1932

Abstract

Many modern dynamical systems, such as smart grids and traffic networks, rely on user data for efficient operation. These data often contain sensitive information that the participating users do not wish to reveal to the public. One major challenge is to protect the privacy of participating users when utilizing user data. Over the past decade, differential privacy has emerged as a mathematically rigorous approach that provides strong privacy guarantees. In particular, differential privacy has several useful properties, including resistance to both postprocessing and the use of side information by adversaries. Although differential privacy was first proposed for static-database applications, this review focuses on its use in the context of control systems, in which the data under processing often take the form of data streams. Through two major applications—filtering and optimization algorithms—we illustrate the use of mathematical tools from control and optimization to convert a nonprivate algorithm to its private counterpart. These tools also enable us to quantify the trade-offs between privacy and system performance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-105018
2018-05-28
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/control/1/1/annurev-control-060117-105018.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-105018&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Quilumba FL, Lee WJ, Huang H, Wang DY, Szabados RL 2015. Using smart meter data to improve the accuracy of intraday load forecasting considering customer behavior similarities. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 6:911–18
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  McDaniel P, McLaughlin S 2009. Security and privacy challenges in the smart grid. IEEE Secur. Priv 7:75–77
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Molina-Markham A, Shenoy P, Fu K, Cecchet E, Irwin D 2010. Private memoirs of a smart meter. BuildSys '10: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Embedded Systems Sensing for Energy-Efficiency in Building61–66 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Hoenkamp R, Huitema GB, de Moor-van Vugt AJC 2011. The neglected consumer: the case of the smart meter rollout in the Netherlands. Renew. Energy Law. Policy 2011:269–82
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Hubaux JP, Capkun S, Luo J 2004. The security and privacy of smart vehicles. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2:49–55
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Hoh B, Gruteser M, Xiong H, Alrabady A 2006. Enhancing security and privacy in traffic-monitoring systems. IEEE Pervasive Comput 5:38–46
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Agarwal Y, Balaji B, Gupta R, Lyles J, Wei M, Weng T 2010. Occupancy-driven energy management for smart building automation. BuildSys '10: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Embedded Systems Sensing for Energy-Efficiency in Building1–6 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Pantelopoulos A, Bourbakis NG 2010. A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. C 40:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Agrawal R, Srikant R 2000. Privacy-preserving data mining. SIGMOD '00: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data439–50 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Sweeney L 2002. k -anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst. 10:557–70
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Machanavajjhala A, Gehrke J, Kifer D, Venkitasubramaniam M 2006. l-diversity: privacy beyond k-anonymity. ICDE '06: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering24 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Narayanan A, Shmatikov V 2008. Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy111–25 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Dwork C, McSherry F, Nissim K, Smith A 2006. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. Theory of Cryptography S Halevi, T Rabin 265–84 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Moulin P, O'Sullivan JA 2003. Information-theoretic analysis of information hiding. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 49:563–93
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Lindell Y, Pinkas B 2009. Secure multiparty computation for privacy-preserving data mining. J. Priv. Confident. 1:5
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Le Ny J, Pappas GJ 2014. Differentially private filtering. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 59:341–54
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Sankar L, Rajagopalan SR, Mohajer S, Poor HV 2013. Smart meter privacy: a theoretical framework. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4:837–46
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Canepa ES, Claudel CG 2013. A framework for privacy and security analysis of probe-based traffic information systems. HiCoNS '13: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Conference on High Confidence Networked Systems25–32 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Venkitasubramaniam P 2013. Privacy in stochastic control: a Markov decision process perspective. 2013 51st Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing381–88 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Huang Z, Mitra S, Dullerud G 2012. Differentially private iterative synchronous consensus. WPES '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society81–90 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Mo Y, Murray RM 2017. Privacy preserving average consensus. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 62:753–65
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Dwork C, Roth A 2013. The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. Vol. 9, No. 3–4 Hanover, MA: Now
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Huang Z, Mitra S, Vaidya N 2015. Differentially private distributed optimization. ICDCN '15: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking chap4 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Cortés J, Dullerud GE, Han S, Le Ny J Mitra S, Pappas GJ 2016. Differential privacy in control and network systems. 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)4252–72 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Han S, Topcu U, Pappas GJ 2017. Differentially private distributed constrained optimization. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 62:50–64
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Wasserman L, Zhou S 2010. A statistical framework for differential privacy. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 105:375–89
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Geng Q, Viswanath P 2016. Optimal noise adding mechanisms for approximate differential privacy. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 62:952–69
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Geng Q, Kairouz P, Oh S, Viswanath P 2015. The staircase mechanism in differential privacy. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 9:1176–84
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Doyle JC, Francis BA, Tannenbaum AR 2013. Feedback Control Theory New York: Courier
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Khalil H 2002. Nonlinear Systems Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Kailath T, Sayed A, Hassibi B 2000. Linear Estimation Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Boyd S, Ghaoui L, Feron E, Balakrishnan V 1994. Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory Philadelphia: SIAM
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Lessard L, Recht B, Packard A 2016. Analysis and design of optimization algorithms via integral quadratic constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 26:57–95
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Li N, Chen L, Low SH 2011. Optimal demand response based on utility maximization in power networks. 2011 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting1–8 New York: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Nedić A, Ozdaglar A 2009. Distributed subgradient methods for multi-agent optimization. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 54:48–61
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Nocedal J, Wright S 2006. Numerical Optimization New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Nozari E, Tallapragada P, Cortes J 2016. Differentially private distributed convex optimization via functional perturbation. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst. 5:395–408
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Shamir O, Zhang T 2013. Stochastic gradient descent for non-smooth optimization: convergence results and optimal averaging schemes. ICML '13: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on International Conference on Machine LearningI–7179 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-105018
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-060117-105018
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error