<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacy · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.02201/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.02201/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacy — mentioned by ergl</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22245480</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1809.02201:22245480</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:08:46 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not far-fetched. Differential privacy is going to be used for the US census this year. Here&amp;#x27;s a report on it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.02201 Also, it&amp;#x27;s not a magical solution. Here&amp;#x27;s one of the issues from the linked paper (edited for clarity): &amp;quot;The proponents of differential privacy have always maintained that the setting of the [trade-off between privacy loss (ε) and accuracy] is a policy question, not a technical one. [...] To date, the Census committee has set the values of ε far higher than those envisioned by the creators of differential privacy. (In their contemporaneous…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.02201/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item><item><title>Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacy — mentioned by jackpirate</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21565679</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1809.02201:21565679</guid><pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:38:05 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The US Census famously used differential privacy in their most recent surveys. They have a quite extensive analysis of the tradeoffs they had to make to ensure everyone&amp;#x27;s privacy, and there is a fairly large body of academic work that analyzes (e.g.) the economic impact of this privacy preservation. The general consensus AFAIK is that they did a great job. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.02201 for the main paper from the Census.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.02201/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item><item><title>Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacy — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18312913</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:1809.02201:18312913</guid><pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 21:40:42 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Issues encountered deploying differential privacy for the 2020 US Census&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.02201/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item><item><title>Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacy — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17955543</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:1809.02201:17955543</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:53:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacy [pdf]&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;4 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.02201/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
