Analyzing Graphs with Node Differential Privacy

  • Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan
  • Kobbi Nissim
  • Sofya Raskhodnikova
  • Adam Smith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7785)


We develop algorithms for the private analysis of network data that provide accurate analysis of realistic networks while satisfying stronger privacy guarantees than those of previous work. We present several techniques for designing node differentially private algorithms, that is, algorithms whose output distribution does not change significantly when a node and all its adjacent edges are added to a graph. We also develop methodology for analyzing the accuracy of such algorithms on realistic networks.

The main idea behind our techniques is to “project” (in one of several senses) the input graph onto the set of graphs with maximum degree below a certain threshold. We design projection operators, tailored to specific statistics that have low sensitivity and preserve information about the original statistic. These operators can be viewed as giving a fractional (low-degree) graph that is a solution to an optimization problem described as a maximum flow instance, linear program, or convex program. In addition, we derive a generic, efficient reduction that allows us to apply any differentially private algorithm for bounded-degree graphs to an arbitrary graph. This reduction is based on analyzing the smooth sensitivity of the “naive” truncation that simply discards nodes of high degree.


  1. 1.
    Blocki, J., Blum, A., Datta, A., Sheffet, O.: Differentially Private Data Analysis of Social Networks via Restricted Sensitivity. In: ITCS (to appear, 2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blum, A., Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K.: Practical Privacy: The SuLQ Framework. In: PODS, pp. 128–138. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clauset, A., Shalizi, C.R., Newman, M.E.J.: Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data. SIAM Review 51(4), 661–703 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dinur, I., Nissim, K.: Revealing Information While Preserving Privacy. In: PODS, pp. 202–210. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwork, C.: Differential Privacy. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4052, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwork, C., Kenthapadi, K., McSherry, F., Mironov, I., Naor, M.: Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 486–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dwork, C., Lei, J.: Differential Privacy and Robust Statistics. In: STOC, pp. 371–380 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gehrke, J., Lui, E., Pass, R.: Towards Privacy for Social Networks: A Zero-Knowledge Based Definition of Privacy. In: Ishai, Y. (ed.) TCC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6597, pp. 432–449. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hay, M., Li, C., Miklau, G., Jensen, D.: Accurate Estimation of the Degree Distribution of Private Networks. In: ICDM, pp. 169–178 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jernigan, C., Mistree, B.F.T.: Gaydar: Facebook Friendships Expose Sexual Orientation. First Monday 14(10) (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karwa, V., Raskhodnikova, S., Smith, A., Yaroslavtsev, G.: Private analysis of graph structure. PVLDB 4(11), 1146–1157 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kifer, D., Machanavajjhala, A.: No Free Lunch in Data Privacy. In: SIGMOD, pp. 193–204 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McSherry, F., Mironov, I.: Differentially Private Recommender Systems: Building Privacy into the Net. In: KDD, pp. 627–636. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nissim, K., Raskhodnikova, S., Smith, A.: Smooth sensitivity and sampling in private data analysis. In: Symp. Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 75–84. ACM (2007), full paper:
  16. 16.
    Rastogi, V., Hay, M., Miklau, G., Suciu, D.: Relationship Privacy: Output Perturbation for Queries with Joins. In: PODS, pp. 107–116 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan
    • 1
  • Kobbi Nissim
    • 2
  • Sofya Raskhodnikova
    • 3
  • Adam Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.General Electric Global ResearchUSA
  2. 2.Ben-Gurion UniversityIsrael
  3. 3.Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations