In last post we covered, Privacy Preserving Measurement (PPM) and discussed how Distributed Aggregation Protocol (DAP) works (see here). Today, we’ll explore how to implement a simplified version of the DAP using Python with Prio3 as our Verifiable Distributed Aggregation Function (VDAF). This implementation will support multiple clients, demonstrating how DAP can aggregate data from multiple sources while maintaining privacy.

In 1982, Andrew Yao proposed the Millionaire Problem which discusses how two millionaires can learn who is richest one without disclosing their actual wealth. They solve this problem by comparing their wealth using secure two party computation to ensure that they learn only the richest one and nothing else is revealed. The problem was later generalised for  secure multiparty computation by Goldreich et al in 1987.

The promise of differential privacy is compelling. It offers a rigorous, provable guarantee of individual privacy, even in the face of arbitrary background knowledge. Rather than relying on anonymization techniques that can often be defeated, differential privacy works by injecting carefully calibrated noise into computations.

Differential Privacy (DP) is a mathematical framework that protects individual privacy in data analysis while allowing useful insights to be extracted. It works by adding carefully calibrated noise to data or query results, ensuring that including or excluding any single individual’s data doesn’t significantly change the analysis outcomes.

A mathematical guarantee is a formal, provable assurance about the behavior, performance, or properties of a system, algorithm, or process, derived from rigorous mathematical analysis or proof. The guarantee is based on mathematical logic and can be demonstrated through mathematical reasoning. It provides a definitive statement about what can be expected under specified conditions.

We’ve all experienced the frustration of our smartphones crashing or freezing at the worst possible moment. So how is it that NASA can land a rover on Mars, millions of miles away, with software that works flawlessly? The answer lies in a combination of factors that set space-grade software apart from your average app. Let’s dive deep into the world of aerospace software engineering and uncover the secrets behind NASA’s incredible reliability.

Recently I have been reading Art of Leadership, The: Small Things, Done Well by Michael Lopp. This book is an excellent read and it covers small things that you can do to build trust and to become an authentic and true leader to your team at different stages of your leadership journey.

Anyone who has worked with advanced search systems knows the intricacy of boolean operators. AND, OR, NOT - these seemingly simple words become powerful tools in the hands of search specialists. Add in proximity operators like WITH and NEAR, throw in some parentheses for nesting, and you’ve got yourself a query that can pinpoint exactly what you’re looking for… or so we thought. In practice, these queries can become unwieldy beasts.

When a machine learning model is trained on a dataset, not all data points contribute equally to the model’s performance. Some are more valuable and influential than others. Unfortunately value of data for training purposes is often nebulous and difficult to quantify. Applying data valuation to large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3, Claude 3, Llama 3.1 and their vast training datasets has faced significant scalability challenges to date.

Microservices have become the dominant architectural paradigm for building large-scale distributed systems, but until now, their inner workings at major tech companies have remained shrouded in mystery.

Personal data processing forms the backbone of many big tech service providers. Tech giants like Netflix, Meta, and Amazon employ intricate networks of microservices to automatically process user data, creating complex data flows that span multiple layers of computation.