Separating Key Agreement and Computational Differential Privacy
share
Two party differential privacy allows two parties who do not trust each other, to come together and perform a joint analysis on their data whilst maintaining individual-level privacy. We show that any efficient, computationally differentially private protocol that has black-box access to key agreement (and nothing stronger), is also an efficient, information-theoretically differentially private protocol. In other words, the existence of efficient key agreement protocols is insufficient for efficient, computationally differentially private protocols. In doing so, we make progress in answering an open question posed by Vadhan about the minimal computational assumption needed for computational differential privacy. Combined with the information-theoretic lower bound due to McGregor, Mironov, Pitassi, Reingold, Talwar, and Vadhan in [FOCS'10], we show that there is no fully black-box reduction from efficient, computationally differentially private protocols for computing the Hamming distance (or equivalently inner product over the integers) on n bits, with additive error lower than O(√(n)/e^ϵlog(n)), to key agreement. This complements the result by Haitner, Mazor, Silbak, and Tsfadia in [STOC'22], which showed that computing the Hamming distance implies key agreement. We conclude that key agreement is strictly weaker than computational differential privacy for computing the inner product, thereby answering their open question on whether key agreement is sufficient.
READ FULL TEXT
