Towards a respondent-preferred ki-anonymity model
Kok-Seng WONG, Myung Ho KIM
Towards a respondent-preferred ki-anonymity model
Recently, privacy concerns about data collection have received an increasing amount of attention. In data collection process, a data collector (an agency) assumed that all respondents would be comfortable with submitting their data if the published data was anonymous. We believe that this assumption is not realistic because the increase in privacy concerns causes some respondents to refuse participation or to submit inaccurate data to such agencies. If respondents submit inaccurate data, then the usefulness of the results from analysis of the collected data cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, we note that the level of anonymity (i.e., k-anonymity) guaranteed by an agency cannot be verified by respondents since they generally do not have access to all of the data that is released. Therefore, we introduce the notion of ki-anonymity, where ki is the level of anonymity preferred by each respondent i. Instead of placing full trust in an agency, our solution increases respondent confidence by allowing each to decide the preferred level of protection. As such, our protocol ensures that respondents achieve their preferred ki-anonymity during data collection and guarantees that the collected records are genuine and useful for data analysis.
Anonymous data collection / Respondent-preferred privacy protection / k-anonymity
[1] |
Agrawal, R., Srikant, R., 2000. Privacy-preserving data mining. Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, p.439―450. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[2] |
Bella, G., Bistarelli, S., Massacci, F., 2005. Retaliation: can we live with flaws? NATO Sec. Sci. Ser. D, 6: 3―14.
|
[3] |
Bella, G., Giustolisi, R., Riccobene, S., 2011. Enforcing privacy in e-commerce by balancing anonymity and trust. Comput. Secur., 30(8): 705―718. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[4] |
Chaum, D.L., 1981. Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Commun. ACM, 24(2): 84―90. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[5] |
Clifton, C., Tassa, T., 2013. On syntactic anonymity and differential privacy. Proc. IEEE 29th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering Workshops, p.88―93. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[6] |
Diamond, C.C., Mostashari, F., Shirky, C., 2009. Collecting and sharing data for population health: a new paradigm. Health Aff., 28(2): 454―466. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[7] |
Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P., 2004. Tor: the second-generation onion router. Proc. 13th Conf. on USENIX Security Symp., p.21.
|
[8] |
Domingo-Ferrer, J., 2010. Coprivacy: towards a theory of sustainable privacy. Proc. Int. Conf. on Privacy in Statistical Databases, p.258―268. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[9] |
Domingo-Ferrer, J., 2011. Coprivacy: an introduction to the theory and applications of co-operative privacy. Stat. Oper. Res. Trans., Special issue, p.25―40.
|
[10] |
Domingo-Ferrer, J., Soria-Comas, J., Ciobotaru, O., 2015. Co-utility: self-enforcing protocols without coordination mechanisms. Proc. Int. Conf. on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, arXiv:1503.02563.
|
[11] |
Du, W., Zhan, Z., 2003. Using randomized response techniques for privacy-preserving data mining. Proc. 9th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, p.505―510. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[12] |
Dwork, C., 2008. Differential privacy: a survey of results. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, p.1―19. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[13] |
Edman, M., Yener, B., 2009. On anonymity in an electronic society: a survey of anonymous communication systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 42(1), Article 5. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[14] |
Evfimievski, A., Srikant, R., Agrawal, R.,
|
[15] |
Kargupta, H., Datta, S., Wang, Q.,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[16] |
Kumar, R., Gopal, R., Garfinkel, R., 2010. Freedom of privacy: anonymous data collection with respondent-defined privacy protection. INFORMS J. Comput., 22(3): 471―481. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[17] |
Li, B., Erdin, E., Güneş, M.H.,
|
[18] |
Li, N., Li, T., Venkatasubramanian, S., 2007. T-closeness: privacy beyond k-anonymity and l-diversity. Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, p.106―115. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[19] |
Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Gehrke, J.,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[20] |
Paillier, P., 1999. Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residuosity classes. Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques, p.223―238. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[21] |
Samarati, P., 2001. Protecting respondents identities in microdata release. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 13(6): 188―200. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[22] |
Sweeney, L., 1997. Weaving technology and policy together to maintain confidentiality. J. Law Med. Ethics, 25(2-3): 98―110. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[23] |
Sweeney, L., 2002. k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzz. Knowl.-Based Syst., 10(5): 557―570. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[24] |
Warner, S.L., 1965. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 60(309): 63―69. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[25] |
Wong, K.S., Kim, M.H., 2014a. Privacy-preserving data collection with self-awareness protection. In: Park, J.J., Zomaya, A., Jeong, H.Y.,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[26] |
Wong, K.S., Kim, M.H., 2014b. Towards self-awareness privacy protection for Internet of things data collection. J. Appl. Math., 2014: 827959.1―827959.9. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[27] |
Wong, R.C.W., Li, J., Fu, A.W.C.,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[28] |
Wong, R.C.W., Fu, A.W.C., Wang, K.,
|
[29] |
Wong, R.C.W., Liu, Y., Yin, J.,
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[30] |
Zhang, N., Wang, S., Zhao, W., 2005. A new scheme on privacy-preserving data classification. Proc. 11th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, p.374―383. [
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
/
〈 | 〉 |