Concepts of Statistical Disclosure Limitation

  • George T. DuncanEmail author
  • Mark Elliot
  • Juan-José Salazar-González
Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS)


The SDL literature has its own terminology. Understanding this terminology and, more importantly, the concepts underlying the terminology is essential to learning how statistical confidentiality can be best employed. In this chapter we look at the structure of disclosure risk, its assessment, and its limitation. Complicating our task is that many terms, such as “protecting data” or “sensitive data,” have no universally accepted meaning. Driven by variations in their historical and legal environment, DSOs exhibit differences in how they use terminology. This can lead to confusion in discussions among DSOs and indeed within the SDL research community as well. In this chapter we lay out widely accepted concepts and a terminology that provides a common framework intended to minimize confusion. These concepts and terminology are used consistently throughout the rest of this book.


Aggregate Data Population Unit Disclosure Risk Swap Rate Disclosure Control 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bethlehem, J.G., Keller, W.J., Pannekoek, J.: Disclosure control of microdata. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 85, 38–45 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butz, W.P.: Data confidentiality and public perceptions: the case of the European censuses. American Statistical Association 1985 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. American Statistical Association, Washington, DC (1985)Google Scholar
  3. Chowdhury, S.D., Duncan, G.T., Krishnan, R., Roehrig, S.F., Mukherjee, S.: Disclosure detection in multivariate categorical databases: auditing confidentiality protection through two new matrix operators. Manage. Sci. 45, 1710–1723 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox, L.H., Kelly, J.P., Patil, R.: Balancing quality and confidentiality for multivariate tabular data. In: Domingo-Ferrer, J., Torra, V. (eds.) Privacy in Statistical Databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3050, pp. 87–98. Springer, New York, NY (2004)Google Scholar
  5. Dale, A.: Confidentiality of official statistics: an excuse for privacy. In: Dorling, D., Simpson, S. (eds.) Statistics in Society, pp. 29–37. Arnold, London (1998)Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, G.T., Keller-McNulty, S.A., Stokes, S.L.: Disclosure risk vs. data utility: the R-U confidentiality map. Technical report LA-UR-01-6428, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 2001Google Scholar
  7. Duncan, G.T., Lambert, D.: Disclosure-limited data dissemination (with discussion). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81(393), 10–28 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elliot, M.J., Dale, A.: Scenarios of attack: a data intruder’s perspective on statistical disclosure risk. Netherlands Official Stat. 14, 6–10 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. Lambert, D.: Measures of disclosure risk and harm. J. Official Stat. 9, 313–331 (1993)Google Scholar
  10. Mackey, E., Elliot, M.J.: An application of game theory to understanding disclosure events. Proceedings of Work Session on Statistical Data Confidentiality, Bilbao, December 2009Google Scholar
  11. Marsh, C., Skinner, C., Arber, S., Penhale, B., Openshaw, S., Hobcraft, J., Lievesley, D., Walford, N.: The case for samples of anonymized records from the 1991 census. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 154, 305–340 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Müller, W., Blien, U., Wirth, H.: Identification risks of micro data. Evidence from experimental studies. Sociol. Methods Res. 24, 131–157 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Purdam, K., Elliot, M.J.: A case study of the impact of statistical disclosure control on data quality in the individual UK samples of anonymised records. Environ. Plann. A 39, 1101–1118 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Purdam, K., Elliot, M.J.: An evaluation of the availability of public data sources which could be used for identification purposes – A Europe wide perspective, CASC project. University of Manchester, Manchester (2002)Google Scholar
  15. Reiter, J.P.: Estimating risks of identification disclosure for microdata. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100, 1103–1113 (2005b)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Skinner, C.J., Holmes, D.J.: Modelling population uniqueness. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Statistical Confidentiality, International Statistical Institute, Luxembourg, pp. 175–199 (1992)Google Scholar
  17. Smith, D., Elliot, M.J.: An experiment in Naive Bayesian record linkage. Proceedings of Conference of the International Statistical Institute, Sydney, April 2005Google Scholar
  18. Smith, D., Elliot, M.J.: A measure of disclosure risk for tables of counts. Trans. Data Priv. 1(1), 34–52 With Smith, D. (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Tranmer, M., Pickles, A., Fieldhouse, E., Elliot, M.J., Dale, A., Brown, M., Martin, D., Steel, D., Gardiner, C.: Microdata for small areas. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 168(1), 29–49 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Winkler, W.E.: Matching and record linkage. In: Cox, B.G. et al. (ed.) Business Survey Methods, pp. 355–384. Wiley, New York, NY (1995a)Google Scholar
  21. Elliot, M.J.: DIS: a new approach to the measurement of statistical disclosure risk. Risk Manage. Int. J. 2(4), 39–48 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Purdam, K., Mackey, E., Elliot, M.J.: Personal data, privacy and the 2001 UK census. Paper presented to International Conference for the Development of the Information Society Conference, Lisbon, Portugal 2003bGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliot, M.J.: Data Citizenship: a 21st century solution to a 20th Century problem. Keynote speech to Exploiting Existing Data for Health Research, St Andrews September (2007)Google Scholar
  24. Domingo-Ferrer, J., Mateo-Sanz, J.M.: An empirical comparison of SDC methods for continuous microdata in terms of information loss and re-identification risk. Paper Presented at the UNECE Workshop on Statistical Data Editing, Skopje, Macedonia, May 2001Google Scholar
  25. McDonald, S.-K.: Recent experiences with resistance to national censuses in Western Europe. U.S. Bureau of the Census memorandum from Sarah-Kathryn McDonald, October 17, (1984)Google Scholar
  26. Elliot, M.J., Manning, A., Mayes, K., Gurd, J., Bane, M.: SUDA: a program for detecting special uniques. Proceeding of UNECE Work Session on Statistical Data Confidentiality, Geneva, 9–11 November 2005Google Scholar
  27. Duncan, G.T., Lambert, D.: The risk of disclosure for microdata. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 7, 207–217 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elliot, M.J.: Statistical disclosure control. In: Kempf-Leonard, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, vol. 3, pp. 663–670. Elsevier, New York, NY (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • George T. Duncan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark Elliot
    • 2
  • Juan-José Salazar-González
    • 3
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversitySanta FeUSA
  2. 2.University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.University of La LagunaLa LagunaSpain

Personalised recommendations