Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

The Value of Privacy: Strategic Data Subjects, Incentive Mechanisms, and Fundamental Limits

Published: 09 August 2018 Publication History

Abstract

We study the value of data privacy in a game-theoretic model of trading private data, where a data collector purchases private data from strategic data subjects (individuals) through an incentive mechanism. One primary goal of the data collector is to learn some desired information from the elicited data. Specifically, this information is modeled by an underlying state, and the private data of each individual represents his of her knowledge about the state. Departing from most of the existing work on privacy-aware surveys, our model does not assume the data collector to be trustworthy. Further, an individual takes full control of his or her own data privacy and reports only a privacy-preserving version of his or her data.
In this article, the value of ϵ units of privacy is measured by the minimum payment among all nonnegative payment mechanisms, under which an individual’s best response at a Nash equilibrium is to report his or her data in an ϵ-locally differentially private manner. The higher ϵ is, the less private the reported data is. We derive lower and upper bounds on the value of privacy that are asymptotically tight as the number of data subjects becomes large. Specifically, the lower bound assures that it is impossible to use a lower payment to buy ϵ units of privacy, and the upper bound is given by an achievable payment mechanism that we design. Based on these fundamental limits, we further derive lower and upper bounds on the minimum total payment for the data collector to achieve a given accuracy target for learning the underlying state and show that the total payment of the designed mechanism is at most one individual’s payment away from the minimum.

Supplementary Material

a8-wang-apndx.pdf (wang.zip)
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, The Value of Privacy: Strategic Data Subjects, Incentive Mechanisms, and Fundamental Limits

References

[1]
Raef Bassily and Adam Smith. 2015. Local, private, efficient protocols for succinct histograms. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC’15). 127--135.
[2]
Yiling Chen, Stephen Chong, Ian A. Kash, Tal Moran, and Salil Vadhan. 2013. Truthful mechanisms for agents that value privacy. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on the Electronic Commerce (EC’13). 215--232.
[3]
Yiling Chen, Or Sheffet, and Salil Vadhan. 2014. Privacy games. In International Conference on the Web and Internet Economics (WINE’14), Vol. 8877. 371--385.
[4]
Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas. 2006. Elements of Information Theory (2nd ed.). John Wiley 8 Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
[5]
John C. Duchi, Michael I. Jordan, and Martin J. Wainwright. 2013. Local privacy and minimax bounds: Sharp rates for probability estimation. In Advances Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’13). 1529--1537.
[6]
John C. Duchi, Michael I. Jordan, and Martin J. Wainwright. 2013. Local privacy and statistical minimax rates. In Proceedings of the Annual IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’13). 429--438.
[7]
Cynthia Dwork. 2006. Differential privacy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’06). 1--12.
[8]
Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2006. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Theory of Cryptography (TCC’06). 265--284.
[9]
Cynthia Dwork and Aaron Roth. 2014. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 9, 3--4 (Aug. 2014), 211--407.
[10]
Úlfar Erlingsson, Vasyl Pihur, and Aleksandra Korolova. 2014. RAPPOR: Randomized aggregatable privacy-preserving ordinal response. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on the Computer and Communication Security (CCS’14). 1054--1067.
[11]
Giulia C. Fanti, Vasyl Pihur, and Úlfar Erlingsson. 2016. Building a RAPPOR with the unknown: Privacy-preserving learning of associations and data dictionaries. In Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PoPETs’16). 41--61.
[12]
Lisa K. Fleischer and Yu-Han Lyu. 2012. Approximately optimal auctions for selling privacy when costs are correlated with data. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on the Electronic Commerce (EC’12). 568--585.
[13]
Arpita Ghosh and Katrina Ligett. 2013. Privacy and coordination: Computing on databases with endogenous participation. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on the Electronic Commerce (EC’13). 543--560.
[14]
Arpita Ghosh, Katrina Ligett, Aaron Roth, and Grant Schoenebeck. 2014. Buying private data without verification. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on the Economics and Computation (EC’14). 931--948.
[15]
Arpita Ghosh and Aaron Roth. 2011. Selling privacy at auction. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on the Electronic Commerce (EC’11). 199--208.
[16]
Justin Hsu, Sanjeev Khanna, and Aaron Roth. 2012. Distributed private heavy hitters. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’12). 461--472.
[17]
Thomas Kailath. 1967. The divergence and Bhattacharyya distance measures in signal selection. IEEE Trans. Commun. Technol. 15, 1 (Feb. 1967), 52--60.
[18]
Peter Kairouz, Sewoong Oh, and Pramod Viswanath. 2014. Extremal mechanisms for local differential privacy. In Proceedings of the Conference on Advances Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’14). 2879--2887.
[19]
Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan, Homin K. Lee, Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam Smith. 2011. What can we learn privately? SIAM J. Comput. 40, 3 (May 2011), 793--826.
[20]
Yuqing Kong, Katrina Ligett, and Grant Schoenebeck. 2016. Putting peer prediction under the micro(economic)scope and making truth-telling focal. In International Conference on the Web and Internet Economics (WINE’16). 251--264.
[21]
Steve Kroft. 2014. The data brokers: Selling your personal information. CBS News (March 2014).
[22]
Katrina Ligett and Aaron Roth. 2012. Take it or leave it: Running a survey when privacy comes at a cost. In Proceedings of the International Workshop Internet and Network Economics (WINE’12). 378--391.
[23]
Nolan Miller, Paul Resnick, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2005. Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method. Manage. Sci. 51 (Sep. 2005), 1359--1373.
[24]
Kobbi Nissim, Salil Vadhan, and David Xiao. 2014. Redrawing the boundaries on purchasing data from privacy-sensitive individuals. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’14). 411--422.
[25]
Mallesh M. Pai and Aaron Roth. 2013. Privacy and mechanism design. SIGecom Exch. 12, 1 (Jun. 2013), 8--29.
[26]
Aaron Roth and Grant Schoenebeck. 2012. Conducting truthful surveys, cheaply. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on the Electronic Commerce (EC’12). 826--843.
[27]
Reza Shokri. 2015. Privacy games: Optimal user-centric data obfuscation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETS’15). 299--315.
[28]
R. Srikant and Lei Ying. 2014. Communication Networks: An Optimization, Control and Stochastic Networks Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
[29]
Weina Wang, Lei Ying, and Junshan Zhang. 2014. On the relation between identifiability, differential privacy, and mutual-information privacy. In Proceedings of the Annual Allerton Conference on the Communication, Control and Computing. 1086--1092.
[30]
Weina Wang, Lei Ying, and Junshan Zhang. 2015. A minimax distortion view of differentially private query release. In Proceedings of the Asilomar Conference on the Signals, Systems, and Computers. 1046--1050.
[31]
Stanley L. Warner. 1965. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 60, 309 (Mar. 1965), 63--69.
[32]
David Xiao. 2013. Is privacy compatible with truthfulness?. In Proceedings of the Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’13). 67--86.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Privacy-Preserved Data Disturbance and Truthfulness Verification for Data TradingIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2024.340216219(5545-5560)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Privacy-Preserved Data Trading Via Verifiable Data DisturbanceIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2023.332366921:4(3126-3140)Online publication date: Jul-2024
  • (2023)Towards Correlated Data Trading for High-Dimensional Private DataIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems10.1109/TPDS.2023.323769134:3(1047-1059)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation
ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation  Volume 6, Issue 2
May 2018
159 pages
ISSN:2167-8375
EISSN:2167-8383
DOI:10.1145/3241735
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 August 2018
Accepted: 01 June 2018
Revised: 01 June 2017
Received: 01 June 2016
Published in TEAC Volume 6, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Data collection
  2. differential privacy
  3. randomized response

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 14 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Privacy-Preserved Data Disturbance and Truthfulness Verification for Data TradingIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2024.340216219(5545-5560)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Privacy-Preserved Data Trading Via Verifiable Data DisturbanceIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2023.332366921:4(3126-3140)Online publication date: Jul-2024
  • (2023)Towards Correlated Data Trading for High-Dimensional Private DataIEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems10.1109/TPDS.2023.323769134:3(1047-1059)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2023
  • (2022)Privacy-Aware Online Social Networking With Targeted AdvertisementIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking10.1109/TNET.2021.313751330:3(1312-1327)Online publication date: Jun-2022
  • (2021)More than PrivacyACM Computing Surveys10.1145/346077154:7(1-37)Online publication date: 18-Jul-2021
  • (2021)Cost-based recommendation of parameters for local differentially private data aggregationComputers and Security10.1016/j.cose.2020.102144102:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2021
  • (2020) Notice of Violation of IEEE Publication Principles: Data Trading with a Monopoly Social Network: Outcomes Are Mostly Privacy Welfare Damaging IEEE Networking Letters10.1109/LNET.2020.30318682:4(185-189)Online publication date: Dec-2020

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media