LWN: Comments on "Google's differential privacy library"

Google's differential privacy library

kleptog — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:44:03 +0000

It's not redefining privacy, it's actually trying to provide a rigorous definition of what privacy is.

I can publish a list can contains all the PIN codes of all your cards, but that doesn't violate your privacy. If however, I publish a link between a specific PIN code and the street you live in, does that violate your privacy?

If I train a ML model on a whole lot of private data, can I publish the resulting model? What criteria would you use to decide?

An IP address in a log is only a issue if you combine it with a database that maps IP addresses to people. If such a database exists, does it matter who has access?

As long as you consider privacy a binary issue you cannot have any sensible discussions about it, and it's a really important area that needs a lot of discussion and research so we can collectively decide what we actually want and what trade offs we find acceptable. And there are lots of trade offs being made right now without a good discussion about what is actually being traded.

Google's differential privacy library

scientes — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 19:15:01 +0000

Like have you noticed the cost of a hamburger at McDonalds lately?

Google's differential privacy library

scientes — Sun, 08 Sep 2019 19:12:28 +0000

Redefining inflation doesn't make it go away. Similarly redefining privacy *does* make it go away, in that you don't have privacy anymore, because the Orwellian tricks are hidden by obscured and deliberately hard to understand "academic" theories (which are thinly veiled political policies).

Google's differential privacy library

mattdm — Fri, 06 Sep 2019 08:14:02 +0000

It's a "differential privacy" library, not a differential "privacy library". This is a term of art; see e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/diff...

Google's differential privacy library

ncultra — Thu, 05 Sep 2019 20:04:36 +0000

Calling it a "privacy" library is Orwellian. It may be more appropriately called an anonymization library. But I see the vast benefit of doing this meta-analysis using correct methods.