Accuracy-Privacy Tradeoffs for Two-Party Differentially Private Protocols

  • Vipul Goyal
  • Ilya Mironov
  • Omkant Pandey
  • Amit Sahai
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8042)

Abstract

Differential privacy (DP) is a well-studied notion of privacy that is generally achieved by randomizing outputs to preserve the privacy of the input records. A central problem in differential privacy is how much accuracy must be lost in order to preserve input privacy?

Our work obtains general upper bounds on accuracy for differentially private two-party protocols computing any Boolean function. Our bounds are independent of the number of rounds and the communication complexity of the protocol, and hold with respect to computationally unbounded parties. At the heart of our results is a new general geometric technique for obtaining non-trivial accuracy bounds for any Boolean functionality.

We show that for any Boolean function, there is a constant accuracy gap between the accuracy that is possible in the client-server setting and the accuracy that is possible in the two-party setting. In particular, we show tight results on the accuracy that is achievable for the AND and XOR functions in the two-party setting, completely characterizing which accuracies are achievable for any given level of differential privacy.

Finally, we consider the situation if we relax the privacy requirement to computational differential privacy. We show that to achieve any noticeably better accuracy than what is possible for differentially private two-party protocols, it is essential that one-way functions exist.

References

  1. 1.
    Beaver, D.: Perfect privacy for two-party protocols. In: Feigenbaum, J., Merritt, M. (eds.) Proceedings of DIMACS Workshop on Distributed Computing and Cryptology, vol. 2, pp. 65–77. American Mathematical Society (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beimel, A., Nissim, K., Omri, E.: Distributed private data analysis: Simultaneously solving how and what. In: Wagner (ed.) [29], pp. 451–468Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., Wigderson, A.: Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation (extended abstract). In: Simon (ed.) [28], pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canetti, R., Kushilevitz, E., Lindell, Y.: On the limitations of universally composable two-party computation without set-up assumptions. In: Biham, E. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2656, pp. 68–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan, T.-H.H., Shi, E., Song, D.: Optimal lower bound for differentially private multi-party aggregation. In: Epstein, L., Ferragina, P. (eds.) ESA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7501, pp. 277–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaum, D., Crépeau, C., Damgard, I.: Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1988, pp. 11–19. ACM, New York (1988), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/62212.62214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chor, B., Kushilevitz, E.: A zero-one law for Boolean privacy. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 4(1), 36–47 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De, A.: Lower bounds in differential privacy. In: Cramer, R. (ed.) TCC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7194, pp. 321–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dinur, I., Nissim, K.: Revealing information while preserving privacy. In: PODS, pp. 202–210. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. Part II, LNCS, vol. 4052, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dwork, C., Kenthapadi, K., McSherry, F., Mironov, I., Naor, M.: Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 486–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Dwork, C., Nissim, K.: Privacy-preserving datamining on vertically partitioned databases. In: Franklin, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3152, pp. 528–544. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghosh, A., Roughgarden, T., Sundararajan, M.: Universally utility-maximizing privacy mechanisms. In: Mitzenmacher, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2009, pp. 351–360. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Wigderson, A.: How to play any mental game or a completeness theorem for protocols with honest majority. In: Aho, A.V. (ed.) STOC, pp. 218–229. ACM (1987)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haitner, I., Omri, E., Zarosim, H.: On the power of random oracles. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2012, 573 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hardt, M., Talwar, K.: On the geometry of differential privacy. In: Schulman (ed.) [27], pp. 705–714Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harnik, D., Naor, M., Reingold, O., Rosen, A.: Completeness in two-party secure computation: A computational view. J. Cryptology 19(4), 521–552 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ishai, Y., Prabhakaran, M., Sahai, A.: Founding cryptography on oblivious transfer—efficiently. In: Wagner (ed.) [29], pp. 572–591Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kasiviswanathan, S.P., Rudelson, M., Smith, A., Ullman, J.: The price of privately releasing contingency tables and the spectra of random matrices with correlated rows. In: Schulman (ed.) [27], pp. 775–784Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kilian, J.: Founding cryptography on oblivious transfer. In: Simon (ed.) [28], pp. 20–31Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kilian, J.: A general completeness theorem for two-party games. In: Koutsougeras, C., Vitter, J.S. (eds.) STOC, pp. 553–560. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kilian, J.: More general completeness theorems for secure two-party computation. In: STOC, pp. 316–324 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kushilevitz, E.: Privacy and communication complexity. In: FOCS, pp. 416–421 (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McGregor, A., Mironov, I., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., Talwar, K., Vadhan, S.P.: The limits of two-party differential privacy. In: FOCS, pp. 81–90. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mironov, I., Pandey, O., Reingold, O., Vadhan, S.: Computational differential privacy. In: Halevi, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 2009. LNCS, vol. 5677, pp. 126–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schulman, L.J. (ed.): Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, June 5-8. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simon, J. (ed.): Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, Illinois, USA, May 2-4. ACM (1988)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wagner, D. (ed.): CRYPTO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5157. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yao, A.C.C.: Protocols for secure computations (extended abstract). In: 23rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1982), pp. 160–164. IEEE (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vipul Goyal
    • 1
  • Ilya Mironov
    • 2
  • Omkant Pandey
    • 3
  • Amit Sahai
    • 4
  1. 1.Microsoft Research IndiaIndia
  2. 2.Microsoft Research Silicon ValleyUSA
  3. 3.The University of Texas at AustinUSA
  4. 4.University of California Los AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations