Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Ashmead, R

The 2010 Census Confidentiality Protections Failed, Here's How and Why

Authors: John M. Abowd, Tamara Adams, Robert Ashmead, David Darais, Sourya Dey, Simson L. Garfinkel, Nathan Goldschlag, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, Ethan Lew, Scott Moore, Rolando A. Rodríguez, Ramy N. Tadros, Lars Vilhuber

Abstract: Using only 34 published tables, we reconstruct five variables (census block, sex, age, race, and ethnicity) in the confidential 2010 Census person records. Using the 38-bin age variable tabulated at the census block level, at most 20.1% of reconstructed records can differ from their confidential source on even a single value for these five variables. Using only published data, an attacker can veri… ▽ More Using only 34 published tables, we reconstruct five variables (census block, sex, age, race, and ethnicity) in the confidential 2010 Census person records. Using the 38-bin age variable tabulated at the census block level, at most 20.1% of reconstructed records can differ from their confidential source on even a single value for these five variables. Using only published data, an attacker can verify that all records in 70% of all census blocks (97 million people) are perfectly reconstructed. The tabular publications in Summary File 1 thus have prohibited disclosure risk similar to the unreleased confidential microdata. Reidentification studies confirm that an attacker can, within blocks with perfect reconstruction accuracy, correctly infer the actual census response on race and ethnicity for 3.4 million vulnerable population uniques (persons with nonmodal characteristics) with 95% accuracy, the same precision as the confidential data achieve and far greater than statistical baselines. The flaw in the 2010 Census framework was the assumption that aggregation prevented accurate microdata reconstruction, justifying weaker disclosure limitation methods than were applied to 2010 Census public microdata. The framework used for 2020 Census publications defends against attacks that are based on reconstruction, as we also demonstrate here. Finally, we show that alternatives to the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System with similar accuracy (enhanced swap**) also fail to protect confidentiality, and those that partially defend against reconstruction attacks (incomplete suppression implementations) destroy the primary statutory use case: data for redistricting all legislatures in the country in compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. △ Less

Submitted 18 December, 2023; originally announced December 2023.

Disclosure Avoidance for the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File

Authors: Ryan Cumings-Menon, Robert Ashmead, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, Matthew Spence, Pavel Zhuravlev, John M. Abowd

Abstract: In "The 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System TopDown Algorithm," Abowd et al. (2022) describe the concepts and methods used by the Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) to produce formally private output in support of the 2020 Census data product releases, with a particular focus on the DAS implementation that was used to create the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File. In this… ▽ More In "The 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System TopDown Algorithm," Abowd et al. (2022) describe the concepts and methods used by the Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) to produce formally private output in support of the 2020 Census data product releases, with a particular focus on the DAS implementation that was used to create the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File. In this paper we describe the updates to the DAS that were required to release the Demographic and Housing Characteristics (DHC) File, which provides more granular tables than other data products, such as the Redistricting Data Summary File. We also describe the final configuration parameters used for the production DHC DAS implementation, as well as subsequent experimental data products to facilitate development of tools that provide confidence intervals for confidential 2020 Census tabulations. △ Less

Submitted 17 December, 2023; originally announced December 2023.

An In-Depth Examination of Requirements for Disclosure Risk Assessment

Authors: Ron S. Jarmin, John M. Abowd, Robert Ashmead, Ryan Cumings-Menon, Nathan Goldschlag, Michael B. Hawes, Sallie Ann Keller, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, Jerome P. Reiter, Rolando A. Rodríguez, Ian Schmutte, Victoria A. Velkoff, Pavel Zhuravlev

Abstract: The use of formal privacy to protect the confidentiality of responses in the 2020 Decennial Census of Population and Housing has triggered renewed interest and debate over how to measure the disclosure risks and societal benefits of the published data products. Following long-established precedent in economics and statistics, we argue that any proposal for quantifying disclosure risk should be bas… ▽ More The use of formal privacy to protect the confidentiality of responses in the 2020 Decennial Census of Population and Housing has triggered renewed interest and debate over how to measure the disclosure risks and societal benefits of the published data products. Following long-established precedent in economics and statistics, we argue that any proposal for quantifying disclosure risk should be based on pre-specified, objective criteria. Such criteria should be used to compare methodologies to identify those with the most desirable properties. We illustrate this approach, using simple desiderata, to evaluate the absolute disclosure risk framework, the counterfactual framework underlying differential privacy, and prior-to-posterior comparisons. We conclude that satisfying all the desiderata is impossible, but counterfactual comparisons satisfy the most while absolute disclosure risk satisfies the fewest. Furthermore, we explain that many of the criticisms levied against differential privacy would be levied against any technology that is not equivalent to direct, unrestricted access to confidential data. Thus, more research is needed, but in the near-term, the counterfactual approach appears best-suited for privacy-utility analysis. △ Less

Submitted 13 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Comments: 47 pages, 1 table

Journal ref: PNAS, October 13, 2023, Vol. 120, No. 43

Bayesian and Frequentist Semantics for Common Variations of Differential Privacy: Applications to the 2020 Census

Authors: Daniel Kifer, John M. Abowd, Robert Ashmead, Ryan Cumings-Menon, Philip Leclerc, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, William Sexton, Pavel Zhuravlev

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to guide interpretation of the semantic privacy guarantees for some of the major variations of differential privacy, which include pure, approximate, Rényi, zero-concentrated, and $f$ differential privacy. We interpret privacy-loss accounting parameters, frequentist semantics, and Bayesian semantics (including new results). The driving application is the interpretation… ▽ More The purpose of this paper is to guide interpretation of the semantic privacy guarantees for some of the major variations of differential privacy, which include pure, approximate, Rényi, zero-concentrated, and $f$ differential privacy. We interpret privacy-loss accounting parameters, frequentist semantics, and Bayesian semantics (including new results). The driving application is the interpretation of the confidentiality protections for the 2020 Census Public Law 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary File released August 12, 2021, which, for the first time, were produced with formal privacy guarantees. △ Less

Submitted 7 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

The 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System TopDown Algorithm

Authors: John M. Abowd, Robert Ashmead, Ryan Cumings-Menon, Simson Garfinkel, Micah Heineck, Christine Heiss, Robert Johns, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, Brett Moran, William Sexton, Matthew Spence, Pavel Zhuravlev

Abstract: The Census TopDown Algorithm (TDA) is a disclosure avoidance system using differential privacy for privacy-loss accounting. The algorithm ingests the final, edited version of the 2020 Census data and the final tabulation geographic definitions. The algorithm then creates noisy versions of key queries on the data, referred to as measurements, using zero-Concentrated Differential Privacy. Another ke… ▽ More The Census TopDown Algorithm (TDA) is a disclosure avoidance system using differential privacy for privacy-loss accounting. The algorithm ingests the final, edited version of the 2020 Census data and the final tabulation geographic definitions. The algorithm then creates noisy versions of key queries on the data, referred to as measurements, using zero-Concentrated Differential Privacy. Another key aspect of the TDA are invariants, statistics that the Census Bureau has determined, as matter of policy, to exclude from the privacy-loss accounting. The TDA post-processes the measurements together with the invariants to produce a Microdata Detail File (MDF) that contains one record for each person and one record for each housing unit enumerated in the 2020 Census. The MDF is passed to the 2020 Census tabulation system to produce the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File. This paper describes the mathematics and testing of the TDA for this purpose. △ Less

Submitted 19 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Geographic Spines in the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System

Authors: Ryan Cumings-Menon, John M. Abowd, Robert Ashmead, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, Jeffrey Ocker, Michael Ratcliffe, Pavel Zhuravlev

Abstract: The 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) is a formally private mechanism that first adds independent noise to cross tabulations for a set of pre-specified hierarchical geographic units, which is known as the geographic spine. After post-processing these noisy measurements, DAS outputs a formally private database with fields indicating location in the standard census geographic spine, whic… ▽ More The 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) is a formally private mechanism that first adds independent noise to cross tabulations for a set of pre-specified hierarchical geographic units, which is known as the geographic spine. After post-processing these noisy measurements, DAS outputs a formally private database with fields indicating location in the standard census geographic spine, which is defined by the United States as a whole, states, counties, census tracts, block groups, and census blocks. This paper describes how the geographic spine used internally within DAS to define the initial noisy measurements impacts accuracy of the output database. Specifically, tabulations for geographic areas tend to be most accurate for geographic areas that both 1) can be derived by aggregating together geographic units above the block geographic level of the internal spine, and 2) are closer to the geographic units of the internal spine. After describing the accuracy tradeoffs relevant to the choice of internal DAS geographic spine, we provide the settings used to define the 2020 Census production DAS runs. △ Less

Submitted 15 March, 2024; v1 submitted 30 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

An Uncertainty Principle is a Price of Privacy-Preserving Microdata

Authors: John Abowd, Robert Ashmead, Ryan Cumings-Menon, Simson Garfinkel, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, William Sexton, Ashley Simpson, Christine Task, Pavel Zhuravlev

Abstract: Privacy-protected microdata are often the desired output of a differentially private algorithm since microdata is familiar and convenient for downstream users. However, there is a statistical price for this kind of convenience. We show that an uncertainty principle governs the trade-off between accuracy for a population of interest ("sum query") vs. accuracy for its component sub-populations ("poi… ▽ More Privacy-protected microdata are often the desired output of a differentially private algorithm since microdata is familiar and convenient for downstream users. However, there is a statistical price for this kind of convenience. We show that an uncertainty principle governs the trade-off between accuracy for a population of interest ("sum query") vs. accuracy for its component sub-populations ("point queries"). Compared to differentially private query answering systems that are not required to produce microdata, accuracy can degrade by a logarithmic factor. For example, in the case of pure differential privacy, without the microdata requirement, one can provide noisy answers to the sum query and all point queries while guaranteeing that each answer has squared error $O(1/ε^2)$. With the microdata requirement, one must choose between allowing an additional $\log^2(d)$ factor ($d$ is the number of point queries) for some point queries or allowing an extra $O(d^2)$ factor for the sum query. We present lower bounds for pure, approximate, and concentrated differential privacy. We propose mitigation strategies and create a collection of benchmark datasets that can be used for public study of this problem. △ Less

Submitted 25 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: Preprint of NeurIPS 2021 paper