The cost of privacy: destruction of data-mining utility in anonymized data publishing

• Authors: Justin Brickell;Vitaly Shmatikov
• Venue: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
• Year: 2008

Re-identification is a major privacy threat to public datasets containing individual records. Many privacy protection algorithms rely on generalization and suppression of "quasi-identifier" attributes such as ZIP code and birthdate. Their objective is usually syntactic sanitization: for example, k-anonymity requires that each "quasi-identifier" tuple appear in at least k records, while l-diversity requires that the distribution of sensitive attributes for each quasi-identifier have high entropy. The utility of sanitized data is also measured syntactically, by the number of generalization steps applied or the number of records with the same quasi-identifier. In this paper, we ask whether generalization and suppression of quasi-identifiers offer any benefits over trivial sanitization which simply separates quasi-identifiers from sensitive attributes. Previous work showed that k-anonymous databases can be useful for data mining, but k-anonymization does not guarantee any privacy. By contrast, we measure the tradeoff between privacy (how much can the adversary learn from the sanitized records?) and utility, measured as accuracy of data-mining algorithms executed on the same sanitized records. For our experimental evaluation, we use the same datasets from the UCI machine learning repository as were used in previous research on generalization and suppression. Our results demonstrate that even modest privacy gains require almost complete destruction of the data-mining utility. In most cases, trivial sanitization provides equivalent utility and better privacy than k-anonymity, l-diversity, and similar methods based on generalization and suppression.