Image Pixelization with Differential Privacy

  • Liyue FanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10980)


Ubiquitous surveillance cameras and personal devices have given rise to the vast generation of image data. While sharing the image data can benefit various applications, including intelligent transportation systems and social science research, those images may capture sensitive individual information, such as license plates, identities, etc. Existing image privacy preservation techniques adopt deterministic obfuscation, e.g., pixelization, which can lead to re-identification with well-trained neural networks. In this study, we propose sharing pixelized images with rigorous privacy guarantees. We extend the standard differential privacy notion to image data, which protects individuals, objects, or their features. Empirical evaluation with real-world datasets demonstrates the utility and efficiency of our method; despite its simplicity, our method is shown to effectively reduce the success rate of re-identification attacks.


Image privacy Differential privacy 



This research has been funded by NSF grant CRII-1755884 and a UAlbany FRAP-A Award. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the sponsors such as NSF.


  1. 1.
    InternetLiveStats. Accessed 21 Mar 2018
  2. 2.
    TrafficLand. Accessed 21 Mar 2018
  3. 3.
    Kamijo, S., Matsushita, Y., Ikeuchi, K., Sakauchi, M.: Traffic monitoring and accident detection at intersections. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 1(2), 108–118 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun, Q., Schiele, B., Fritz, M.: A domain based approach to social relation recognition. In: The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), July 2017Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reece, A.G., Danforth, C.M.: Instagram photos reveal predictive markers of depression. EPJ Data Sci. 6(1), 15 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yu, J., Zhang, B., Kuang, Z., Lin, D., Fan, J.: iPrivacy: image privacy protection by identifying sensitive objects via deep multi-task learning. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 12(5), 1005–1016 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ra, M.R., Govindan, R., Ortega, A.: P3: toward privacy-preserving photo sharing. In: Presented as Part of the 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 13), Lombard, IL, pp. 515–528. USENIX (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    He, J., Liu, B., Kong, D., Bao, X., Wang, N., Jin, H., Kesidis, G.: Puppies: transformation-supported personalized privacy preserving partial image sharing. In: 2016 46th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), pp. 359–370, June 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang, L., Jung, T., Liu, C., Ding, X., Li, X.Y., Liu, Y.: Pop: privacy-preserving outsourced photo sharing and searching for mobile devices. In: 2015 IEEE 35th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 308–317, June 2015Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xia, Z., Wang, X., Zhang, L., Qin, Z., Sun, X., Ren, K.: A privacy-preserving and copy-deterrence content-based image retrieval scheme in cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 11(11), 2594–2608 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, S., Nassar, M., Atallah, M., Malluhi, Q.: Secure and private outsourcing of shape-based feature extraction. In: Qing, S., Zhou, J., Liu, D. (eds.) ICICS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8233, pp. 90–99. Springer, Cham (2013). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, Q., Hu, S., Ren, K., Wang, J., Wang, Z., Du, M.: Catch me in the dark: effective privacy-preserving outsourcing of feature extractions over image data. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 1–9, April 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hill, S., Zhou, Z., Saul, L., Shacham, H.: On the (in) effectiveness of mosaicing and blurring as tools for document redaction. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2016(4), 403–417 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McPherson, R., Shokri, R., Shmatikov, V.: Defeating image obfuscation with deep learning. CoRR abs/1609.00408 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., Smith, A.: Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 265–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Squicciarini, A.C., Caragea, C., Balakavi, R.: Analyzing images’ privacy for the modern web. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, HT 2014, pp. 136–147. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spyromitros-Xioufis, E., Papadopoulos, S., Popescu, A., Kompatsiaris, Y.: Personalized privacy-aware image classification. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, ICMR 2016, pp. 71–78. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stevens, R., Pudney, I.: Blur select faces with the updated blur faces tool, August 2017. Accessed 21 Aug 2017Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dwork, C., Naor, M., Pitassi, T., Rothblum, G.N.: Differential privacy under continual observation. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Second ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 715–724. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duchi, J.C., Jordan, M.I., Wainwright, M.J.: Local privacy and statistical minimax rates. In: 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 429–438, October 2013Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrés, M.E., Bordenabe, N.E., Chatzikokolakis, K., Palamidessi, C.: Geo-indistinguishability: differential privacy for location-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2013, pp. 901–914. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jana, S., Narayanan, A., Shmatikov, V.: A scanner darkly: protecting user privacy from perceptual applications. In: 2013 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 349–363, May 2013Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Samaria, F.S., Harter, A.C.: Parameterisation of a stochastic model for human face identification. In: Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 138–142, December 1994Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peterson, M.F., Eckstein, M.P.: Looking just below the eyes is optimal across face recognition tasks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109(48), E3314–E3323 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leal-Taixé, L., Milan, A., Reid, I., Roth, S., Schindler, K.: Motchallenge 2015: towards a benchmark for multi-target tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.01942 (2015)
  26. 26.
    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P.: Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE 86(11), 2278–2324 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations