Papers for

data protection officers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Membership inference attack reveals privacy risks in synthetic data generation

Membership Inference Attack on Private Evolution

Abstract: Synthetic Data Generation (SDG) is an actively studied way to enable safe sharing of private data more broadly. Inference-only SDG methods, such as Private Evolution (PE), are particularly appealing, as they can leverage black-box access to pre-trained foundation models to generate high quality data without the need for model fine-tuning on the private data. PE is explicitly designed to produce synthetic data under Differential Privacy (DP). Yet formal DP guarantees do not eliminate the need for empirical privacy auditing of the practical susceptibility of released synthetic data to adversarial attacks. In this work, we introduce the first white-box Membership Inference Attack (MIA) tailored to the voting-based algorithm underlying the PE framework. By exploiting how the iterative filtering process biases the survival and proximity of synthetic candidates toward private instances, our attack achieves empirical performance indicating private data leakage in the PE applications across image, text, and tabular modalities.

Wed 21 OctCryptography and Security
The gist
Sharing private data safely is tricky, so people use synthetic data that looks real but doesn't expose secrets. Private Evolution is a method that tries to create such synthetic data with privacy protections. This paper shows that even with these protections, it's possible to guess if someone's data was used by looking carefully at how the synthetic data was made. The authors created an attack that can see signs of private data being leaked in images, text, and tables generated this way.
Open → 2610.30514v1

Privacy accounting challenges in retrieval-augmented generation explored

From One Query to Many: A Critical Survey of Privacy Accounting in RAG

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables large language models to leverage external knowledge but introduces privacy risks when the retrieved corpus contains sensitive information. Differential privacy (DP) offers formal protection, yet interpreting and comparing privacy guarantees across existing DP-RAG methods remains challenging. In particular, a privacy budget reported for a single response does not directly characterize privacy loss over repeated queries, and even identical values of $\varepsilon$ may represent different guarantees depending on the protected data unit, accounting horizon, and observable outputs. This survey critically examines how privacy accounting evolves from single-query generation to multi-query RAG systems. We categorize existing approaches into query-time privatization, multi-query accounting, and one-time corpus privatization. We analyze their underlying assumptions and privacy--utility trade-offs. Rather than ranking methods by $\varepsilon$ alone, we propose a framework that interprets a DP-RAG guarantee along three dimensions: privacy granularity, accounting scope, and release boundaries. We conclude that an $\eps$ is a claim only together with the three slots: the protected unit, the accounting scope, and the release boundary.

Thu 15 OctCryptography and Security
The gist
Large language models can look up information from external sources to give better answers, but this can risk exposing sensitive data. The authors review how different methods protect privacy when models make many queries, showing that privacy measurements for one answer don’t simply add up for many. They suggest thinking about privacy guarantees by considering what data is protected, over what time, and what outputs are shared. This helps clarify how to compare privacy protection in systems that use external knowledge safely.
Open → 2610.21245v1

Privacy tools fail to stop harms from real-world data misuse

Enhancing Privacy, Neglecting Harms: An Analysis of Real-World Digital Privacy Incidents

Abstract: Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) have emerged as a technical means for providing individuals with greater control over their information. Yet despite the growing deployment of PETs, people continue to experience privacy harms. In this work, we revisit our understanding of privacy incidents and the realities of those experiencing privacy harms, to assess whether the goals and abilities of PETs are misaligned with the harms people face. For our study, we collect news articles that correspond to a sample of 257 real-world privacy incidents. We employ content analysis over the articles to develop a new information flow model that encompasses the complexity of data flows and their relation to resulting harms. We demonstrate that our model captures both established and novel aspects of privacy incidents and their mitigations. In particular, it captures why consent is often insufficient to prevent privacy violations, how harms emerge from complex interactions among multiple entities and actions, and reveals a flaw in our understanding of PETs: a focus on enabling functionalities still permits the harms inherent in those functionalities. Moreover, we find that the entities best positioned to implement harm-preventing measures for the incidents in our sample are the least incentivized to do so. Overall, our model and analysis identify limitations of privacy technology research for harm prevention and further identifies paths for transforming how we approach the advancement of these technologies.

Mon 7 SeptCryptography and SecurityComputers and Society
The gist
Digital privacy tools are designed to give people more control over their personal information, but privacy harms still happen. The researchers studied 257 real privacy incidents reported in the news to understand why privacy protections often fall short. They built a new model showing that privacy harms come from complex interactions between many parties and that simply getting consent doesn’t stop violations. They also found that those who could best prevent harm often lack the motivation to do so, which limits how well current privacy technologies can protect people.
Open → 2609.07217v1