Differential Privacy and Federal Data Releases

Literature Cited

1. Abowd JM. 2017. How will statistical agencies operate when all data are private?. J. Priv. Confid. 7:3 https://doi.org/10.29012/jpc.v7i3.404
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
2. Abowd JM, Alvisi L, Dwork C, Kannan S, Machanavajjhala A, Reiter J. 2017. Privacy-preserving data analysis for the federal statistical agencies Tech. Rep., Comput. Community Consort., Washington, DC
   [Google Scholar]
3. Abowd JM, Schmutte IM. 2015. Economic analysis and statistical disclosure limitation. Brookings Panel Econ. Act. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015a_abowd.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
4. Abowd JM, Schmutte IM. 2017. Revisiting the economics of privacy: population statistics and confidentiality protection as public goods. Work. Pap. 17–37, Cent. Econ. Stud., US Census Bur.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Abowd JM, Vilhuber L. 2008. How protective are synthetic data?. Privacy in Statistical Databases J Domingo-Ferrer, Y Saygun239–46 New York: Springer-Verlag
   [Google Scholar]
6. Barrientos AF, Bolton A, Balmat T, Reiter JP, de Figueiredo JM et al. 2018. Providing access to confidential research data through synthesis and verification: an application to data on employees of the U.S. federal government. Ann. Appl. Stat. 12:1124–56
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bassily R, Smith A, Thakurta A. 2014. Private empirical risk minimization: efficient algorithms and tight error bounds. IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science464–73 Red Hook, NY: Curran
   [Google Scholar]
8. Brand R. 2002. Micro-data protection through noise addition. Inference Control in Statistical Databases J Domingo-Ferrer97–116 Berlin: Springer-Verlag
   [Google Scholar]
9. Chaudhuri K, Monteleoni C. 2009. Privacy-preserving logistic regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21 D Koller, D Schuurmans, Y Bengio, L Bottou289–96 Red Hook, NY: Curran
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chaudhuri K, Monteleoni C, Sarwate AD. 2011. Differentially private empirical risk minimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12:1069–109
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chen Y, Machanavajjhala A, Reiter JP, Barrientos A. 2016. Differentially private regression diagnostics. IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)81–90 Red Hook, NY: Curran
    [Google Scholar]
12. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. 2017. The promise of evidence-based policymaking Rep., Comm. Evid. Based Policymaking, Washington, DC
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cox LH. 1980. Suppression methodology and statistical disclosure control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75:377–85
    [Google Scholar]
14. Cox LH 2010. Vulnerability of complementary cell suppression to intruder attack. J. Priv. Confid. 1:2235–51
    [Google Scholar]
15. Dalenius T, Reiss SP. 1982. Data-swapping: a technique for disclosure control. J. Stat. Plann. Inference 6:73–85
    [Google Scholar]
16. Dinur I, Nissim K. 2003. Revealing information while preserving privacy. Proceedings of the Twenty-second ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems202–10 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
17. Drechsler J, Reiter JP. 2010. Sampling with synthesis: a new approach for releasing public use census microdata. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 105:1347–57
    [Google Scholar]
18. Duncan GT, Lambert D. 1986. Disclosure-limited data dissemination. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81:10–28
    [Google Scholar]
19. Duncan GT, Lambert D. 1989. The risk of disclosure for microdata. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 7:207–17
    [Google Scholar]
20. Dwork C. 2006. Differential privacy. Automata, Languages and Programming: 33rd International Colloquium, ICALP 2006, Venice, Italy, July 10–14, 2006. Proceedings, Part II M Bugliesi, B Preneel, V Sassone, I Wegener1–12 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
21. Dwork C, Lei J. 2009. Differential privacy and robust statistics. Proceedings of the Forty-first Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing371–80 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
22. Dwork C, Roth A 2014. The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy Breda, Neth.: Now Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Dwork C, Smith A, Steinke T, Ulllman J. 2017. Exposed! A survey of attacks on private data. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 4:61–84
    [Google Scholar]
24. Elringsson U, Pihur V, Korolova A. 2014. Randomized aggregatable privacy-preserving ordinal response. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security1054–67 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
25. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. 2005. Report on statistical disclosure limitation methodology (second version) Stat. Policy Work. Pap. 22, Off. Manag. Budg., Washington, DC
    [Google Scholar]
26. Garfinkel SL. 2018. Modernizing the disclosure avoidance system for the 2020 census Presentation, CS Colloquium, Georgetown Univ., Feb. 16. http://simson.net/ref/2018/2018-02-14%20Garfinkel%20Gerogetown%20Modernizing%20the%20DAS%20for%20the%202020%20Census.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
27. Haney S, Machanavajjhala A, Abowd JM, Graham M, Kutzbach M, Vilhuber L. 2017. Utility cost of formal privacy for releasing national employer-employee statistics. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data1339–54 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
28. Holan SH, Toth D, Ferreira M, Karr AF. 2010. Bayesian multiscale imputation with implications for data confidentiality. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 105:564–77
    [Google Scholar]
29. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W et al. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLOS Genet. 4:8:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
30. Honkela A, Das M, Dikmen O, Kaski S. 2016. Efficient differentially private learning improves drug sensitivity prediction. arXiv:1606.02109 [stat.ML]
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hu J, Reiter JP, Wang Q. 2018. Dirichlet process mixture models for modeling and generating synthetic versions of nested categorical data. Bayesian Anal. 13:183–200
    [Google Scholar]
32. Hundepool A, Domingo-Ferrer J, Franconi L, Giessing S, Nordholdt ES et al. 2012. Statistical Disclosure Control New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
33. Karr AF. 2016. Data sharing and data access. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 3:113–32
    [Google Scholar]
34. Karr AF, Reiter JP. 2014. Using statistics to protect privacy. Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement J Lane, V Stodden, S Bender, H Nissenbaum276–95 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
35. Karwa V, Kifer D, Slavković AB. 2015. Private posterior distributions from variational approximations. arXiv:1511.07896 [stat.ML]
    [Google Scholar]
36. Keller SA, Shipp S, Schroeder A. 2016. Does big data change the privacy landscape? A review of the issues. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 3:161–80
    [Google Scholar]
37. Kifer D, Smith A, Thakurta A. 2012. Private convex empirical risk minimization and high-dimensional regression. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 23:25.1–40
    [Google Scholar]
38. Kinney SK, Reiter JP, Reznek AP, Miranda J, Jarmin RS, Abowd JM. 2011. Towards unrestricted public use business microdata: the synthetic Longitudinal Business Database. Int. Stat. Rev. 79:363–84
    [Google Scholar]
39. Leclerc P, Clark S, Sexton W. 2017. 2020 decennial census: formal privacy implementation and update Presentation, DIMACS/Northeast Big Data Hub Workshop on Overcoming Barriers to Data Sharing Including Privacy and Fairness, Rutgers Univ., Oct. 24. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/archive/Workshops/Barriers/Slides/Leclerc_Clark_SextonDIMACS-2018-Approved-4.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
40. Li C, Miklau G, Hay M, McGregor A, Rastogi V. 2015. The matrix mechanism: optimizing linear counting queries under differential privacy. VLDB J. 24:757–81
    [Google Scholar]
41. Little RJA. 1993. Statistical analysis of masked data. J. Off. Stat. 9:407–26
    [Google Scholar]
42. Machanavajjhala A, Kifer D, Abowd J, Gehrke J, Vilhuber L. 2008. Privacy: theory meets practice on the map. IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering277–86 Red Hook, NY: Curran
    [Google Scholar]
43. Manrique-Vallier D, Reiter JP. 2012. Estimating identification disclosure risk using mixed membership models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 107:1385–94
    [Google Scholar]
44. McClure D, Reiter JP. 2012. Differential privacy and statistical disclosure risk measures: an illustration with binary synthetic data. Trans. Data Privacy 5:535–52
    [Google Scholar]
45. Qardaji W, Yang W, Li N. 2014. PriView: practical differentially private release of marginal contingency tables. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data1435–46 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
46. Raghunathan TE, Reiter JP, Rubin DB. 2003. Multiple imputation for statistical disclosure limitation. J. Off. Stat. 19:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
47. Reiter JP. 2003. Inference for partially synthetic, public use microdata sets. Surv. Methodol. 29:181–89
    [Google Scholar]
48. Reiter JP. 2005a. Estimating identification risks in microdata. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100:1103–13
    [Google Scholar]
49. Reiter JP. 2005b. Releasing multiply-imputed, synthetic public use microdata: an illustration and empirical study. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 168:185–205
    [Google Scholar]
50. Reiter JP. 2012. Statistical approaches to protecting confidentiality for microdata and their effects on the quality of statistical inferences. Public Opin. Q. 76:163–81
    [Google Scholar]
51. Reiter JP, Oganian A, Karr AF. 2009. Verification servers: enabling analysts to assess the quality of inferences from public use data. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 53:1475–82
    [Google Scholar]
52. Reiter JP, Raghunathan TE. 2007. The multiple adaptations of multiple imputation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 102:1462–71
    [Google Scholar]
53. Rubin DB. 1993. Discussion: statistical disclosure limitation. J. Off. Stat. 9:462–68
    [Google Scholar]
54. Sarlós T. 2006. Improved approximation algorithms for large matrices via random projections. 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06)143–52 Red Hook, NY: Curran
    [Google Scholar]
55. Sheffet O. 2015. Differentially private ordinary least squares: t-values, confidence intervals and rejecting null-hypotheses. arXiv:1507.02482 [cs.DS]
    [Google Scholar]
56. Shlomo N, Skinner CJ. 2010. Assessing the protection provided by misclassification-based disclosure limitation methods for survey microdata. Ann. Appl. Stat. 4:1291–310
    [Google Scholar]
57. Skinner CJ, Elliot MJ. 2002. A measure of disclosure risk for microdata. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 64:855–67
    [Google Scholar]
58. Skinner CJ, Shlomo N. 2008. Assessing identification risk in survey microdata using log-linear models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103:989–1001
    [Google Scholar]
59. Spruill NL. 1982. Measures of confidentiality. JSM Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section260–65 Alexandria, VA: Am. Stat. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Sweeney L. 2013. Matching known patients to health records in Washington state data Tech. Rep., Data Priv. Lab, Harvard Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Tang J, Korolova A, Bai X, Wang X, Wang X. 2017. Privacy loss in Apple's implementation of differential privacy on MacOS 10.12. arXiv:1709.02753 [cs.CR]
    [Google Scholar]
62. Vilhuber L, Abowd JA, Reiter JP. 2016. Synthetic establishment microdata around the world. Stat. J. IAOS 32:65–68
    [Google Scholar]
63. Willenborg L, de Waal T 2001. Elements of Statistical Disclosure Control New York: Springer-Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
64. Winkler WE. 2007. Examples of easy-to-implement, widely used methods of masking for which analytic properties are not justified US Census Bur. Res. Rep. Ser. Stat. 2007–21, US Census Bur., Washington, DC
    [Google Scholar]
65. Wu X, Fredrikson M, Wu W, Jha S, Naughton JF. 2015. Revisiting differentially private regression: Lessons from learning theory and their consequences. arXiv:1512.06388 [cs.CR]
    [Google Scholar]
66. Yancey WE, Winkler WE, Creecy RH. 2002. Disclosure risk assessment in perturbative microdata protection. Inference Control in Statistical Databases J Domingo-Ferrer135–52 Berlin: Springer-Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
67. Zhang J, Zhang Z, Xiao X, Yang Y, Winslett M. 2012. Functional mechanism: regression analysis under differential privacy. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 51364–75 San Jose, CA: VLDB Endow.
    [Google Scholar]