Target Privacy Preserving for Social Networks

In this paper, we incorporate the realistic scenario of key protection into link privacy preserving and propose the target-link privacy preserving (TPP) model: target links referred to as targets are the most important and sensitive objectives that would be intentionally attacked by adversaries, in order that need privacy protections, while other links of less privacy concerns are properly released to maintain the graph utility. The goal of TPP is to limit the target disclosure by deleting a budget limited set of alternative non-target links referred to as protectors to defend the adversarial link predictions for all targets. Traditional link privacy preserving treated all links as targets and concentrated on structural level protections in which serious link disclosure and high graph utility loss is still the bottleneck of graph releasing today, while TPP focuses on the target level protections in which key protection is implemented on a tiny fraction of critical targets to achieve better privacy protection and lower graph utility loss. Currently there is a lack of clear TPP problem definition, provable optimal or near optimal protector selection algorithms and scalable implementations on large-scale social graphs.Firstly, we introduce the TPP model and propose a dissimilarity function used for measuring the defense ability against privacy analyzing for the targets. We consider two different problems by budget assignment settings: 1) we protect all targets and to optimize the dissimilarity of all targets with a single budget; 2) besides the protections of all targets, we also care about the protection of each target by assigning a local budget to every target. Moreover, we propose two local protector selections, namely cross-target and with-target pickings. Each problem with each protector picking selection is corresponding to a greedy algorithm. We also implement scalable implementations for all greedy algorithms by limiting the selection scale of protectors, and we prove that all greedy-based algorithms achieve approximation by holding the monotonicity and submodularity. Through experiments on large real social graphs, we demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed target link protection methods.

[1]  R. Pastor-Satorras,et al.  Generation of uncorrelated random scale-free networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Contaminant removal for Android malware detection systems , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data).

[3]  Sofya Raskhodnikova,et al.  Private analysis of graph structure , 2011, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[4]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Friends and neighbors on the Web , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[5]  Priya Mahadevan,et al.  Systematic topology analysis and generation using degree correlations , 2006, SIGCOMM.

[6]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Hierarchical Organization of Modularity in Metabolic Networks , 2002, Science.

[7]  Linyuan Lü,et al.  Predicting missing links via local information , 2009, 0901.0553.

[8]  Hong Cheng,et al.  Graph Clustering Based on Structural/Attribute Similarities , 2009, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[9]  Ghazaleh Beigi,et al.  Privacy in Social Media: Identification, Mitigation and Applications , 2018, ArXiv.

[10]  Linyuan Lü,et al.  Toward link predictability of complex networks , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Networks Network Motifs : Simple Building Blocks of Complex , 2002 .

[12]  Hierarchical Organization of Modularity in Metabolic Networks Supporting Online Material , 2002 .

[13]  Jia Liu,et al.  K-isomorphism: privacy preserving network publication against structural attacks , 2010, SIGMOD Conference.

[14]  Dawn Xiaodong Song,et al.  Preserving Link Privacy in Social Network Based Systems , 2012, NDSS.

[15]  Xintao Wu,et al.  Preserving Differential Privacy in Degree-Correlation based Graph Generation , 2013, Trans. Data Priv..

[16]  Ting Yu,et al.  Publishing Attributed Social Graphs with Formal Privacy Guarantees , 2016, SIGMOD Conference.

[17]  Witawas Srisa-an,et al.  Significant Permission Identification for Machine-Learning-Based Android Malware Detection , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[18]  Michael McGill,et al.  Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval , 1983 .

[19]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[20]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[21]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Multi-Round Influence Maximization , 2018, KDD.

[22]  Stephan Günnemann,et al.  Adversarial Attacks on Neural Networks for Graph Data , 2018, KDD.

[23]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Predicting perturbation patterns from the topology of biological networks , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  M. Newman,et al.  Vertex similarity in networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[25]  Xiaowei Ying,et al.  On link privacy in randomizing social networks , 2010, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[26]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Kollector: Detecting Fraudulent Activities on Mobile Devices Using Deep Learning , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing.

[27]  Yuval Shavitt,et al.  A model of Internet topology using k-shell decomposition , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Yin Yang,et al.  Generating Synthetic Decentralized Social Graphs with Local Differential Privacy , 2017, CCS.

[29]  M. L. Fisher,et al.  An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I , 1978, Math. Program..

[30]  Lei Zou,et al.  K-Automorphism: A General Framework For Privacy Preserving Network Publication , 2009, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[31]  T. Sørensen,et al.  A method of establishing group of equal amplitude in plant sociobiology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons , 1948 .

[32]  Chuan-Gang Liu,et al.  K-anonymity against neighborhood attacks in weighted social networks , 2015, Secur. Commun. Networks.

[33]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Limiting link disclosure in social network analysis through subgraph-wise perturbation , 2012, EDBT '12.

[34]  P. Erdos,et al.  On the evolution of random graphs , 1984 .

[35]  Stéphane Bressan,et al.  L-opacity: Linkage-Aware Graph Anonymization , 2014, EDBT.

[36]  Minas Gjoka,et al.  2.5K-graphs: From sampling to generation , 2012, 2013 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[37]  P. Jaccard,et al.  Etude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura , 1901 .

[38]  M. Newman Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[39]  B. Bollobás The evolution of random graphs , 1984 .

[40]  Leo Katz,et al.  A new status index derived from sociometric analysis , 1953 .

[41]  Qian Xiao,et al.  Differentially private network data release via structural inference , 2014, KDD.

[42]  Vasek Chvátal,et al.  A Greedy Heuristic for the Set-Covering Problem , 1979, Math. Oper. Res..

[43]  Lise Getoor,et al.  Preserving the Privacy of Sensitive Relationships in Graph Data , 2007, PinKDD.

[44]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

[45]  Xiaowei Ying,et al.  Randomizing Social Networks: a Spectrum Preserving Approach , 2008, SDM.

[46]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[47]  Chedy Raïssi,et al.  Delineating social network data anonymization via random edge perturbation , 2012, CIKM.

[48]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Link Privacy in Social Networks , 2008, 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering.