Training machine learning models on privacy-sensitive data has become a popular practice, driving innovation in ever-expanding fields. This has opened the door to a series of new attacks, such as Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs), that exploit vulnerabilities in ML models in order to expose the privacy of individual training samples. A growing body of literature holds up Differential Privacy (DP) as an effective defense against such attacks, and companies like Google and Amazon include this privacy notion in their machine-learning-as-a-service products. However, little scrutiny has been given to how underlying correlations or bias within the datasets used for training these models can impact the privacy guarantees provided by DP. In this work, we challenge prior findings that suggest DP provides a strong defense against MIAs. We provide theoretical and experimental evidence for cases where the theoretical bounds of DP are violated by MIAs using the same attacks described in prior work. We first show this empirically, with real-world datasets carefully split to create a distinction between member and non-member samples, and then we study the reason why the theoretical DP bounds break when members and non-members are not independent and identically distributed. Our findings suggest that certain properties of datasets, such as bias or data correlation, play a critical role in determining the effectiveness of DP as a privacy preserving mechanism against MIAs.
翻译:对隐私敏感数据的培训机器学习模式已成为一种流行的做法,推动在不断扩大的领域进行创新。这为一系列新的攻击打开了大门,如会员推断攻击(MIAs),利用ML模型的脆弱性暴露个人培训样本的隐私。越来越多的文献将差异隐私(DP)作为有效防范这类袭击的有效防御手段,Google和亚马逊等公司将这一隐私概念纳入其机器学习服务产品中。然而,对用于培训这些模型的数据集中的基本关联或偏差如何影响DP提供的隐私保障,很少进行仔细审查。在这项工作中,我们质疑先前的调查结果,其中显示DP对个人培训模式的脆弱性提供了强有力的防御。我们提供了理论和实验性证据,以证明DPA的理论界限被MIA所违反的情况与先前工作中描述的相同。我们首先用实实在在的数据集进行认真区分,以区分成员和非成员样本,然后我们研究当成员与非成员不独立或非成员对数据库的可靠性产生某种重要影响时,为什么理论DP界限会断断开来,作为我们所分配的数据的准确性机制。