratory. SRI International. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6625469.v1Google Scholar
- Kumar Sharad and George Danezis. 2013. De-anonymizing d4d datasets. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Hot Topics in Privacy Enhancing Technologies.Google Scholar
- Kumar Sharad and George Danezis. 2014. An automated social graph de-anonymization technique. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM, 47--58.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Latanya Sweeney. 2001. Computational Disclosure Control: A Primer on Data Privacy Protection. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Chih-Jui Lin Wang, En Tzu Wang, and Arbee LP Chen. 2013. Anonymization for multiple released social network graphs. In Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, 99--110.Google Scholar
- Yue Wang and Xintao Wu. 2013. Preserving differential privacy in degree-correlation based graph generation. Trans. Data Priv. 6, 2 (2013), 127.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yue Wang, Xintao Wu, and Leting Wu. 2013. Differential privacy preserving spectral graph analysis. In Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, 329--340.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yonghui Xiao and Li Xiong. 2015. Protecting locations with differential privacy under temporal correlations. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1298--1309.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiaowei Ying and Xintao Wu. 2008. Randomizing social networks: A spectrum preserving approach. In Proceedings of the 2008 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 739--750.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Liangwen Yu, Yonggang Wang, Zhengang Wu, Jiawei Zhu, Jianbin Hu, and Zhong Chen. 2014. Edges protection in multiple releases of social network data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web-Age Information Management. Springer, 669--680.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rong Yue, YiDong Li, Tao Wang, and Yi Jin. 2018. An efficient adaptive graph anonymization framework for incremental data publication. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, and Socio-Cultural Computing. IEEE, 103--108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elena Zheleva and Lise Getoor. 2007. Preserving the privacy of sensitive relationships in graph data. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Privacy, Security, and Trust in KDD. Springer, 153--171.Google Scholar
- Bin Zhou and Jian Pei. 2008. Preserving privacy in social networks against neighborhood attacks. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE, 506--515.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
A User-Centric Mechanism for Sequentially Releasing Graph Datasets under Blowfish Privacy
Recommendations
Blowfish privacy: tuning privacy-utility trade-offs using policies
Privacy definitions provide ways for trading-off the privacy of individuals in a statistical database for the utility of downstream analysis of the data. In this paper, we present Blowfish, a class of privacy definitions inspired by the Pufferfish ...
dK-Microaggregation: Anonymizing Graphs with Differential Privacy Guarantees
AbstractWith the advances of graph analytics, preserving privacy in publishing graph data becomes an important task. However, graph data is highly sensitive to structural changes. Perturbing graph data for achieving differential privacy inevitably leads ...
Enhancing the Trajectory Privacy with Laplace Mechanism
Mobile-aware service systems are dramatically increasing the amount of personal data released to service providers as well as to third parties. Data may reveal individuals' physical conditions, habits, and sensitive information. It raises serious ...
Comments