Re: [meetings] Agenda Request - Should PATCG be opinionated on which technologies are used to enable privacy? (#39)

The way that I've been thinking about this is that _Private Computation_ (to Nigel's point above, probably worth renaming) is an abstract tool which we can use and has the three properties defined in my initial comment (client data secrecy, purpose limitation, correctness.) We can visualize this as:

```mermaid
flowchart LR
A[1. Client Data] --> |Encrypted| B[2. Private Computation]
B --> |Revealed| C[3. Output]
```

Now (again, to Nigel's point above), simply reconstructing **any** computation into this form doesn't actually make it _private_. As an oversimplified strawman, if your computation was `select * from all_client_data`, this clearly wouldn't be private. This presents two main questions:

1. Is there consensus in this group on outputs that are private? (Dependant on consensus on a working definition of privacy.)
2. Given an output that is deemed to be private, is there consensus in this group as to the technologies which could achieve the _private computation_ properties described above.

I don't believe there is a hard dependance between these two, unless the answer to 1/ is that there is not consensus on any output (which given other conversations seems unlikely.)

There is a third question, which is dependant on 2:

3. Given a set of technologies that this group agrees satisfies the properties of a private computation, which parties are semi-trusted to participate in such a protocol? (Dependant on the particular threats that participation may create, which is different for different technologies.)

For now, I propose we move @darobin's content to the slot on the second day as we discussed above. I see that squarely in addressing 1/, and keep the agenda for this issue (addresseing 2/) as is (though I will adjust slightly to remove @darobin's slot.)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by eriktaubeneck
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/meetings/issues/39#issuecomment-1086093296 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 1 April 2022 16:05:32 UTC