Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

A game-theoretic approach to indistinguishability of winning objectives as user privacy

Published 1 Jul 2023 in cs.GT | (2307.00334v1)

Abstract: Game theory on graphs is a basic tool in computer science. In this paper, we propose a new game-theoretic framework for studying the privacy protection of a user who interactively uses a software service. Our framework is based on the idea that an objective of a user using software services should not be known to an adversary because the objective is often closely related to personal information of the user. We propose two new notions, O-indistinguishable strategy (O-IS) and objective-indistinguishability equilibrium (OIE). For a given game and a subset O of winning objectives (or objectives in short), a strategy of a player is O-indistinguishable if an adversary cannot shrink O by excluding any objective from O as an impossible objective. A strategy profile, which is a tuple of strategies of all players, is an OIE if the profile is locally maximal in the sense that no player can expand her set of objectives indistinguishable from her real objective from the viewpoint of an adversary. We show that for a given multiplayer game with Muller objectives, both of the existence of an O-IS and that of OIE are decidable.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (34)
  1. Deep learning with differential privacy. ACM CCS, 2016.
  2. S. Almagor and S. Guendelman. Concurrent games with multiple topologies. arXiv: 2207.02596.
  3. Geo-indistinguishability: Differential privacy for location based systems. ACM CCS, 2013.
  4. R. J. Bayardo and R. Agrawal. Data privacy through optimal k𝑘kitalic_k-anonymization. ICDE, pages 217–228, 2005.
  5. Strategy logic with imperfect information. ACM Trans. Computational Logic, 22(1):1–51, 2021.
  6. Graph games and reactive synthesis. In E. M. Clarke et al., editor, Handbook of Model Checking, chapter 27, pages 921–962. Springer, 2018.
  7. Nash equilibria in symmetric graph games with partial observation. Information and Computation, 254:238–258, 2017.
  8. V. Bruére. Computer aided synthesis: a game-theoretic approach. DLT, pages 3–35, 2017.
  9. Efficient k𝑘kitalic_k-anonymization using clustering techniques. DASFAA, pages 188–200, 2007.
  10. The complexity of stochastic rabin and streett games. ICALP, 2005.
  11. K. Chatterjee and L. Doyen. The complexity of partial-observation parity games. LPAR, pages 1–14, 2010.
  12. K. Chatterjee and L. Doyen. Games with a weak adversary. ICALP, pages 110–121, 2014.
  13. Doomsday equilibria for omega-regular games. Information and Computation, 254:296–315, 2017.
  14. Games with secure equilibria. Theoretical Computer Science, 365:67–82, 2006.
  15. Anonymity protocols as noisy channels. Information and Computation, 206(2-4):378–401, 2008.
  16. A static analysis for quantifying information flow in a simple imperative language. J. Computer Security, 15:321–371, 2007.
  17. C. Dwork. Differential privacy. ICALP, pages 1–12, 2006.
  18. C. Dwork. Differential privacy: A survey of results. TAMC, pages 1–19, 2008.
  19. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. TCC, pages 265–284, 2006.
  20. C. Dwork and A. Roth. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 9:3–4, 2013. now Publishers.
  21. Rational synthesis. TACAS, pages 190–204, 2010.
  22. Privacy-preserving data publishing: A survey of recent developments. ACM Computing Surveys, 42(4):14:1–14:53, June 2010.
  23. O. Goldreich. Foundations of Cryptography, volume I Basic Tools. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  24. O. Kupferman and O. Leshkowitz. Synthesis of privacy-preserving systems. FSTCS, 42:1–21, 2022.
  25. t𝑡titalic_t-closeness: Privacy beyond k𝑘kitalic_k-anonymity and ℓℓ{\ell}roman_ℓ-diversity. ICDE, pages 106–115, 2007.
  26. ℓℓ{\ell}roman_ℓ-diversity: Privacy beyond k𝑘kitalic_k-anonymity. ICDE, 24, 2006. also in TKDD, 1(1), Mar 2007.
  27. A. Pnueli and R. Rosner. On the synthesis of a reactive module. ACM POPL, pages 179–190, 1989.
  28. P. Samarati. Protecting respondents’ identities in microdata release. IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Engineering, 13(6):1010–1027, 2001.
  29. R. Shokri and V. Shmatikov. Privacy-preserving deep learning. ACM CCS, 2015.
  30. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. IEEE Symp. Security and Privacy, 2017.
  31. G. Smith. On the foundations of quantitative information flow. FoSSaCS, pages 288–302, 2009.
  32. L. Sweeney. k𝑘kitalic_k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. Int’l Journal on Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, 10(5):557–570, 2002.
  33. M. Ummels. The complexity of nash equilibria in infinite multiplayer games. FOSSACS, pages 20–34, 2008.
  34. M. Ummels and D. Wojtczak. The complexity of nash equilibria in stochastic multiplayer games. Logical Methods in Computer Science, 7(3), 2011.
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.