Paper detail

Percolation framework reveals limits of privacy in Conspiracy, Dark Web, and Blockchain networks

We consider the privacy of interactions between individuals in a network. For many networks, while nodes are anonymous to outside observers, the existence of a link between individuals implies the possibility of one node revealing identifying information about its neighbor. Moreover, while the identities of the accounts are likely hidden to an observer, the network of interaction between two anonymous accounts is often available. For example, in blockchain cryptocurrencies, transactions between two anonymous accounts are published openly. Here we consider what happens if one (or more) parties in such a network are deanonymized by an outside identity. These compromised individuals could leak information about others with whom they interacted, which could then cascade to more and more nodes' information being revealed. We use a percolation framework to analyze the scenario outlined above and show for different likelihoods of individuals possessing information on their counter-parties, the fraction of accounts that can be identified and the idealized minimum number of steps from a deanonymized node to an anonymous node (a measure of the effort required to deanonymize that individual). We further develop a greedy algorithm to estimate the \emph{actual} number of steps that will be needed to identify a particular node based on the noisy information available to the attacker. We apply our framework to three real-world networks: (1) a blockchain transaction network, (2) a network of interactions on the dark web, and (3) a political conspiracy network. We find that in all three networks, beginning from one compromised individual, it is possible to deanonymize a significant fraction of the network ($>50$%) within less than 5 steps. Overall these results provide guidelines for investigators seeking to identify actors in anonymous networks, as well as for users seeking to maintain their privacy.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.