How to Get Actual Privacy and Utility from Privacy Models: the k-Anonymity and Differential Privacy Families

Privacy models were introduced in privacy-preserving data publishing and statistical disclosure control with the promise to end the need for costly empirical assessment of disclosure risk. We examine how well this promise is kept by the main privacy models. We find they may fail to provide adequate protection guarantees because of problems in their definition or incur unacceptable trade-offs between privacy protection and utility preservation. Specifically, k-anonymity may not entirely exclude disclosure if enforced with deterministic mechanisms or without constraints on the confidential values. On the other hand, differential privacy (DP) incurs unacceptable utility loss for small budgets and its privacy guarantee becomes meaningless for large budgets. In the latter case, an ex post empirical assessment of disclosure risk becomes necessary, undermining the main appeal of privacy models. Whereas the utility preservation of DP can only be improved by relaxing its privacy guarantees, we argue that a semantic reformulation of k-anonymity can offer more robust privacy without losing utility with respect to traditional syntactic k-anonymity.

Publication Details

Journal
ArXiv.org
Published
2025-10-13
Primary Topic
Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How to Get Actual Privacy and Utility from Privacy Models: the k-Anonymity and Differential Privacy Families

ArXiv.org
Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
article

How to Get Actual Privacy and Utility from Privacy Models: the k-Anonymity and Differential Privacy Families

article en

Abstract

Privacy models were introduced in privacy-preserving data publishing and statistical disclosure control with the promise to end the need for costly empirical assessment of disclosure risk. We examine how well this promise is kept by the main privacy models. We find they may fail to provide adequate protection guarantees because of problems in their definition or incur unacceptable trade-offs between privacy protection and utility preservation. Specifically, k-anonymity may not entirely exclude disclosure if enforced with deterministic mechanisms or without constraints on the confidential values. On the other hand, differential privacy (DP) incurs unacceptable utility loss for small budgets and its privacy guarantee becomes meaningless for large budgets. In the latter case, an ex post empirical assessment of disclosure risk becomes necessary, undermining the main appeal of privacy models. Whereas the utility preservation of DP can only be improved by relaxing its privacy guarantees, we argue that a semantic reformulation of k-anonymity can offer more robust privacy without losing utility with respect to traditional syntactic k-anonymity.

ArXiv.org
Generalitat de Catalunya, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad, Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.