manos/the-last-thing
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Quack!

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Manos Katsomallos
2022-01-07 06:09:10 +01:00
parent 4b1980337e
commit 944652f380
3 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
text/problem/thething/main.tex
View File

@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Hence, at any timestamp we achieve an overall privacy protection bounded by $\va
\begin{example}
\label{ex:st-cont}
Continuing Example~\ref{ex:scenario}, Bob cares about protecting his {\thethings} ($p_1$, $p_3$, $p_5$, $p_8$) along with every release that he makes, however he is not equally interested for the other regular events in his trajectory.
Continuing Example~\ref{ex:scenario}, Quackmore cares about protecting his {\thethings} ($p_1$, $p_3$, $p_5$, $p_8$) along with every release that he makes, however he is not equally interested for the other regular events in his trajectory.
More technically, he cares about allocating a total budget of $\varepsilon$ on any set of timestamps containing the {\thethings} and one regular event.
Event-level protection is not suitable for this case, since it can only protect one event at a time.
So, let us assume that we apply user-level privacy\footnote{In this scenario, in order to protect all the {\thethings} from timestamp $1$ to $8$, $w$ must be set to $8$, which makes $w$-event privacy equivalent to user-level.}, by distributing equal portions of $\varepsilon$ to all the events, i.e.,~$\frac{\varepsilon}{8}$ to each one (see Figure~\ref{fig:st-cont}).