3 ms·
As far as my understanding goes, federation already solves the problem of data leaking, doesn't it? I mean, that's what you are describing, the data does not le
by pintxo 5y ago
As far as my understanding goes, federation already solves the problem of data leaking, doesn't it? I mean, that's what you are describing, the data does not leave it's source, you (the algorithm) have to move to the data not the other way around.
That's exactly as I understand federation: the (original) data never leaves the home organization. But because everyone uses the same data model + algorithms (and those are choosen to enable combination of the output from each federated processing site) the results can be combined into a single outcome.
So, if data leaking is already solved for by keeping the data locally, why would I employ HE? Unless maybe the participants should not be able to look into the algorithms itself?
- CrazyStat 5y agoNo, federation alone doesn't solve the problem. This is addressed in the third paragraph of the paper; the TLDR is that federated processing might still leak personal information: > The adoption of FA in the medical sector, despite its potential, has been slower than expected. This is in large part due to the unresolved privacy issues of FA, related to the sharing of model updates or partial data aggregates in cleartext. Indeed, despite patient-level data not being transferred between the institutions engaging in FA, it has been shown that the model updates (or partial aggregates) themselves can, under certain circumstances, leak sensitive personal information about the underlying individuals, thus leading to re-identification, membership inference, and feature reconstruction. Our work focuses on overcoming this key limitation of existing FA approaches.