Disclosure Risk and Data Utility

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


As we have repeatedly argued, DSOs fulfill their stewardship responsibilities by resolving the tension between ensuring confidentiality and providing access (Duncan et al., 1993; Kooiman et al., 1999; Marsh et al., 1991). Data stewardship, therefore, requires disseminating data products that both (1) protect confidentiality—so get disclosure risk R low by providing safe data and (2) keep data utility U high by providing data products that are analytically valid. In other words, the problem of protecting data is bi-criteria. This opens the question of how to balance the two criteria. Answering this requires that we know how R and U affect each other.


Data User Data Utility Knowledge State Disclosure Risk Disclosure Limitation 
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. Abowd, J.M., Woodcock, S.D.: Multiply-imputing confidential characteristics and file links in longitudinal linked data. In: Domingo-Ferrer, J., Torra, V. (eds.) Privacy in Statistical Databases 2004, pp. 290–297. Springer, New York, NY (2004)Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, R., Srikant, R.: Privacy-preserving data mining. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD on Management of Data, Dallas, TX, 15–18 May 2000Google Scholar
  3. Brand, R.: Microdata protection through noise addition. In: Domingo-Ferrer, J. (ed.) Inference Control in Statistical Databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2316, pp. 97–116. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2002a)Google Scholar
  4. Dalenius, T., Reiss, S.P.: Data-swapping: a technique for disclosure control. J. Stat. Plann. Inference 6, 73–85 (1982)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Domingo-Ferrer, J., Torra, V.: A quantitative comparison of disclosure control methods for microdata. In: Zayatz, L., Doyle, P., Theeuwes, J., Lane, J. (eds.) Confidentiality, Disclosure and Data Access: Theory and Practical Applications for Statistical Agencies, pp. 111–133. North-Holland, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, G.T., Fienberg, S.E.: Obtaining information while preserving privacy: a Markov perturbation method for tabular data. Eurostat. Proceedings of Statistical Data Protection '98, Lisbon, pp. 351–362 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. Duncan, G.T., Jabine, T.B., de Wolf, V.A. (eds.): Panel on Confidentiality and Data Access, Committee on National Statistics, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council and the Social Science Research Council, Private Lives and Public Policies: Confidentiality and Accessibility of Government Statistics. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Duncan, G.T., Lambert, D.: Disclosure-limited data dissemination (with discussion). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81(393), 10–28 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan, G.T., Lambert, D.: The risk of disclosure for microdata. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 7, 207–217 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan, G.T., Mukherjee, S.: Optimal disclosure limitation strategy in statistical databases: deterring tracker attacks through additive noise. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, 720–729 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan, G.T., Stokes, S.L.: Disclosure risk vs. data utility: the R-U confidentiality map as applied to topcoding. Chance 17(3), 16–20 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Kamlet, M.S., Klepper, S., Frank, R.G.: Mixing micro and macro data: statistical issues and implication for data collection and reporting. Proceedings of the 1983 Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hyattsville, MD 1985Google Scholar
  16. Keller, W.J., Bethlehem, J.G.: Disclosure protection of microdata: problems and solutions. Stat. Neerl. 46, 5–19 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennickell, A.B., Lane, J.: Measuring the impact of data protection techniques on data utility: evidence from the survey of consumer finances. In: Domingo-Ferrer, J. (ed.) Privacy in Statistical Databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 291–303. Springer, New York, NY (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, J.J.: A method for limiting disclosure in microdata based on random noise and transformation. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, pp. 370–374 1986Google Scholar
  19. Kim, J.J., Winkler, W.E.: Masking microdata files. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, pp. 114–119 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. Kooiman, P., Nobel, J., Willenborg, L.: Statistical data protection at statistics Netherlands. Netherlands Official Stat. 14, 21–25 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. Kirkwood, C.W.: Strategic Decision Making: Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Spreadsheets. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  22. Lambert, D.: Measures of disclosure risk and harm. J. Official Stat. 9, 313–331 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. Little, R.J.A.: Statistical analysis of masked data. J. Official Stat. 9(2), 407–426 (1993)Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Mokken, R.J., Kooiman, P., Pannekoek, J., Willenborg, L.C.R.J.: Disclosure risks for microdata. Stat. Neerl. 46, 49–67 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paass, G.: Disclosure risk and disclosure avoidance for microdata. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 6(4), 487–500 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rubin, D.B.: Discussion of statistical disclosure limitation. J. Official Stat. 9(2), 461–468 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. Shlomo, N.: Accessing microdata via the internet. Joint UN/ECE and Eurostat Work Session on Statistical Data Confidentiality, Working Paper No. 6. Luxembourg, April 7–9 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. Skinner, C.J.: Statistical disclosure issues for census microdata. Paper presented at International Symposium on Statistical Disclosure Avoidance, Voorburg, The Netherlands, 13 December 1990Google Scholar
  31. Spruill, N.L.: The confidentiality and analytic usefulness of masked business microdata. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, pp. 602–607. Alexandria, VA (1983)Google Scholar
  32. Sullivan, G., Fuller, W.A.: The use of measurement error to avoid disclosure. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, pp. 802–807 (1989)Google Scholar
  33. Trottini, M.: A decision-theoretic approach to data disclosure problems. Paper prepared for 2nd Joint ECE/Eurostat Work Session on Statistical Data Confidentiality, Skopje, Macedonia, 14–16 March 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  34. Trottini, M.: Decision models for data disclosure limitation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University (2003)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