Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

What Are the Chances? Explaining the Epsilon Parameter in Differential Privacy

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.00738 v1 pith:2EQYBZSU submitted 2023-03-01 cs.CR cs.CYcs.HC

classification cs.CRcs.CYcs.HC
keywords privacyepsilonmethodsdataexplanationprobabilisticsharedifferential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Differential privacy (DP) is a mathematical privacy notion increasingly deployed across government and industry. With DP, privacy protections are probabilistic: they are bounded by the privacy budget parameter, $\epsilon$. Prior work in health and computational science finds that people struggle to reason about probabilistic risks. Yet, communicating the implications of $\epsilon$ to people contributing their data is vital to avoiding privacy theater -- presenting meaningless privacy protection as meaningful -- and empowering more informed data-sharing decisions. Drawing on best practices in risk communication and usability, we develop three methods to convey probabilistic DP guarantees to end users: two that communicate odds and one offering concrete examples of DP outputs. We quantitatively evaluate these explanation methods in a vignette survey study ($n=963$) via three metrics: objective risk comprehension, subjective privacy understanding of DP guarantees, and self-efficacy. We find that odds-based explanation methods are more effective than (1) output-based methods and (2) state-of-the-art approaches that gloss over information about $\epsilon$. Further, when offered information about $\epsilon$, respondents are more willing to share their data than when presented with a state-of-the-art DP explanation; this willingness to share is sensitive to $\epsilon$ values: as privacy protections weaken, respondents are less likely to share data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Preempting Text Sanitization Utility in Resource-Constrained Privacy-Preserving LLM Interactions

    cs.CR 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A local small language model can predict when a differentially private sanitized prompt will still yield useful LLM output, saving up to 20% of wasted API calls, and an exact-nearest-neighbor implementation of the dX-...

Pith tools