Abstract:For small privacy parameter $\epsilon$, $\epsilon$-differential privacy (DP) provides a strong worst-case guarantee that no membership inference attack (MIA) can succeed at determining whether a person's data was used to train a machine learning model. The guarantee of DP is worst-case because: a) it holds even if the attacker already knows the records of all but one person in the data set; and b) it holds uniformly over all data sets. In practical applications, such a worst-case guarantee may be overkill: practical attackers may lack exact knowledge of (nearly all of) the private data, and our data set might be easier to defend, in some sense, than the worst-case data set. Such considerations have motivated the industrial deployment of DP models with large privacy parameter (e.g. $\epsilon \geq 7$), and it has been observed empirically that DP with large $\epsilon$ can successfully defend against state-of-the-art MIAs. Existing DP theory cannot explain these empirical findings: e.g., the theoretical privacy guarantees of $\epsilon \geq 7$ are essentially vacuous. In this paper, we aim to close this gap between theory and practice and understand why a large DP parameter can prevent practical MIAs. To tackle this problem, we propose a new privacy notion called practical membership privacy (PMP). PMP models a practical attacker's uncertainty about the contents of the private data. The PMP parameter has a natural interpretation in terms of the success rate of a practical MIA on a given data set. We quantitatively analyze the PMP parameter of two fundamental DP mechanisms: the exponential mechanism and Gaussian mechanism. Our analysis reveals that a large DP parameter often translates into a much smaller PMP parameter, which guarantees strong privacy against practical MIAs. Using our findings, we offer principled guidance for practitioners in choosing the DP parameter.

ATTAXONOMY: Unpacking Differential Privacy Guarantees Against Practical Adversaries

Privacy accounting $\varepsilon$conomics: Improving differential privacy composition via a posteriori bounds

Practical Considerations for Differential Privacy

Advancing Differential Privacy: Where We Are Now and Future Directions for Real-World Deployment

What to Consider When Considering Differential Privacy for Policy

Adversary Instantiation: Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Machine Learning

A Programming Framework for Differential Privacy with Accuracy Concentration Bounds

Differential Privacy Under Class Imbalance: Methods and Empirical Insights

Differential Privacy in Privacy-Preserving Big Data and Learning: Challenge and Opportunity

Why Does Differential Privacy with Large Epsilon Defend Against Practical Membership Inference Attacks?

Statistical Inference in the Differential Privacy Model

Advancing privacy in learning analytics using differential privacy

Individual Privacy Accounting with Gaussian Differential Privacy

DPShield: Optimizing Differential Privacy for High-Utility Data Analysis in Sensitive Domains

Differential Privacy for Class-based Data: A Practical Gaussian Mechanism

Algorithms with More Granular Differential Privacy Guarantees

Differential Privacy Made Easy

Wasserstein Differential Privacy

Element Level Differential Privacy: The Right Granularity of Privacy

How to DP-fy ML: A Practical Guide to Machine Learning with Differential Privacy

Not one but many Tradeoffs: Privacy Vs. Utility in Differentially Private Machine Learning