Contextual Integrity for Differential Privacy #2 [23w5106]
Morning of diverse short talks. First one on What are the chances? Explaining ε towards endusers by presenting odds and illustrating the impact of including one potential user’s data. Then one on re-placing DP within CI in terms of causality. And multi-agent models, illustrated by the Cambridge Analytics scandal. I am still not getting the point of the CI perspective which sounds to me like an impossibility theorem. A bit as if Statistics had stopped at “All models are wrong” (as Keynes did, in a way). And a talk on Uses & misuses of DP inference, with nice drawings explaining that publicly available information (eg, smoking causes cancer) may create breaches of privacy (Alice may have cancer). Last talk of the morning on framing effects as privileging data processors and overly technical? Fundamental law of information privacy? Got me wondering about the lack (?) of dynamic perspective so far, in the (simplistic?) sense that DP does not seem to account for potential breaches were a secondary dataset to become available with shared subjects and record linkage. (A bit of a go at GDPR, for the second time within a week.)
Before, I had a rather nice early morning in woods on top of Okanagan Lake, crossing many white tailed deer, hopefully no ticks!, as well as No trespassing signs. And a quick and c…ool swim in the Lake 20⁰ waters. No sign of the large wildfires raging south in Osoyoos or north in Kalmoops. We had a fantastic lunch break at the nearby Arrowleaf Cellars winery, with a stellar pinot noir, although this rather made the following working session harder to engage with (not mentioning the lingering jetlag)!
Leave a Reply