Statistical Disclosure Limitation for~Data~Access
Confidentiality protection; Multiplicity; Privacy protection; Restricted data; Risk-utility tradeoff
Statistical Disclosure Limitation refers to the broad array of methods used to protect confidentiality of statistical data, i.e., fulfilling an obligation to data providers or respondents not to transmit their information to an unauthorized party. Data Access refers to complementary obligations of statistical agencies and others to provide information for statistical purposes without violating promises of confidentiality.
Starting in the early twentieth century, U.S. government statistical agencies worked to develop approaches for the protection of the confidentiality of data gathered on individuals and organizations. As such agencies also have a public obligation to use the data for the public good, they have developed both a culture of confidentiality protection and a set of statistical techniques to assure that data are released in a form...
- 2.Anderson M, William SW. Challenges to the confidentiality of U.S. federal statistics, 1910–1965. J Off Stat. 2007;23(1):1–34.Google Scholar
- 4.Dalenius T. Towards a methodology for statistical disclosure control. Statist Tidskrift. 1977;5(429–444): 2–1.Google Scholar
- 6.Doyle P, Lane JL, Theeuwes Jules JM, Zayatz LV, editors. Confidentiality, disclosure and data access: theory and practical application for statistical agencies. New York: Elsevier; 2001.Google Scholar
- 9.Fienberg SE, Makov UE, Sanil AP. A Bayesian approach to data disclosure: optimal intruder behavior for continuous data. J Off Stat. 1997;13(1):75–89.Google Scholar
- 10.Fienberg SE, Makov UE, Steele RJ. Disclosure limitation using perturbation and related methods for categorical data (with discussion). J Off Stat. 1998;14(4):485–502.Google Scholar
- 13.Lambert D. Measures of disclosure risk and harm. J Off Stat. 1993;9(2):313–31.Google Scholar
- 14.Raghunathan TE, Reiter J, Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for statistical disclosure limitation. J Off Stat. 2003;19(1):1–16.Google Scholar