Call to discuss MPC and measurement about privacy-preserving-ads HOT 23 CLOSED

A point of clarification: the PPM work is not an ISRG initiative even though their repo is where we've been doing early work on the protocol specifications. This is work that came out of Stanford and MIT originally, was implemented in Firefox, was then used in the exposure notification apps, and is now going to the IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gpew-priv-ppm/

from privacy-preserving-ads.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for expressing interest. I agree PATCG should be the most natural place to discuss this general topic in the future. However, it will take some time for that group to get up and running in terms of figuring out processes, adopting work items, and scheduling time for discussing topics. It looks unlikely they'll be ready to accommodate this conversation November 8th.

Let's plan to have this as a one-off meeting which includes a goal of helping folks understand other locations where activity in this space will continue. If we find the other forums either aren't ready to take on this topic or have scoped out some useful portion of the conversation, we may choose to have additional instances if there's sufficient interest.

I'll add call-in details soon. If you plan to attend, please block off an hour on your calendars on Monday, November 8th at 9am Pacific (PST)/12pm Eastern (EST)/5pm London (GMT).

Thanks!

from privacy-preserving-ads.

Thanks to everyone that attended! I thought it was a good conversation.

For folks who were unable to make it, I've converted the minutes to markdown and checked them into this repo.

My high-level takeaways were:

1. Various IETF groups are proceeding with specifying in more detail approaches based on existing crypto primitives. Folks with potential feedback on a charter for a group putting together a higher-level aggregate measurement protocol should consider attending the IETF BOF happening for it on Nov. 10th.
2. The W3C Private Ad Tech CG (PAT CG) is similarly getting up and running and will discuss measurement-related proposals there.
3. Effective layering the conversations and the standardization is important. Many topics may span across them, though, so at times it can be ambiguous where to start. We should work to have clear locations for folks to pose important topics for discussion.
4. Once we have super clear use cases that may require protocol changes, we'll want to go back to IETF and the IRTF/CFRG only after we have completed due diligence (to be respectful of that group's time and energy).

It isn't clear that PAT CG will be the right place for some of this conversation, but there was also not a lot of clarity if there's any current, good location for some of the conversations.

My proposed next step is to work with the PAT CG to get "measurement" adopted as a broad work item and make sure we have a location in a generally agreed upon GitHub repo to host the discussions folks want to have around aggregate measurement protocols and crypto. If we get consensus that some topics are already best covered elsewhere, e.g. an IETF group, we should work to give folks the right pointers. To be determined if/how we spin up breakout sessions for a core set of participants for a set of topics.

Feedback welcome on next steps.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

Sorry that I missed this meeting.

Opening an issue on a github repo isn't a good way to schedule a meeting that might be of broader interest to multiple groups.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm sorry I didn't advertise it broadly enough to reach you. This is exactly why I'd like to get this topic moved into the PAT CG (and other applicable groups) moving forward.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

I would love to participate. I agree there is a lot of exciting progress being made on MPC-based approaches to aggregate measurement. Would love a highly focused meeting to make lots of concrete progress on this topic.

I would love to participate personally if possible. I'm in Singapore though - so it would have to be at a US + APAC friendly time. Most W3C meetings are in the US + EMEA timeframe - could this one be the exception?

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1 would love to participate. The time you propose works for me, but also happy to get up earlier/stay up later in Pacific time to help accommodate our APAC friends.

I'm particularly interested in making progress in how MPC can work across the board, both in terms of who needs to be trusted for what, and how to handle the cost of MPC between the involved parties.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1 would love to participate. I can make the time work and I could also do earlier slots that day.

cc @schoppmp who might also be interested

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1 would love as well. cc @appascoe who is interested too.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1 this sounds like a great idea, happy to join! The proposed time (Mondays 12pm ET) works for me, earlier is also fine.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1 I would love to participate. Good initiative, @erik-anderson!

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1 -- would be very happy to participate wherever this happens to take place!

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1 -- would be happy to participate. I also wanted to flag this doc that me, @schoppmp, and @bifurcation plan to take to the CFRG. Its goal is to define an abstraction boundary for this class of multi-party protocols, that is suitable for applications like PPM.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1, please include me in the invitation. Thanks!

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1, the time works for me as well

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1, sounds really interesting

from privacy-preserving-ads.

@erik-anderson It was pointed out to me that the issue title lists this as a recurring call, though I think future work in this space should probably move to PATCG. Maybe we can use this call to redirect work in this space (and recurring calls) to that venue?

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1, the time works for me

from privacy-preserving-ads.

+1, I would be happy to participate

from privacy-preserving-ads.

I've edited the first comment on this issue with meeting logistics. Please update your calendar items.

I've proposed a tentative agenda in the agenda and minutes doc; if you'd like to see changes please edit and/or add comments to the doc directly.

To reiterate the above, ideally we'll get the W3C portions of this conversation moved to the PATCG as is being discussed in their meetings issue #4.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

Sorry that I missed this meeting.

Opening an issue on a github repo isn't a good way to schedule a meeting that might be of broader interest to multiple groups.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

@erik-anderson thanks for sharing the minutes, and I apologize that I was unable to attend due to a scheduling conflict on my end. Just wanted to drop in and add my support for your proposed next step with the PATCG, and I plan to attend future sessions on this work in whatever format emerges.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

I think aiming to move this discussion into PAT CG makes sense. I also do strongly feel that we need a dedicated stream that will go in depth in the MPC solutions which is separate from high level discussions about functionality. And this discussion should be happening before bringing it to IETF in order to be able to iterate and be more flexible.

from privacy-preserving-ads.

We'll discuss this more in this week's PAT CG meeting: patcg/meetings#9.

from privacy-preserving-ads.