Advertisement

Differential Privacy Analysis of Data Processing Workflows

  • Marlon Dumas
  • Luciano García-BañuelosEmail author
  • Peeter Laud
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9987)

Abstract

Differential privacy is an established paradigm to measure and control private information leakages occurring as a result of disclosures of derivatives of sensitive data sources. The bulk of differential privacy research has focused on designing mechanisms to ensure that the output of a program or query is \(\epsilon \)-differentially private with respect to its input. In an enterprise environment however, data processing generally occurs in the context of business processes consisting of chains of tasks performed by multiple IT system components, which disclose outputs to multiple parties along the way. Ensuring privacy in this setting requires us to reason in terms of series of disclosures of intermediate and final outputs, derived from multiple data sources. This paper proposes a method to quantify the amount of private information leakage from each sensitive data source vis-a-vis of each party involved in a business process. The method relies on generalized composition rules for sensitivity and differential privacy, which are applicable to chained compositions of tasks, where each task may have multiple inputs and outputs of different types, and such that a differentially private output of a task may be taken as input by other tasks.

Keywords

Business Process Processing Node Composition Rule Data Analyst Data Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by DARPA’s “Brandeis” programme.

References

  1. 1.
    Accorsi, R., Lehmann, A., Lohmann, N.: Information leak detection in business process models: theory, application, and tool support. Inf. Syst. 47, 244–257 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barthe, G., Köpf, B., Olmedo, F., Béguelin, S.Z.: Probabilistic relational reasoning for differential privacy. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 35(3), 9 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berthold, M.R., Nicolas, C., Dill, F., Gabriel, T.R., Kötter, T., Meinl, T., Ohl, P., Thiel, K., Wiswedel, B.: KNIME - the Konstanz Information Miner: version 2.0 and beyond. SIGKDD Explor. 11(1), 26–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatzikokolakis, K., Andrés, M.E., Bordenabe, N.E., Palamidessi, C.: Broadening the scope of differential privacy using metrics. In: De Cristofaro, E., Wright, M. (eds.) PETS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7981, pp. 82–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4052, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., Smith, A.: Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 265–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ebadi, H., Sands, D.: Featherweight PINQ (2015). CoRR arXiv:1505.02642
  8. 8.
    ElSalamouny, E., Chatzikokolakis, K., Palamidessi, C.: Generalized differential privacy: regions of priors that admit robust optimal mechanisms. In: van Breugel, F., Kashefi, E., Palamidessi, C., Rutten, J. (eds.) Horizons of the Mind. LNCS, vol. 8464, pp. 292–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frau, S., Gorrieri, R., Ferigato, C.: Petri net security checker: structural non-interference at work. In: Degano, P., Guttman, J., Martinelli, F. (eds.) FAST 2008. LNCS, vol. 5491, pp. 210–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaboardi, M., Haeberlen, A., Hsu, J., Narayan, A., Pierce, B.C.: Linear dependent types for differential privacy. In: Giacobazzi, R., Cousot, R. (eds.) The 40th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2013, Rome, Italy, 23–25 January 2013, pp. 357–370. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kimball, R., Reeves, L., Thornthwaite, W., Ross, M., Thornwaite, W.: The Data Warehouse Lifecycle Toolkit: Expert Methods for Designing, Developing and Deploying Data Warehouses, 1st edn. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McSherry, F.: Privacy integrated queries: an extensible platform for privacy-preserving data analysis. In: Çetintemel, U., Zdonik, S.B., Kossmann, D., Tatbul, N. (eds.) Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 29th June–2nd July 2009, pp. 19–30. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reed, J., Pierce, B.C.: Distance makes the types grow stronger: a calculus for differential privacy. In: Hudak, P., Weirich, S. (eds.) Proceeding of 15th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2010, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 27–29 September 2010, pp. 157–168. ACM (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlon Dumas
    • 1
  • Luciano García-Bañuelos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peeter Laud
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.CyberneticaTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations