skip to main content
10.1145/1242572.1242598acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Wherefore art thou r3579x?: anonymized social networks, hidden patterns, and structural steganography

Published:08 May 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

In a social network, nodes correspond topeople or other social entities, and edges correspond to social links between them. In an effort to preserve privacy, the practice of anonymization replaces names with meaningless unique identifiers. We describe a family of attacks such that even from a single anonymized copy of a social network, it is possible for an adversary to learn whether edges exist or not between specific targeted pairs of nodes.

References

  1. L. Adamic, E. Adar. How to search a social network. Social Networks 27(2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L. Adamic, O. Buyukkokten, E. Adar. A Social Network Caught in the Web. First Monday, 8(2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Agrawal. C. Aggarwal. On the design and quantification of privacy preserving data mining algorithms. Proc. PODS, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. Agrawal, R. Srikant. Privacy-preserving data mining. Proc. SIGMOD, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. Alon, J. Spencer, The Probabilistic Method, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. L. Backstrom, D. Huttenlocher, J. Kleinberg, X. Lan. Group formation in large social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution. Proc. KDD, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Barbaro, T. Zeller. A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749. New York Times, 9 August 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A.B. lum, C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim. Practical privacy: The SuLQ framework. Proc. PODS, 2005. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 128--138, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B. Bollobás. Random Graphs. Cambridge, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. I. Dinur, K. Nissim. Revealing information while preserving privacy. Proc. PODC, 2003. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 202--210, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. Dwork. Differential Privacy, Proc. ICALP, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim, A. Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. Proc. TCC, 2006. In Proceedings of the 3rd Theory of Cryptography Conference, pages 265--284, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. C. Dwork, F. McSherry, and K. Talwar, The Price of Privacy and the Limits of LP Decoding, submitted for publication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. P. Erdos. Some remarks on the theory of graphs. Bull. AMS 53 (1947), 292--294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. Evfimievski, J. Gehrke, R. Srikant. Limiting privacy breaches in privacy preserving data mining. Proc. PODS, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. Flake, R. Tarjan, K. Tsioutsiouliklis. Graph Clustering and Minimum Cut Trees. Internet Math. 1(2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. S. Golder, D. Wilkinson B. Huberman. Rhythms of Social Interaction: Messaging within a Massive Online Network. Proc. 3rd Intl. Conf. on Communities and Technologies, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. R. Gomory, T.C. Hu. (1961). Multi-Terminal Network Flows. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 9:551--570.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Kossinets and D. J. Watts. Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network. Science 311:88--90, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. R. Kumar, R. Novak, P. Raghavan, A. Tomkins. Structure and evolution of blogspace. CACM, 47(2004). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Kumar, J. Novak, A. Tomkins. Structure and Evolution of Online Social Networks. Proc. KDD, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. Liben-Nowell, R. Kumar, J. Novak, P. Raghavan, A. Tomkins. Geographic routing in social networks. PNAS 102(2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. N. Mishra, M. Sandler. Privacy via Pseudorandom Sketches Proc. PODS, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A Narayanan, V. Shmatikov How To Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset. arxiv cs/0610105, Oct. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Novak, P. Raghavan, A. Tomkins. Anti-Aliasing on the Web. Proc. WWW, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. L. Sweeney. Weaving technology and policy together to maintain confidentiality. J Law Med Ethics, 25(1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. L. Sweeney. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. Intl. J. Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems, 10(2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Wherefore art thou r3579x?: anonymized social networks, hidden patterns, and structural steganography

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WWW '07: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web
      May 2007
      1382 pages
      ISBN:9781595936547
      DOI:10.1145/1242572

      Copyright © 2007 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 May 2007

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader