Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Contextual Integrity Games (2405.09130v1)

Published 15 May 2024 in cs.CY

Abstract: The contextual integrity model is a widely accepted way of analyzing the plurality of norms that are colloquially called "privacy norms". Contextual integrity systematically describes such norms by distinguishing the type of data concerned, the three social agents involved (subject, sender, and recipient) and the transmission principle governing the transfer of information. It allows analyzing privacy norms in terms of their impact on the interaction of those agents with one another. This paper places contextual integrity in a strict game theoretic framework. When such description is possible it has three key advantages: Firstly, it allows indisputable utilitarian justification of some privacy norms. Secondly, it better relates privacy to topics which are well understood by stakeholders whose education is predominantly quantitative, such as engineers and economists. Thirdly, it is an absolute necessity when describing ethical constraints to machines such as AI agents. In addition to describing games which capture paradigmatic informational norms, the paper also analyzes cases in which the game, per se, does not encourage normative behavior. The paper discusses two main forms of mechanisms which can be applied to the game in such cases, and shows that they reflect accepted privacy regulation and technologies.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (39)
  1. 1920. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. 251, No. 358 (1920).
  2. 1992. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. , 248–249 pages. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700010943
  3. Rakesh Agrawal and Ramakrishnan Srikant. 2000. Privacy-preserving data mining. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. 439–450.
  4. Anonymous. -a. -. - -, - (-), X–X.
  5. Anonymous. -b. -. - -, X–X.
  6. C Edwin Baker. 1977. Posner’s Privacy Mystery and the Failure of Economic Analysis of Law. Ga. L. Rev. 12 (1977), 475.
  7. Danah Boyd. 2012. Networked privacy. Surveillance & society 10, 3/4 (2012), 348.
  8. Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren. 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard law review 4, 5 (1890), 193–220.
  9. George Danezis. 2013. Measuring anonymity: a few thoughts and a differentially private bound. In Proceedings of the DIMACS Workshop on Measuring Anonymity. 26.
  10. Secrecy in Defensive Allocations as a Strategy for achieving more Cost-effective Attacker Deterrence. International Journal of Performability Engineering 5, 1 (2009), 31.
  11. Richard A Dollinger. 2014. Judicial Ethics: The Obligation to Report Tax Evasion in Support Cases. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 27 (2014), 1.
  12. Josep Domingo-Ferrer and Jordi Soria-Comas. 2015. From t-closeness to differential privacy and vice versa in data anonymization. Knowledge-Based Systems 74 (2015), 151–158.
  13. Cynthia Dwork. 2006. Differential privacy. In International colloquium on automata, languages, and programming. Springer, 1–12.
  14. Cynthia Dwork. 2008. Differential privacy: A survey of results. In Theory and Applications of Models of Computation: 5th International Conference, TAMC 2008, Xian, China, April 25-29, 2008. Proceedings 5. Springer, 1–19.
  15. Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2006: 24th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, St. Petersburg, Russia, May 28-June 1, 2006. Proceedings 25. Springer, 486–503.
  16. Cynthia Dwork and Kobbi Nissim. 2004. Privacy-Preserving Datamining on Vertically Partitioned Databases. In Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2004, Matt Franklin (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 528–544.
  17. Limiting privacy breaches in privacy preserving data mining. In Proceedings of the twenty-second ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems. 211–222.
  18. Ruth Gavison. 1980. Privacy and the Limits of Law. The Yale law journal 89, 3 (1980), 421–471.
  19. Gail Gilboa-Freedman and Rann Smorodinsky. 2020. On the behavioral implications of differential privacy. Theoretical Computer Science 841 (2020), 84–93.
  20. Ronen Gradwohl and Omer Reingold. 2010. Partial exposure in large games. Games and Economic Behavior 68, 2 (2010), 602–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2009.09.006
  21. Ronen Gradwohl and Rann Smorodinsky. 2017. Perception games and privacy. Games and Economic Behavior 104 (2017), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2017.04.006
  22. Nissenbaum Helen. 2010. Privacy in Context : Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford Law Books.
  23. Louis Henkin. 1974. Privacy and autonomy. Columbia Law Review 74 (1974), 1410.
  24. Is ignorance bliss? The Journal of Philosophy 105, 1 (2008), 5–36.
  25. When do data mining results violate privacy?. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Seattle, WA, USA) (KDD ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 599–604. https://doi.org/10.1145/1014052.1014126
  26. Provably private data anonymization: Or, k-anonymity meets differential privacy. CoRR, abs/1101.2604 49 (2011), 55.
  27. Yehuda Lindell and Benny Pinkas. 2000. Privacy preserving data mining. In Annual International Cryptology Conference. Springer, 36–54.
  28. L-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity. In 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE’06). 24–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2006.1
  29. Alice E Marwick and Danah Boyd. 2018. Understanding privacy at the margins. International Journal of Communication (19328036) 12 (2018).
  30. Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review 79, 1 (2004), 119.
  31. Paul Ohm. 2009. Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA l. Rev. 57 (2009), 1701.
  32. Richard A Posner. 1977. The right of privacy. Ga. L. Rev. 12 (1977), 393.
  33. Pierangela Samarati and Latanya Sweeney. 1998. Protecting privacy when disclosing information: k-anonymity and its enforcement through generalization and suppression. Technical Report. technical report, SRI International.
  34. William H Sandholm. 2010. Decompositions and potentials for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior 70, 2 (2010), 446–456.
  35. Daniel J. Solove. 2008. Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press.
  36. Onuralp Ulusoy and Pınar Yolum. 2019. Emergent privacy norms for collaborative systems. In PRIMA 2019: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems: 22nd International Conference, Turin, Italy, October 28–31, 2019, Proceedings 22. Springer, 514–522.
  37. Stanley L. Warner. 1965. Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 60, 309 (1965), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775
  38. Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. 1890. The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review 4, 5 (1890), 193–220. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321160
  39. Joanna Wuest. 2021. A Conservative Right to Privacy: Legal, Ideological, and Coalitional Transformations in US Social Conservatism. Law & Social Inquiry 46, 4 (2021), 964–992. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2021.1

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets