skip to main content
10.1145/1807167.1807247acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Differentially private aggregation of distributed time-series with transformation and encryption

Published:06 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose the first differentially private aggregation algorithm for distributed time-series data that offers good practical utility without any trusted server. This addresses two important challenges in participatory data-mining applications where (i) individual users collect temporally correlated time-series data (such as location traces, web history, personal health data), and (ii) an untrusted third-party aggregator wishes to run aggregate queries on the data.

To ensure differential privacy for time-series data despite the presence of temporal correlation, we propose the Fourier Perturbation Algorithm (FPAk). Standard differential privacy techniques perform poorly for time-series data. To answer n queries, such techniques can result in a noise of Θ(n) to each query answer, making the answers practically useless if n is large. Our FPAk algorithm perturbs the Discrete Fourier Transform of the query answers. For answering n queries, FPAk improves the expected error from Θ(n) to roughly Θ(k) where k is the number of Fourier coefficients that can (approximately) reconstruct all the n query answers. Our experiments show that k << n for many real-life data-sets resulting in a huge error-improvement for FPAk.

To deal with the absence of a trusted central server, we propose the Distributed Laplace Perturbation Algorithm (DLPA) to add noise in a distributed way in order to guarantee differential privacy. To the best of our knowledge, DLPA is the first distributed differentially private algorithm that can scale with a large number of users: DLPA outperforms the only other distributed solution for differential privacy proposed so far, by reducing the computational load per user from O(U) to O(1) where U is the number of users.

References

  1. AGRAWAL, R., FALOUTSOS, C., AND SWAMI, A. N. Efficient similarity search in sequence databases. In FODO (1993). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. BARAK, B., CHAUDHURI, K., DWORK, C., KALE, S., MCSHERRY, F., AND TALWAR, K. Privacy, accuracy, and consistency too: a holistic solution to contingency table release. In PODS (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. BLUM, A., DWORK, C., MCSHERRY, F., AND NISSIM, K. Practical privacy: The suLQ framework. In PODS (2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. CRAMER, R., DAMGARD, I., AND NIELSEN, J. B. Multiparty computation from threshold homomorphic encryption. In EUROCRYPT (2001). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. DWORK, C. Differential privacy: A survey of results. In TAMC (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. DWORK, C., KENTHAPADI, K., MCSHERRY, F., MIRONOV, I., AND NAOR, M. Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. In EUROCRYPT (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. DWORK, C., MCSHERRY, F., NISSIM, K., AND SMITH, A. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In TCC (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. EISENMAN, S. B., MILUZZO, E., LANE, N. D., PETERSON, R. A., AHN, G.-S., AND CAMPBELL, A. T. The bikenet mobile sensing system for cyclist experience mapping. In ACM SenSys (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. EVFIMIEVSKI, A., GEHRKE, J., AND SRIKANT, R. Limiting privacy breaches in privacy preserving data mining. In PODS (2003). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. FOUQUE, P., POUPARD, G., AND STERN, J. Sharing decryption in the context of voting or lotteries. In FC: International Conference on Financial Cryptography (2000), LNCS, Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. GANTI, R. K., PHAM, N., TSAI, Y.-E., AND ABDELZAHER, T. F. PoolView: stream privacy for grassroots participatory sensing. In ACM SenSys (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. GOLDREICH, O. Secure multi-party computation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. GRITZALIS, D. Secure electronic voting.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. GUHA, S., REZNICHENKO, A., HADDADI, H., AND FRANCIS, P. Serving ads from localhost for performance, privacy, and profit. In HotNets (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. HAY, M., RASTOGI, V., MIKLAU, G., AND SUCIU, D. Boosting the accuracy of differentially-private histograms through consistency. In VLDB 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. HULL, B., BYCHKOVSKY, V., ZHANG, Y., CHEN, K., GORACZKO, M., MIU, A., SHIH, E., BALAKRISHNAN, H., AND MADDEN, S. Cartel: a distributed mobile sensor computing system. In ACM SenSys (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. KRUMM, J. A survey of computational location privacy. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 2008 (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. KRUMM, J., AND HORVITZ, E. Predestination: Where do you want to go today? IEEE Computer (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. MACHANAVAJJHALA, A., GEHRKE, J., KIFER, D., AND VENKITASUBRAMANIAM, M. l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. In ICDE (2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. PAPADIMITRIOU, S., LI, F., KOLLIOS, G., AND YU, P. S. Time series compressibility and privacy. In VLDB (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. RASTOGI, V., HAY, M., MIKLAU, G., AND SUCIU, D. Relationship privacy: Output perturbation for queries with joins. In PODS 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. RASTOGI, V., AND NATH, S. Differentially private aggregation of distributed time-series with transformation and encryption. Tech. Rep. MSR-TR-2009-186, Microsoft Research, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. RASTOGI, V., SUCIU, D., AND HONG, S. The boundary between privacy and utility in data publishing. In VLDB (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. SHAMIR, A. How to share a secret. Communications of the ACM 22, 11 (1979). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. SHILTON, KATIE, B. J., ESTRIN, D., GOVINDAN, R., AND KANG, J. Designing the personal data stream: Enabling participatory privacy in mobile personal sensing. In 37th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC) (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. SWEENE, L. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems (2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. XIAO, X., WANG, G., AND GEHRKE, J. Differential privacy via wavelet transforms. In ICDE 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. YAO, A. C.-C. Protocols for secure computations (extended abstract). In FOCS (1982). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Differentially private aggregation of distributed time-series with transformation and encryption

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGMOD '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data
          June 2010
          1286 pages
          ISBN:9781450300322
          DOI:10.1145/1807167

          Copyright © 2010 ACM

          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 ACM 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: 6 June 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader