Percolation framework reveals limits of privacy in conspiracy, dark web, and blockchain networks

We consider the privacy of interactions between individuals in a network. For many networks, while nodes are anonymous to outside observers, the existence of a link between individuals implies the possibility of one node revealing identifying information about its neighbor. Moreover, while the identities of the accounts are likely hidden to an observer, the network of interaction between two anonymous accounts is often available. For example, in blockchain cryptocurrencies, transactions between two anonymous accounts are published openly. Here we consider what happens if one (or more) parties in such a network are deanonymized by an outside identity. These compromised individuals could leak information about others with whom they interacted, which could then cascade to more and more nodes' information being revealed. We use a percolation framework to analyze the scenario outlined above and show for different likelihoods of individuals possessing information on their counter-parties, the fraction of accounts that can be identified and the idealized minimum number of steps from a deanonymized node to an anonymous node (a measure of the effort required to deanonymize that individual). We further develop a greedy algorithm to estimate the \emph{actual} number of steps that will be needed to identify a particular node based on the noisy information available to the attacker. We apply our framework to three real-world networks: (1) a blockchain transaction network, (2) a network of interactions on the dark web, and (3) a political conspiracy network. We find that in all three networks, beginning from one compromised individual, it is possible to deanonymize a significant fraction of the network ($>50$%) within less than 5 steps. Overall these results provide guidelines for investigators seeking to identify actors in anonymous networks, as well as for users seeking to maintain their privacy.

[1]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[2]  Lise Getoor,et al.  To join or not to join: the illusion of privacy in social networks with mixed public and private user profiles , 2009, WWW '09.

[3]  Reuven Cohen,et al.  Complex Networks: Structure, Robustness and Function , 2010 .

[4]  Xiaodong Lin,et al.  Understanding Ethereum via Graph Analysis , 2018, IEEE INFOCOM 2018 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications.

[5]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Information revelation and privacy in online social networks , 2005, WPES '05.

[6]  Stefan Katzenbeisser,et al.  Structure and Anonymity of the Bitcoin Transaction Graph , 2013, Future Internet.

[7]  Fergal Reid,et al.  An Analysis of Anonymity in the Bitcoin System , 2011, PASSAT 2011.

[8]  H E Stanley,et al.  Classes of small-world networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  David Garcia,et al.  Leaking privacy and shadow profiles in online social networks , 2017, Science Advances.

[10]  Alexandre Arenas,et al.  Modeling Structure and Resilience of the Dark Network , 2016, Physical review. E.

[11]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[12]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Blockchain inefficiency in the Bitcoin peers network , 2017, EPJ Data Science.

[13]  S A R A H M E I K L E J O H N,et al.  A Fistful of Bitcoins Characterizing Payments Among Men with No Names , 2013 .

[14]  James P. Gleeson,et al.  Assessing police topological efficiency in a major sting operation on the dark web , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[15]  Vrajlal K. Sapovadia Legal Issues in Cryptocurrency , 2015 .

[16]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  What is network science? , 2013, Network Science.

[17]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Limits of Predictability in Human Mobility , 2010, Science.

[18]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Which phish get caught? An exploratory study of individuals′ susceptibility to phishing , 2017, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Tackling Information Asymmetry in Networks: A New Entropy-Based Ranking Index , 2017, Journal of Statistical Physics.

[20]  Albert-Lszl Barabsi,et al.  Network Science , 2016, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[21]  Adi Shamir,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph , 2013, Financial Cryptography.

[22]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Fighting organized crimes: using shortest-path algorithms to identify associations in criminal networks , 2004, Decis. Support Syst..

[23]  James P. Bagrow,et al.  Information flow reveals prediction limits in online social activity , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[24]  A-L Barabási,et al.  Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  The dynamical structure of political corruption networks , 2018, J. Complex Networks.