skip to main content
10.1145/3538401.3546603acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnaiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Quantifying the privacy-vs-performance trade-offs for fine-grained wireless network measurement data

Published:25 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Real-world network measurements are critical to building performant and resilient networks at scale. However, access to such data exposes end-users to significant privacy risks; and this is particularly true for wireless network measurements. In this paper, we apply six state-of-the-art differentially private (DP) algorithms, that span data-independent/dependent and workload-aware/unaware classes, to privatize queries from real-world WiFi traces on a large-scale campus network. We analyze utility-vs-privacy trade-offs involved in constructing privatized queries for canonical network resource provisioning tasks. We present the following results: (1) for count and histogram queries, the utility of the Laplacian-algorithm shows comparable (or better) performance compared to more complex data-aware DP algorithms, (2) for a given query-type and DP algorithm, the utility-to-noise trade-off varies for each distinct network metric, and finally, (3) we implement a state-of-the-art DP algorithm for trajectory analysis that reveals that there exist significant challenges in accurately reconstructing privatized network mobility trajectories, for relatively small trajectory lengths, even with relaxed privacy budgets.

References

  1. [n.d.]. World Street Map.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. John M Abowd. 2018. The US Census Bureau adopts differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2867--2867.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Noah Apthorpe, Danny Yuxing Huang, Dillon Reisman, Arvind Narayanan, and Nick Feamster. 2019. Keeping the smart home private with smart (er) IoT traffic shaping. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2019, 3 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Magdalena Balazinska and Paul Castro. 2003. Characterizing mobility and network usage in a corporate wireless local-area network. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Mobile systems, applications and services. ACM, 303--316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Janet Barkdoll, Angela Reyes Cervantes, Danielle Dos Santos, Shayne Rothman, and Vasanta Chaganti. 2019. Resource dimensioning in a large-scale campus WiFi Network. "REU UPenn-CSR Presentation".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Vincent Bindschaedler and Reza Shokri. 2016. Synthesizing plausible privacy-preserving location traces. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 546--563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Aaron Cahn, Scott Alfeld, Paul Barford, and Shanmugavelayutham Muthukrishnan. 2016. An empirical study of web cookies. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web. 891--901.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Rui Chen, Gergely Acs, and Claude Castelluccia. 2012. Differentially private sequential data publication via variable-length n-grams. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security. 638--649.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yung-Chih Chen, Jim Kurose, and Don Towsley. 2012. A mixed queueing network model of mobility in a campus wireless network. In 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM. IEEE, 2656--2660.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. KC Claffy, David Clark, John Heidemann, Fabian Bustamante, Mattijs Jonker, Aaron Schulman, and Ellen Zegura. 2021. Workshop on Overcoming Measurement Barriers to Internet Research (WOMBIR 2021) Final Report. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 51, 3 (2021), 33--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David D Clark and Sara Wedeman. 2021. Measurement, Meaning and Purpose: Exploring the M-Lab NDT Dataset. Meaning and Purpose: Exploring the M-Lab NDT Dataset (August 2, 2021) (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Phillipa; Friedman Timur; Moon Sue B Clark, David D; Gill. [n.d.]. Network Datasets: what exists, and what are the problems? https://networkingchannel.eu/network-datasets-what-exists-and-what-are-the-problems/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Scott E Coull, Charles V Wright, Fabian Monrose, Michael P Collins, Michael K Reiter, et al. 2007. Playing Devil's Advocate: Inferring Sensitive Information from Anonymized Network Traces.. In Ndss, Vol. 7. 35--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2016. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 7, 3 (2016), 17--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Cynthia Dwork, Aaron Roth, et al. 2014. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 9, 3-4 (2014), 211--407.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Andy Greenberg. 2016. Apple's 'differential privacy' is about collecting your data---but not your data. Wired, June 13 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Moritz Hardt, Katrina Ligett, and Frank McSherry. 2010. A simple and practical algorithm for differentially private data release. arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.4763 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael Hay, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, Gerome Miklau, Yan Chen, and Dan Zhang. 2016. Principled evaluation of differentially private algorithms using DPBench. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data. 139--154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Wei-Jen Hsu, Thrasyvoulos Spyropoulos, Konstantinos Psounis, and Ahmed Helmy. 2009. Modeling spatial and temporal dependencies of user mobility in wireless mobile networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN) 17, 5 (2009), 1564--1577.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jeeyoung Kim and Ahmed Helmy. 2010. The challenges of accurate mobility prediction for ultra mobile users. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 13, 3 (2010), 58--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Minkyong Kim and David Kotz. 2005. Classifying the mobility of users and the popularity of access points. In Location-and Context-Awareness. Springer, 198--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Minkyong Kim and David Kotz. 2007. Periodic properties of user mobility and access-point popularity. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11, 6 (2007), 465--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. David Kotz, Tristan Henderson, Ilya Abyzov, and J Yeo. 2004. [CRAWDAD Dataset Dartmouth/campus.] https://crawdad.org/dartmouth/campus/20090909.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonah Langlieb. 2020. Differentially Private Data Privatization of College Campus Mobility Data. https://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/~chaganti/pubs/Langlieb_Thesis.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Peeter Laud, Alisa Pankova, and Martin Pettai. 2020. A Framework of Metrics for Differential Privacy from Local Sensitivity. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2020, 2 (2020), 175--208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Chao Li, Michael Hay, Gerome Miklau, and Yue Wang. 2014. A data-and workload-aware algorithm for range queries under differential privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.0265 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Giulia Mauri and Giacomo Verticale. 2014. On the tradeoff between performance and user privacy in information centric networking. In 2014 6th International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS). IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Ryan McKenna, Gerome Miklau, Michael Hay, and Ashwin Machanavajjhala. 2021. HDMM: Optimizing error of high-dimensional statistical queries under differential privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.12118 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Frank McSherry and Ratul Mahajan. 2010. Differentially-private network trace analysis. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 40, 4 (2010), 123--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Frank D McSherry. 2009. Privacy integrated queries: an extensible platform for privacy-preserving data analysis. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data. 19--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Xiaoqiao George Meng, Starsky HY Wong, Yuan Yuan, and Songwu Lu. 2004. Characterizing flows in large wireless data networks. In Proceedings of the 10th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking. ACM, 174--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jeffrey C Mogul, Priya Mahadevan, Christophe Diot, John Wilkes, Phillipa Gill, and Amin Vahdat. 2021. Data-driven networking research: models for academic collaboration with industry (a Google point of view). ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 51, 4 (2021), 47--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Aarti Munjal, Tracy Camp, and Nils Aschenbruck. 2012. Changing trends in modeling mobility. Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering 2012 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. University of Massachusetts-Amherst. 2020. University of Massachusetts-Amherst GIS Data. https://www.umass.edu/oir/sites/default/files/publications/glance/FS_gla_01.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruoming Pang, Mark Allman, Vern Paxson, and Jason Lee. 2006. The devil and packet trace anonymization. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 36, 1 (2006), 29--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Pratap S Prasad and Prathima Agrawal. 2010. Movement prediction in wireless networks using mobility traces. In Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), 2010 7th IEEE. IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Wahbeh Qardaji, Weining Yang, and Ninghui Li. 2013. Understanding hierarchical methods for differentially private histograms. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 6, 14 (2013), 1954--1965.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Bruno F Ribeiro, Weifeng Chen, Gerome Miklau, and Donald F Towsley. 2008. Analyzing Privacy in Enterprise Packet Trace Anonymization.. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Abdessamed Sassi, Salah Eddine Henouda, and Abdelmalik Bachir. 2017. On predicting the residence time of mobile users at relevant places. In 2017 international symposium on networks, computers and communications (ISNCC). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jennie Steshenko, Vasanta G Chaganti, and James Kurose. 2014. Mobility in a large-scale WiFi network: from syslog events to mobile user sessions. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Modeling, analysis and simulation of wireless and mobile systems. ACM, 331--334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Latanya Sweeney. 2002. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 10, 05 (2002), 557--570.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Royce J Wilson, Celia Yuxin Zhang, William Lam, Damien Desfontaines, Daniel Simmons-Marengo, and Bryant Gipson. 2019. Differentially private sql with bounded user contribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01917 (2019). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.01917.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Dan Zhang, Ryan McKenna, Ios Kotsogiannis, Michael Hay, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, and Gerome Miklau. 2018. Ektelo: A framework for defining differentially-private computations. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data. 115--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Quantifying the privacy-vs-performance trade-offs for fine-grained wireless network measurement data

          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
            NAI '22: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Network-Application Integration
            August 2022
            70 pages
            ISBN:9781450393959
            DOI:10.1145/3538401

            Copyright © 2022 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: 25 August 2022

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate12of24submissions,50%
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)41
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader