| DATE: | December 11th, 2020 |
| TIME: | 2:00pm to 4:00pm (PST) |
| VENUE: | Zoom Online meeting Please obtain passcode to enter meeting from email confirmation RSVP Required – register at Zoom |
| TOPIC(S): | Differential Privacy |
| PRESENTER(S): | Robert Slade (M. Sc.) |
ABSTRACT
Differential privacy is a relatively recent topic, although it is an amalgam of well-known, and long utilized, concepts. Oddly, outside of academic circles, it was almost unknown until Apple made a big deal of it in an announcement in 2016. Differential privacy is, however, the “quantitative risk analysis” of privacy, which is why it has such important points to make to the field of privacy, and why almost nobody is using it. (Including, mostly, Apple.)
OK, CISSP question time:
Which privacy law does differential privacy support?
a. British law
b. Chinese law
c. EU law
d. US law
You want a clue? OK, some initial discussion, then:
a. British privacy law is still primarily based on the original privacy directives, and
is mostly concerned with what data you can collect, and for how long, and how
accurate you have to be.
b. Yeah, I needed a good laugh, too. But China *does* have a privacy law, and it
pretends to be compatible with the original privacy directives.
c. Well, GDPR is *mostly* just the original privacy directives, but the new
accountability directive *might* have to do with how well you protect what you
*have* collected …
d. OK, I often say the the US doesn’t have any privacy laws, but they do. Those
are primarily concerned with how much you can sue when people disclose your
data.
For the final answer, attend the December 11th meeting on the topic of
differential privacy.
BIOGRAPHY
Robert Slade has been stuck inside for six months with nothing to do but study
the latest security and privacy buzzwords. More information than anyone would
want to know about him is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Slade
(and he doesn’t particularly care if you know that).