Anonymity of Netflix Prize Dataset Broken

KentuckyFC writes "The anonymity of the Netflix Prize dataset has been broken by a pair of computer scientists from the University of Texas, according to a report from the physics arXivblog. It turns out that an individual's set of ratings and the dates on which they were made are pretty unique, particularly if the ratings involve films outside the most popular 100 movies. So it's straightforward to find a match by comparing the anonymized data against publicly available ratings on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) (abstract on the physics arxiv). The researchers used this method to find how individuals on the IMDb privately rated films on Netflix, in the process possibly working out their political affiliation, sexual preferences and a number of other personal details"

Comments

Sexual preferences?

[tygerstripes]

Who goes out of their way to rate "Anal Whores 3" online?

Re:Sexual preferences?

[mh1997]

Who goes out of their way to rate "Anal Whores 3" online?

The good thing about porn flicks, as a general rule, is that they're too bland to have really bad plots. The search for good dialogue strays too far off the beaten path established by the social mores of the target market, be that old men, college students, or perverts out on dates. There are pornos with solid plots, just rarely pornos with complicated plots.

What they generally aren't is full of capers designed by crackheads in search of sexual relief, or a dominatrix dying to destroy the gold market with a Da Vinci alchemy machine only a cat burglar from Hoboken could steal.

Yes, the plot of Anal Whores 3 is as convoluted as it is kitschy. Mercedes and Veronica Diamond forcibly enlist the help of happy-go-lucky and half-a-second-out-of-prison pizza delivery man Hawk (Peter North) to steal the pieces to a machine that turns lead vibrators into gold. Hawk isn't halfway to a cup of coffee with his wise cracking cohort, Tommy (Johnny Cockring) when he finds himself back in the burglary game. Casing out a heist he meets nun/professional patron of the arts/double agent/love interest Jessie Jane (vows of bestiality can put the kibosh on even the best of cinematic love interests). When you throw in a CIA agent (Dick Coburn) and a couple of double dildos, you've managed to make the world's most convoluted porno....

Re:Sexual preferences?

[styryx]

That's the plot of Hudson Hawk. Good flick.

Re:Sexual preferences?

[mh1997]

If I had mod-points, I'd mod you up insightful. I didn't think someone would spot where I copied the review from so fast.

Re:Sexual preferences?

[Minwee]

Yes, they would have to have watched Hudson Hawk to do that. That narrows the field considerably.

Probabilities

[dj245]

The researchers used this method to find how individuals on the IMDb privately rated films on Netflix, in the process possibly working out their political affiliation, sexual preferences and a number of other personal details"

This is a loaded statement. The most you can determine is that if a person likes movie A, B, C and D but hated E and F, there is a higher probability they are a guy. If they liked Z but didn't like X, there is a higher probability they might be a republican than not. You're still anonymous.

Unless, of course, you're one of the three people that liked "Glitter". Then I think they might have something on you.

Re:Probabilities

[Se7enLC]

I think they're on to something here. They cracked the anonymity by using the public movie ratings (and the dates those ratings were made) as a key. If the user has rated enough movies (especially some of the less-often-rated movies) you can uniquely identify which user they are. Once you know which user they are, you have now connected a username to the list of private ratings.

Now, they go one step too far to say that you can determine anything but movie preferences out of a movie rating list. Just because somebody liked or disliked brokeback mountain doesn't mean they are gay or straight, just like their opinion of michael moore movies doesn't give political affiliation.

It will tell you what movies they rented, though, and some people might not be happy having their movie-renting history publicly available.

Re:Probabilities

[Chapter80]

I think you're missing the point.

If you rate a handful of movies on ImDB, under the persona "MyNickname12345" and that can be traced to your personal MySpace page, you have made that choice. No problem.

If you then submit 100 movie ratings to Netflix, assuming that it is PRIVATE information that will not be linked back to you, and then Netflix releases the data to the public, now the 100 movies can be correlated to you, and your name can be revealed. Researchers have shown how PRIVATE DATA released to the public can be linked to already public information. PROBLEM!

Do what now?

[faloi]

It doesn't sound like the anonymity of the prize set was broken through any fault of NetFlix. It sounds like some sampling of users made the mistake of rating movies on a site where the info is publicly available, and a site where it's not. All they did was correlate the two.

So the lesson is, basically, don't post stuff that you don't want to be public to a website that makes it public, right? This is sounds roughly like blaming the DMV for figuring out a car owners likely political leanings by the bumper stickers on their car.

Re:Do what now?

[IBBoard]

Exactly - all they did was found that there was a correlation that might mean that the people are the same on IMDB and NetFlix. There's also the possibility that they're different people and that they just voted similar on different places.

Besides, this all relies on people voting for a) really obscure films so they can be easily identified and b) voting similarly or identically on lots of films so that they can get a better idea as to whether it is the same person based on them liking the same films the same amounts.

Just because two people from two different data sets both like (and are the only people in the data sets to like) lemon and custard jam as well as peanut butter with chips doesn't mean they're the same person, it just means they could be the same person and have similar tastes in obscure foods.

Re:Do what now?

[Peter Mork]

Exactly - all they did was found that there was a correlation that might mean that the people are the same on IMDB and NetFlix.

Caveat: I haven't had a chance to pore over the statistical calculations. However, the paper notes that their similarity measure was 38 standard deviations from the norm. Assuming the math is valid, this seems on par with a DNA test, which also provides a correlation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the results until you can find a serious methodological problem.

Re:Do what now?

[arvindn]

"Besides, this all relies on people voting for a) really obscure films so they can be easily identified "

not true -- obscure films help a little bit but not too much. we put up a recent draft of our paper in which the dependence on obscure movies is much reduced.

"b) voting similarly or identically on lots of films so that they can get a better idea as to whether it is the same person based on them liking the same films the same amounts."

again not true at all. one of the main claims of our paper is that our method is tolerant to an INCREDIBLE amount of noise. we have the math to back this up.

--Arvind Narayanan

Data-mining and the actual problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two things going on here. One, many people are asking how you could identify any personal information about people based on their movie preferences. The answer is data-mining. Very sophisticated techniques exist to do things exactly like this, i.e. take a data set and find out about the people.

The second problem is that by deanonymizing the NetFlix data, you can start to cheat on the NetFlix prize. The requirement to win $1 million is that your recommendation engine is 10% better than the one they are currently using. However, if you can learn the exact preferences of some users in the dataset (i.e. by finding the rest of their ratings on IMDB) then you can hardcode that into your recommendation engine and get the recommendations for these users exactly right. This can boost your score even though your actual system is no better than the existing one. This is known as over-fitting to the data.

Finally, this paper is over a year old. Can we please have some new news?

Easy solution

[Thanshin]

Every time you feel the need to vote 10 in Glitter, also vote 10 to The Godfather.
Every time you cheer for Brokeback Mountain, also put a 10 in Huge Knockers MXII.
Every time you want to express your love for Dersu Uzala, vote a 10 in Spice World, with added commentaries.

That way, everybody will know you're a security conscious computer scientist. Or a squizophrenic moron.

requires another (partial)public revealing to work

[call -151]

The summary is somewhat misleading- the only accounts that can be identified are those that belong to people who also rate on IMBD and who have thus chosen to make at least some of their ratings public. If person X rates 1000 movies on Netflix and has made 20 or so ratings on IMDB publically available, then it is possible to infer with some small uncertainty which of the anonymized individuals in the NetFlix database they are. Thus you have possibly figured out their ratings of the other 980 movies they rated for Netflix but did not post on IMBD. Interesting, but not earth-shattering or a serious breach of privacy, I would say.

The world is not on fire

[puppetluva]

This is total hyperbole.

All they researchers are saying is that they can deduce some of your preferences based on your other preferences. Of COURSE you can do that, that was the whole point of the contest Netflix put up.

What they are _not_ saying is that they now know who you are, where you live, or anything uniquely identifying about you. So basically, you are still anonymous.

I'm starting to tire of news headlines that claim the world is on fire when someone actually just does something slightly derivative from the norm and thinks they are brilliant. The noise from these non-events mask actual brilliant achievements and make it seem that everyone is doing banal work.

What are you rating in IMDB vs Netflix

[SmallFurryCreature]

As far as I know in IMDB you are rating the overall quality of the movie, not I agree with it OR I want to see more like this.

One example, Shindlers list, great movie, do NOT want to see it again. Same with Grave of the fireflies. Some movies just ain't for multiple viewings. They are my "favorite movies I never want to see again".

On the other hand I got movies I can watch any day of the week, but that I would NEVER rate as highly. Cannonbal run is one such movie. It watch it far too often, but I wouldn't call it a good movie. You can always fine me ready for a Jacky Chan movie or a spagethi western.

Is the netflix rating system a "I liked this movie and want to see more like it" system or a "This movie was brilliant and I would highly recommend it too everyone else" type of rating system?

Granted some people get it confused, probably the same people that use the slashdot moderation system to silence views they don't like, but that only makes basing conclusions on user ratings even more problematic.

I can rate a movie highly even if I do not agree with it, simply because it is good. And I can rate a movie I really like to watch as crap simply because I know I like watching crap.

I don't like the godfather movies, I can see they are high quality, I just don't like them. So my rating them would be fairly high as for quality, but low for 'I want to see more like this'.

I thought that the netflix system was "I want to see more like this" based. Surely nobody is so stupid as to think a quality rating and a "i like this" rating system are the same? Or am I completly in the wrong in seeing a difference between the two? Am I insane in thinking that you can see a movie as being a great artwork and still not liking it or viceversa?

Re:This is a 'research' paper?

[nagora]

You're missing the point completely. Other people will be using "data mining" of this sort, and making serious decisions about whether you support terrorism, or are just generally not a "good citizen", and they won't be revealing their judgments to the public to let them know what might be going on.

TWW

Re:only a matter of time

[phobos13013]

Actually TFA seems to suggest that the more obscure and pretentious we are, the easier it is the track us. If we become homogeneous drones voting on the top 100 films, we are safe! Even so, I don't plan to become a homogeneous drone...