Biblio

Garg, Goldwasser and Vasudevan (Eurocrypt 2020) invented the notion of deletion-compliance to formally model the “right to be forgotten’, a concept that confers individuals more control over their digital data. A requirement of deletion-compliance is strong privacy for the deletion requesters since no outside observer must be able to tell if deleted data was ever present in the first place. Naturally, many real world systems where information can flow across users are automatically ruled out.The main thesis of this paper is that deletion-compliance is a standalone notion, distinct from privacy. We present an alternative definition that meaningfully captures deletion-compliance without any privacy implications. This allows broader class of data collectors to demonstrate compliance to deletion requests and to be paired with various notions of privacy. Our new definition has several appealing properties:•It is implied by the stronger definition of Garg et al. under natural conditions, and is equivalent when we add a strong privacy requirement.•It is naturally composable with minimal assumptions.•Its requirements are met by data structure implementations that do not reveal the order of operations, a concept known as history-independence.Along the way, we discuss the many challenges that remain in providing a universal definition of compliance to the “right to be forgotten.”

We present history-independent alternatives to a B-tree, the primary indexing data structure used in databases. A data structure is history independent (HI) if it is impossible to deduce any information by examining the bit representation of the data structure that is not already available through the API. We show how to build a history-independent cache-oblivious B-tree and a history-independent external-memory skip list. One of the main contributions is a data structure we build on the way–-a history-independent packed-memory array (PMA). The PMA supports efficient range queries, one of the most important operations for answering database queries. Our HI PMA matches the asymptotic bounds of prior non-HI packed-memory arrays and sparse tables. Specifically, a PMA maintains a dynamic set of elements in sorted order in a linear-sized array. Inserts and deletes take an amortized O(log2 N) element moves with high probability. Simple experiments with our implementation of HI PMAs corroborate our theoretical analysis. Comparisons to regular PMAs give preliminary indications that the practical cost of adding history-independence is not too large. Our HI cache-oblivious B-tree bounds match those of prior non-HI cache-oblivious B-trees. Searches take O(logB N) I/Os; inserts and deletes take O((log2 N)/B+ logB N) amortized I/Os with high probability; and range queries returning k elements take O(logB N + k/B) I/Os. Our HI external-memory skip list achieves optimal bounds with high probability, analogous to in-memory skip lists: O(logB N) I/Os for point queries and amortized O(logB N) I/Os for inserts/deletes. Range queries returning k elements run in O(logB N + k/B) I/Os. In contrast, the best possible high-probability bounds for inserting into the folklore B-skip list, which promotes elements with probability 1/B, is just Theta(log N) I/Os. This is no better than the bounds one gets from running an in-memory skip list in external memory.