This work examines privacy laws and regulations that limit disclosure of personal data, and explores whether and how these restrictions apply when participants use cryptographically secure multi-party computation (MPC). By protecting data during use, MPC offers the promise of conducting data science in a way that (in some use cases) meets or even exceeds most people’s conceptions of data privacy. With MPC, it is possible to correlate individual records across multiple datasets without revealing the underlying records, to conduct aggregate analysis across datasets which parties are otherwise unwilling to share for competitive reasons, and to analyze aggregate statistics across datasets which no individual party may lawfully hold.
However, most adoptions of MPC to date involve data that is not subject to privacy protection under the law. We posit that a major impediment to the adoption of MPC—on the data that society has deemed most worthy of protection—is the difficulty of mapping this new technology onto the design principles of data privacy laws. While a computer scientist might reasonably believe that transforming any data analysis into its privacy-protective variant using MPC is a clear win, we show in this work that the technological guarantees of MPC do not directly imply compliance with privacy laws. Specifically, a lawyer will likely want to ask several important questions about the pre-conditions that are necessary for MPC to succeed, the risk that data might inadvertently or maliciously be disclosed to someone other than the output party, and what recourse to take if this bad event occurs.
We have two goals for this work: explaining why the privacy law questions are nuanced and that the lawyer is correct to proceed cautiously, and providing a framework that lawyers can use to reason systematically about whether and how MPC implicates data privacy laws in the context of a specific use case. Our framework revolves around three questions: a definitional question on whether the encodings still constitute ‘personal data,’ a process question about whether the act of executing MPC constitutes a data disclosure event, and a liability question about what happens if something goes wrong. We conclude by providing advice to regulators and suggestions to early adopters to spur uptake of MPC. It is our hope that this work provides the first step toward a methodology that organizations can use when contemplating the use of MPC.
more »
« less
Do Different Groups Have Comparable Privacy Tradeoffs?
Personalized systems increasingly employ Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) to protect the identity of their users. In this paper, we are interested in whether the cost-benefit tradeoff — the underlying economics of the privacy calculus — is fairly distributed, or whether some groups of people experience a lower return on investment for their privacy decisions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1657774
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10222636
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- CHI 2018 Workshop on Moving Beyond a ‘One-Size Fits All’
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Development of a comprehensive legal privacy framework in the United States should be based on identification of the common deficiencies of privacy policies. We attempt to delineate deficiencies by critically analyzing the privacy policies of mobile apps, application suites, social networks, Internet Service Providers, and Internet-of-Things devices. Whereas many studies have examined readability of privacy policies, few have specifically identified the information that should be provided in privacy policies but is not. Privacy legislation invariably starts a definition of personally identifiable information. We find that privacy policies’ definitions of personally identifiable information are far too restrictive, excluding information that does not itself identify a person but which can be used to reasonably identify a person, and excluding information paired with a device identifier which can be reasonably linked to a person. Legislation should define personally identifiable information to include such information, and should differentiate between information paired with a name versus information paired with a device identifier. Privacy legislation often excludes anonymous and de-identified information from notice and choice requirements. We find that privacy policies’ descriptions of anonymous and de-identified information are far too broad, including information paired with advertising identifiers. Computer science has repeatedly demonstrated that such information is reasonably linkable. Legislation should define these categories of information to align with technological abilities. Legislation should also not exempt de-identified information from notice requirements, to increase transparency. Privacy legislation relies heavily on notice requirements. We find that, because privacy policies’ disclosures of the uses of personal information are disconnected from their disclosures about the types of personal information collected, we are often unable to determine which types of information are used for which purposes. Often, we cannot determine whether location or web browsing history is used solely for functional purposes or also for advertising. Legislation should require the disclosure of the purposes for each type of personal information collected. We also find that, because privacy policies disclosures of sharing of personal information are disconnected from their disclosures about the types of personal information collected, we are often unable to determine which types of information are shared. Legislation should require the disclosure of the types of personal information shared. Finally, privacy legislation relies heavily on user choice. We find that free services often require the collection and sharing of personal information. As a result, users often have no choices. We find that whereas some paid services afford users a wide variety of choices, paid services in less competitive sectors often afford users few choices over use and sharing of personal information for purposes unrelated to the service. As a result, users are often unable to dictate which types of information they wish to allow to be shared, and which types they wish to allow to be used for advertising. Legislation should differentiate between take-it-or-leave it, opt-out, and opt-in approaches based on the type of use and on whether the information is shared. Congress should consider whether user choices should be affected by the presence of market power.more » « less
-
When analyzing confidential data through a privacy filter, a data scientist often needs to decide which queries will best support their intended analysis. For example, an analyst may wish to study noisy two-way marginals in a dataset produced by a mechanism M 1 . But, if the data are relatively sparse, the analyst may choose to examine noisy one-way marginals, produced by a mechanism M 2 , instead. Since the choice of whether to use M 1 or M 2 is data-dependent, a typical differentially private workflow is to first split the privacy loss budget ρ into two parts: ρ 1 and ρ 2 , then use the first part ρ 1 to determine which mechanism to use, and the remainder ρ 2 to obtain noisy answers from the chosen mechanism. In a sense, the first step seems wasteful because it takes away part of the privacy loss budget that could have been used to make the query answers more accurate. In this paper, we consider the question of whether the choice between M 1 and M 2 can be performed without wasting any privacy loss budget. For linear queries, we propose a method for decomposing M 1 and M 2 into three parts: (1) a mechanism M * that captures their shared information, (2) a mechanism M′1 that captures information that is specific to M 1 , (3) a mechanism M′2 that captures information that is specific to M 2 . Running M * and M′ 1 together is completely equivalent to running M 1 (both in terms of query answer accuracy and total privacy cost ρ ). Similarly, running M * and M′ 2 together is completely equivalent to running M 2 . Since M * will be used no matter what, the analyst can use its output to decide whether to subsequently run M ′ 1 (thus recreating the analysis supported by M 1 )or M′ 2 (recreating the analysis supported by M 2 ), without wasting privacy loss budget.more » « less
-
Despite recent widespread deployment of differential privacy, relatively little is known about what users think of differential privacy. In this work, we seek to explore users' privacy expectations related to differential privacy. Specifically, we investigate (1) whether users care about the protections afforded by differential privacy, and (2) whether they are therefore more willing to share their data with differentially private systems. Further, we attempt to understand (3) users' privacy expectations of the differentially private systems they may encounter in practice and (4) their willingness to share data in such systems. To answer these questions, we use a series of rigorously conducted surveys (n=2424). We find that users care about the kinds of information leaks against which differential privacy protects and are more willing to share their private information when the risks of these leaks are less likely to happen. Additionally, we find that the ways in which differential privacy is described in-the-wild haphazardly set users' privacy expectations, which can be misleading depending on the deployment. We synthesize our results into a framework for understanding a user's willingness to share information with differentially private systems, which takes into account the interaction between the user's prior privacy concerns and how differential privacy is described.more » « less
-
The Android mobile platform supports billions of devices across more than 190 countries around the world. This popularity coupled with user data collection by Android apps has made privacy protection a well-known challenge in the Android ecosystem. In practice, app producers provide privacy policies disclosing what information is collected and processed by the app. However, it is difficult to trace such claims to the corresponding app code to verify whether the implementation is consistent with the policy. Existing approaches for privacy policy alignment focus on information directly accessed through the Android platform (e.g., location and device ID), but are unable to handle user input, a major source of private information. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that automatically detects privacy leaks of user-entered data for a given Android app and determines whether such leakage may violate the app's privacy policy claims. For evaluation, we applied our approach to 120 popular apps from three privacy-relevant app categories: finance, health, and dating. The results show that our approach was able to detect 21 strong violations and 18 weak violations from the studied apps.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
