research-article

Open access

Understanding Risks of Privacy Theater with Differential Privacy

Authors:

Mary Anne Smart,

Kristen VaccaroAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 342, Pages 1 - 24

https://doi.org/10.1145/3555762

Published: 11 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Differential privacy is one of the most popular technologies in the growing area of privacy-conscious data analytics. But differential privacy, along with other privacy-enhancing technologies, may enable privacy theater. In implementations of differential privacy, certain algorithm parameters control the tradeoff between privacy protection for individuals and utility for the data collector; thus, data collectors who do not provide transparency into these parameters may obscure the limited protection offered by their implementation. Through large-scale online surveys, we investigate whether explanations of differential privacy that hide important information about algorithm parameters persuade users to share more browser history data. Surprisingly, we find that the explanations have little effect on individuals' willingness to share data. In fact, most people make up their minds about whether to share before they even learn about the privacy protection.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (v6cscw2342aux.zip)

# Supplementary Materials This directory contains: - The final version of the survey instruments (survey1.html, survey2.html, survey3.html). - Demographic information for all surveys (Demographics.pdf, ReplicationDemographics.pdf). - The process+vis and outcome+vis explanation visuals (Process.gif, Outcome.gif). - The codebook for the qualitative analysis (CodeBook.pdf). - The details of the replication study (Replication_Study_Details.pdf). - The details of the statistical analysis, including p-values (analysis.pdf).

Download
461.77 KB

References

[1]

John M. Abowd. 2018. The U. S. Census Bureau Adopts Differential Privacy. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ACM, London United Kingdom, 2867--2867. https://doi.org/10.1145/3219819.3226070

Digital Library

[2]

Hazim Almuhimedi, Florian Schaub, Norman Sadeh, Idris Adjerid, Alessandro Acquisti, Joshua Gluck, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Yuvraj Agarwal. 2015. Your Location has been Shared 5,398 Times! A Field Study on Mobile App Privacy Nudging. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 787--796. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702210

Digital Library

[3]

Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. 2018. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. new media & society, Vol. 20, 3 (2018), 973--989.

[4]

Eduardo B Andrade, Velitchka Kaltcheva, and Barton Weitz. 2002. Self-disclosure on the web: The impact of privacy policy, reward, and company reputation. ACR North American Advances (2002).

[5]

Payal Arora. 2019. Decolonizing privacy studies. Television & New Media, Vol. 20, 4 (2019), 366--378.

[6]

Differential Privacy Team at Apple. 2017. Learning with privacy at scale. Apple Machine Learning Journal, Vol. 1, 8 (2017).

[7]

Brooke Auxier, Lee Rainie, Monica Anderson, Andrew Perrin, Madhu Kumar, and Erica Turner. 2019. Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/

[8]

Wei Bai, Moses Namara, Yichen Qian, Patrick Gage Kelley, Michelle L. Mazurek, and Doowon Kim. 2016. An Inconvenient Trust: User Attitudes toward Security and Usability Tradeoffs for Key-Directory Encryption Systems. 113--130. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2016/technical-sessions/presentation/bai

[9]

Richard E Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.

[10]

Finn Brunton and Helen Nissenbaum. 2015. Obfuscation: A user's guide for privacy and protest. MIT Press.

Digital Library

[11]

Brooke Bullek, Stephanie Garboski, Darakhshan J. Mir, and Evan M. Peck. 2017. Towards Understanding Differential Privacy: When Do People Trust Randomized Response Technique?. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, Denver, Colorado, USA, 3833--3837. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025698

Digital Library

[12]

Jessica Colnago, Yuanyuan Feng, Tharangini Palanivel, Sarah Pearman, Megan Ung, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2020. Informing the design of a personalized privacy assistant for the internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.

Digital Library

[13]

Federal Trade Commission. 2014. Snapchat settles FTC charges that promises of disappearing messages were false.

[14]

Federal Trade Commission. 2019. FTC imposes $5 billion penalty and sweeping new privacy restrictions on Facebook.

[15]

Lina Dencik and Jonathan Cable. 2017. The advent of surveillance realism: Public opinion and activist responses to the Snowden leaks. International Journal of Communication, Vol. 11 (2017), 763--781.

[16]

Verena Distler, Carine Lallemand, and Vincent Koenig. 2020. Making Encryption Feel Secure: Investigating how Descriptions of Encryption Impact Perceived Security. In 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS PW). 220--229. https://doi.org/10.1109/EuroSPW51379.2020.00037

[17]

Paul Dourish, Rebecca E Grinter, Jessica Delgado De La Flor, and Melissa Joseph. 2004. Security in the wild: user strategies for managing security as an everyday, practical problem. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 8, 6 (2004), 391--401.

[18]

Nora A Draper and Joseph Turow. 2019. The corporate cultivation of digital resignation. New Media & Society, Vol. 21, 8 (2019), 1824--1839.

[19]

Cynthia Dwork. 2006. Differential Privacy. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming - Volume Part II (ICALP'06). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1007/11787006_1

Digital Library

[20]

Cynthia Dwork, Nitin Kohli, and Deirdre Mulligan. 2019. Differential Privacy in Practice: Expose your Epsilons! Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, Vol. 9, 2 (Oct. 2019). https://doi.org/10.29012/jpc.689

[21]

Nico Ebert, Kurt Alexander Ackermann, and Peter Heinrich. 2020. Does Context in Privacy Communication Really Matter? -- A Survey on Consumer Concerns and Preferences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, Honolulu, HI, USA, 1--11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376575

Digital Library

[22]

Úlfar Erlingsson, Vasyl Pihur, and Aleksandra Korolova. 2014. RAPPOR: Randomized Aggregatable Privacy-Preserving Ordinal Response. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security - CCS '14 (2014), 1054--1067. https://doi.org/10.1145/2660267.2660348 arXiv: 1407.6981.

Digital Library

[23]

Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.

Digital Library

[24]

Benjamin Fabian, Tatiana Ermakova, and Tino Lentz. 2017. Large-Scale Readability Analysis of Privacy Policies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence (Leipzig, Germany) (WI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 18--25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106426.3106427

Digital Library

[25]

Chris Fennell and Rick Wash. 2019. Do Stories Help People Adopt Two-factor Authentication? (2019), 5.

[26]

Philip M. Fernbach, Todd Rogers, Craig R. Fox, and Steven A. Sloman. 2013. Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding. Psychological Science, Vol. 24, 6 (June 2013), 939--946. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612464058

[27]

A. Ferreira and G. Lenzini. 2015. An analysis of social engineering principles in effective phishing. In 2015 Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust. 9--16. https://doi.org/10.1109/STAST.2015.10

Digital Library

[28]

Dorothy S Fidler and Richard E Kleinknecht. 1977. Randomized response versus direct questioning: Two data-collection methods for sensitive information. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84, 5 (1977), 1045.

[29]

Patricia Garcia, Tonia Sutherland, Marika Cifor, Anita Say Chan, Lauren Klein, Catherine D'Ignazio, and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. No: Critical Refusal as Feminist Data Practice. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 199--202.

Digital Library

[30]

C. S. Gates, J. Chen, N. Li, and R. W. Proctor. 2014. Effective Risk Communication for Android Apps. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 11, 3 (May 2014), 252--265. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2013.58

Digital Library

[31]

Joshua Gluck, Florian Schaub, Amy Friedman, Hana Habib, Norman Sadeh, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Yuvraj Agarwal. 2016. How Short Is Too Short? Implications of Length and Framing on the Effectiveness of Privacy Notices. 321--340. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2016/technical-sessions/presentation/gluck

[32]

Michael S Goodstadt and Valerie Gruson. 1975. The randomized response technique: A test on drug use. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Vol. 70, 352 (1975), 814--818.

[33]

Seda Gürses, Arun Kundnani, and Joris Van Hoboken. 2016. Crypto and empire: the contradictions of counter-surveillance advocacy. Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 38, 4 (2016), 576--590.

[34]

Kashmir Hill. 2021. `Do Not Track,' the Privacy Tool Used by Millions of People, Doesn't Do Anything. Gizmodo (2021). https://gizmodo.com/do-not-track-the-privacy-tool-used-by-millions-of-peop-1828868324

[35]

Christian Pieter Hoffmann, Christoph Lutz, and Giulia Ranzini. 2016. Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, Vol. 10, 4 (2016).

[36]

Daniel C Howe. 2015. Surveillance countermeasures: Expressive privacy via obfuscation. Datafied Research, Vol. 4, 1 (2015), 88--98.

[37]

Daniel C Howe and Helen Nissenbaum. 2017. Engineering Privacy and Protest: A Case Study of AdNauseam. In IWPE@ SP. 57--64.

[38]

Harald Ibrekk and M Granger Morgan. 1987. Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to nontechnical people. Risk analysis, Vol. 7, 4 (1987), 519--529.

[39]

Matthew Jagielski, Jonathan Ullman, and Alina Oprea. 2020. Auditing Differentially Private Machine Learning: How Private is Private SGD?. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Eds.), Vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 22205--22216. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/fc4ddc15f9f4b4b06ef7844d6bb53abf-Paper.pdf

[40]

M. Janic, J. P. Wijbenga, and T. Veugen. 2013. Transparency Enhancing Tools (TETs): An Overview. In 2013 Third Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects in Security and Trust. 18--25. https://doi.org/10.1109/STAST.2013.11

Digital Library

[41]

Bargav Jayaraman and David Evans. 2019. Evaluating differentially private machine learning in practice. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19). 1895--1912.

[42]

Verónica Juárez Ramos. 2018. Analyzing the role of cognitive biases in the decision-making process. IGI Global.

[43]

Gabriel Kaptchuk, Rachel Cummings, and Elissa M Redmiles. 2021. "I need a better description": An Investigation Into User Expectations For Differential Privacy. In 2021 Workshop on Theory and Practice of Differential Privacy.

[44]

Patrick Gage Kelley, Joanna Bresee, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Robert W. Reeder. 2009. A "nutrition label" for privacy. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS '09). Association for Computing Machinery, Mountain View, California, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/1572532.1572538

Digital Library

[45]

Patrick Gage Kelley, Lucian Cesca, Joanna Bresee, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2010. Standardizing privacy notices: an online study of the nutrition label approach. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1573--1582. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753561

Digital Library

[46]

Rohit Khare. 2009. Privacy Theater: Why Social Networks Only Pretend to Protect You. TechCrunch (2009).

[47]

J Peter Kincaid, Robert P Fishburne Jr, Richard L Rogers, and Brad S Chissom. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Technical Report. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.

[48]

Jon A Krosnick. 1991. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied cognitive psychology, Vol. 5, 3 (1991), 213--236.

[49]

Jon A Krosnick. 2018. Questionnaire design. In The Palgrave handbook of survey research. Springer, 439--455.

[50]

Brian Y Lim, Qian Yang, Ashraf M Abdul, and Danding Wang. 2019. Why these Explanations? Selecting Intelligibility Types for Explanation Goals. In IUI Workshops.

[51]

Mary Madden, Michele Gilman, Karen Levy, and Alice Marwick. 2017. Privacy, poverty, and big data: A matrix of vulnerabilities for poor Americans. Wash. UL Rev., Vol. 95 (2017), 53.

[52]

Naresh K. Malhotra, Sung S. Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model. Information Systems Research, Vol. 15, 4 (Dec. 2004), 336--355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032 Publisher: INFORMS.

Digital Library

[53]

Alice E Marwick and danah boyd. 2018. Privacy at the margins| understanding privacy at the margins-introduction. International Journal of Communication, Vol. 12 (2018), 9.

[54]

Alessandra Mazzia, Kristen LeFevre, and Eytan Adar. 2012. The PViz Comprehension Tool for Social Network Privacy Settings. In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (Washington, D.C.) (SOUPS '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2335356.2335374

Digital Library

[55]

Aleecia M McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. The cost of reading privacy policies. Isjlp, Vol. 4 (2008), 543. Publisher: HeinOnline.

[56]

David B. Miele and Daniel C. Molden. 2010. Naive theories of intelligence and the role of processing fluency in perceived comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 139, 3 (2010), 535--557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019745

[57]

Alfred Ng. 2021. Teens have figured out how to mess with Instagram's tracking algorithm. https://www.cnet.com/news/teens-have-figured-out-how-to-mess-with-instagrams-tracking-algorithm/

[58]

Patricia A. Norberg, Daniel R. Horne, and David A. Horne. 2007. The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 41, 1 (2007), 100--126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745--6606.2006.00070.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1745--6606.2006.00070.x.

[59]

Jonathan A Obar and Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch. 2020. The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 23, 1 (2020), 128--147.

[60]

Lace Padilla, Matthew Kay, and Jessica Hullman. 2021. Uncertainty Visualization. 1--18. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat08296

[61]

Mike Peterson. 2021. New iPhone privacy ad takes shots at other smartphones oversharing information. https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/03/new-iphone-privacy-ad-takes-shots-at-other-smartphones-oversharing-information

[62]

Pew Internet Project. 2000. Trust and Privacy Online. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2000/08/20/trust-and-privacy-online/

[63]

Irene Pollach. 2005. A typology of communicative strategies in online privacy policies: Ethics, power and informed consent. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 62, 3 (2005), 221--235.

[64]

Emilee Rader, Rick Wash, and Brandon Brooks. 2012. Stories as Informal Lessons about Security. In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (Washington, D.C.) (SOUPS '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2335356.2335364

Digital Library

[65]

Lee Rainie, Sara Kiesler, Ruogu Kang, Mary Madden, Maeve Duggan, Stephanie Brown, and Laura Dabbish. 2013. Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Pew Research Center, Vol. 5 (2013).

[66]

Sarah Jaquette Ray. 2020. Claim Your Calling and Scale Your Action. In A Field Guide to Climate Anxiety. University of California Press, 52--79.

[67]

Elissa M. Redmiles, Sean Kross, and Michelle L. Mazurek. 2016. How I Learned to Be Secure: A Census-Representative Survey of Security Advice Sources and Behavior. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (Vienna, Austria) (CCS '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 666--677. https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978307

Digital Library

[68]

Phillip Rogaway. 2015. The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch., Vol. 2015 (2015), 1162.

[69]

Jayshree Sarathy. 2022. From algorithmic to institutional logics: the politics of differential privacy. Available at SSRN (2022).

[70]

Eva-Maria Schomakers, Chantal Lidynia, Dirk Müllmann, and Martina Ziefle. 2019. Internet users' perceptions of information sensitivity -- insights from Germany. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 46 (2019), 142--150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.018

Digital Library

[71]

Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2017. Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations From Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).

[72]

Karen L Soeken and George B Macready. 1982. Respondents' perceived protection when using randomized response. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 92, 2 (1982), 487.

[73]

Christopher Soghoian. 2011. An end to privacy theater: Exposing and discouraging corporate disclosure of user data to the government. Minn. JL Sci. & Tech., Vol. 12 (2011), 191.

[74]

Daniel J Solove. 2008. Understanding privacy. (2008).

[75]

Joshua Tan, Khanh Nguyen, Michael Theodorides, Heidi Negrón-Arroyo, Christopher Thompson, Serge Egelman, and David Wagner. 2014. The effect of developer-specified explanations for permission requests on smartphone user behavior. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '14. ACM Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 91--100. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557400

Digital Library

[76]

Jun Tang, Aleksandra Korolova, Xiaolong Bai, Xueqiang Wang, and Xiaofeng Wang. 2017. Privacy Loss in Apple's Implementation of Differential Privacy on MacOS 10.12. arXiv:1709.02753 [cs] (Sept. 2017). http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.02753 arXiv: 1709.02753.

[77]

Herman T Tavani and James H Moor. 2001. Privacy protection, control of information, and privacy-enhancing technologies. ACM Sigcas Computers and Society, Vol. 31, 1 (2001), 6--11.

Digital Library

[78]

Joseph Turow, Lauren Feldman, and Kimberly Meltzer. 2005. Open to exploitation: America's shoppers online and offline. Departmental Papers (ASC) (2005), 35.

[79]

Joseph Turow, Michael Hennessy, and Nora Draper. 2015. The tradeoff fallacy: How marketers are misrepresenting American consumers and opening them up to exploitation. Available at SSRN 2820060 (2015).

[80]

Joseph Turow, Michael Hennessy, and Nora Draper. 2018. Persistent misperceptions: Americans' misplaced confidence in privacy policies, 2003--2015. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 62, 3 (2018), 461--478.

[81]

Kristen Vaccaro, Christian Sandvig, and Karrie Karahalios. 2020. “At the End of the Day Facebook Does What It Wants” How Users Experience Contesting Algorithmic Content Moderation. Proc. CSCW (2020).

[82]

Max Van Kleek, Reuben Binns, Jun Zhao, Adam Slack, Sauyon Lee, Dean Ottewell, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2018. X-ray refine: Supporting the exploration and refinement of information exposure resulting from smartphone apps. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.

Digital Library

[83]

Nicholas Vincent, Hanlin Li, Nicole Tilly, Stevie Chancellor, and Brent Hecht. 2021. Data Leverage: A Framework for Empowering the Public in its Relationship with Technology Companies. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 215--227.

Digital Library

[84]

Penny S Visser, Jon A Krosnick, Jesse Marquette, and Michael Curtin. 2000. Improving election forecasting: Allocation of undecided respondents, identification of likely voters, and response order effects. Election polls, the news media, and democracy. New York: Chatham House (2000).

[85]

Stanley L. Warner. 1965. Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Vol. 60, 309 (March 1965), 63--69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775

[86]

Ben Weinshel, Miranda Wei, Mainack Mondal, Euirim Choi, Shawn Shan, Claire Dolin, Michelle L Mazurek, and Blase Ur. 2019. Oh, the Places You've Been! User Reactions to Longitudinal Transparency About Third-Party Web Tracking and Inferencing. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 149--166.

Digital Library

[87]

Aiping Xiong, Tianhao Wang, Ninghui Li, and Somesh Jha. 2020. Towards Effective Differential Privacy Communication for Users' Data Sharing Decision and Comprehension. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 392--410. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40000.2020.00088

[88]

Shoshana Zuboff. 2018. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power 1st ed.).

Cited By

Kaul VMukherjee T(2024)Equitable differential privacyFrontiers in Big Data10.3389/fdata.2024.14203447Online publication date: 16-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2024.1420344
Seeman JSusser D(2024)Between Privacy and Utility: On Differential Privacy in Theory and PracticeACM Journal on Responsible Computing10.1145/36264941:1(1-18)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626494
Nuñez von Voigt SMehner LTschorsch FVilela JSchulmann HLi N(2024)From Theory to Comprehension: A Comparative Study of Differential Privacy and k-AnonymityProceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy10.1145/3626232.3653261(221-232)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626232.3653261
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Understanding Risks of Privacy Theater with Differential Privacy
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
2. Security and privacy
  1. Human and societal aspects of security and privacy
    1. Social aspects of security and privacy
    2. Usability in security and privacy

Recommendations

An Emerging Strategy for Privacy Preserving Databases: Differential Privacy
HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust
Abstract
Data De-identification and Differential Privacy are two possible approaches for providing data security and user privacy. Data de-identification is the process where the personal identifiable information of individuals is extracted to create ...
A privacy framework: indistinguishable privacy
EDBT '13: Proceedings of the Joint EDBT/ICDT 2013 Workshops

In this paper we illustrate a privacy framework named Indistinguishable Privacy. Indistinguishable privacy could be deemed as the formalization of the existing privacy definitions in privacy preserving data publishing as well as secure multi-party ...
A Novel Differential Privacy Approach that Enhances Classification Accuracy
C3S2E '16: Proceedings of the Ninth International C* Conference on Computer Science & Software Engineering

In the recent past, there has been a tremendous increase of large repositories of data, examples being in healthcare data, consumer data from retailers, and airline passenger data. These data are continually being shared with interested parties, either ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

CSCW

November 2022

8205 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3571154

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Google

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 November 2022

Published in PACMHCI Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

8
Total Citations
View Citations
541
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)356
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)51

Reflects downloads up to 15 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kaul VMukherjee T(2024)Equitable differential privacyFrontiers in Big Data10.3389/fdata.2024.14203447Online publication date: 16-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2024.1420344
Seeman JSusser D(2024)Between Privacy and Utility: On Differential Privacy in Theory and PracticeACM Journal on Responsible Computing10.1145/36264941:1(1-18)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626494
Nuñez von Voigt SMehner LTschorsch FVilela JSchulmann HLi N(2024)From Theory to Comprehension: A Comparative Study of Differential Privacy and k-AnonymityProceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy10.1145/3626232.3653261(221-232)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626232.3653261
Fischer-Hübner SKaregar FFischer-Hübner SKaregar F(2024)Overview of Usable Privacy Research: Major Themes and Research DirectionsThe Curious Case of Usable Privacy10.1007/978-3-031-54158-2_3(43-102)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54158-2_3
Nanayakkara PSmart MCummings RKaptchuk GRedmiles ECalandrino JTroncoso C(2023)What are the chances? explaining the epsilon parameter in differential privacyProceedings of the 32nd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium10.5555/3620237.3620328(1613-1630)Online publication date: 9-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3620237.3620328
Lichtenauer NSchmidbauer LWilhelm SWahl F(2023)A Scoping Review on Analysis of the Barriers and Support Factors of Open DataInformation10.3390/info1501000515:1(5)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/info15010005
Kacsmar BDuddu VTilbury KUr BKerschbaum FMeng WJensen CCremers CKirda E(2023)Comprehension from Chaos: Towards Informed Consent for Private ComputationProceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security10.1145/3576915.3623152(210-224)Online publication date: 15-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3576915.3623152
Cummings RSarathy J(2023)Centering Policy and Practice: Research Gaps Around Usable Differential Privacy2023 5th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA)10.1109/TPS-ISA58951.2023.00024(122-135)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS-ISA58951.2023.00024
Wen ZJia JYan HYao YLiu ZDong C(2023)The influence of explanation designs on user understanding differential privacy and making data-sharing decisionInformation Sciences: an International Journal10.1016/j.ins.2023.03.024642:COnline publication date: 1-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ins.2023.03.024

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents