Advertisement

Privacy Auctions for Recommender Systems

  • Pranav Dandekar
  • Nadia Fawaz
  • Stratis Ioannidis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7695)

Abstract

We study a market for private data in which a data analyst publicly releases a statistic over a database of private information. Individuals that own the data incur a cost for their loss of privacy proportional to the differential privacy guarantee given by the analyst at the time of the release. The analyst incentivizes individuals by compensating them, giving rise to a privacy auction. Motivated by recommender systems, the statistic we consider is a linear predictor function with publicly known weights. The statistic can be viewed as a prediction of the unknown data of a new individual, based on the data of individuals in the database. We formalize the trade-off between privacy and accuracy in this setting, and show that a simple class of estimates achieves an order-optimal trade-off. It thus suffices to focus on auction mechanisms that output such estimates. We use this observation to design a truthful, individually rational, proportional-purchase mechanism under a fixed budget constraint. We show that our mechanism is 5-approximate in terms of accuracy compared to the optimal mechanism, and that no truthful mechanism can achieve a 2 − ε approximation, for any ε > 0.

Keywords

Recommender System Private Data Linear Predictor Data Analyst Privacy Cost 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Narayanan, A., Shmatikov, V.: Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 111–125 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Netflix Privacy Litigation, http://www.videoprivacyclass.com
  3. 3.
    Mello, J.P.: Facebook hit with lawsuit alleging privacy wrongs. PCWorld (May 18, 2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ribeiro, J.: Google faces class-action lawsuits over new privacy policy. PCWorld (March 22, 2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joseph, J., King, J., Hoofnagle, C.J., Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M.: Americans reject tailored advertising and three activities that enable it (2009), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1478214
  6. 6.
    Mayer, J., Narayanan, A., Stamm, S.: Do not track: A universal third-party web tracking opt out. IETF Internet-Draft (March 7, 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghosh, A., Roth, A.: Selling privacy at auction. In: Proc. ACM EC, pp. 199–208 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., Riedl, J.: Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2001, pp. 285–295. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linden, G., Smith, B., York, J.: Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. Internet Computing 7(1), 76–80 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Singer, Y.: Budget feasible mechanisms. In: Proc. FOCS (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dandekar, P., Fawaz, N., Ioannidis, S.: Privacy auctions for recommender systems. CoRR abs/1111.2885 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korolova, A., Kenthapadi, K., Mishra, N., Ntoulas, A.: Releasing search queries and clicks privately. In: WWW (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McSherry, F., Mironov, I.: Differentially private recommender systems: building privacy into the net. In: Proc. ACM KDD, pp. 627–636 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McSherry, F., Talwar, K.: Mechanism design via differential privacy. In: Proc. FOCS (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nissim, K., Smorodinsky, R., Tennenholtz, M.: Approximately optimal mechanism design via differential privacy (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xiao, D.: Is privacy compatible with truthfulness? Technical Report 2011/005, Cryptology ePrint Archive (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, Y., Chong, S., Kash, I.A., Moran, T., Vadhan, S.P.: Truthful mechanisms for agents that value privacy. CoRR abs/1111.5472 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ligett, K., Roth, A.: Take it or Leave it: Running a Survey when Privacy Comes at a Cost. In: Goldberg, P.W., Guo, M. (eds.) WINE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7695, pp. 379–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roth, A., Schoenebeck, G.: Conducting truthful surveys, cheaply. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 2012, pp. 826–843. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fleischer, L., Lyu, Y.H.: Approximately optimal auctions for selling privacy when costs are correlated with data. CoRR abs/1204.4031 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.: The Elements of Statistical Learning, 2nd edn. Springer (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pranav Dandekar
    • 1
  • Nadia Fawaz
    • 2
  • Stratis Ioannidis
    • 2
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA
  2. 2.TechnicolorUSA

Personalised recommendations