A False Sense of Privacy: Evaluating Textual Data Sanitization Beyond Surface-level Privacy Leakage

Sanitizing sensitive text data typically involves removing personally identifiable information (PII) or generating synthetic data under the assumption that these methods adequately protect privacy; however, their effectiveness is often only assessed by measuring the leakage of explicit identifiers but ignoring nuanced textual markers that can lead to re-identification. We challenge the above illusion of privacy by proposing a new framework that evaluates re-identification attacks to quantify individual privacy risks upon data release. Our approach shows that seemingly innocuous auxiliary information -- such as routine social activities -- can be used to infer sensitive attributes like age or substance use history from sanitized data. For instance, we demonstrate that Azure's commercial PII removal tool fails to protect 74\% of information in the MedQA dataset. Although differential privacy mitigates these risks to some extent, it significantly reduces the utility of the sanitized text for downstream tasks. Our findings indicate that current sanitization techniques offer a \textit{false sense of privacy}, highlighting the need for more robust methods that protect against semantic-level information leakage.

Do Membership Inference Attacks Work on Large Language Models?

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) attempt to predict whether a particular datapoint is a member of a target model's training data. Despite extensive research on traditional machine learning models, there has been limited work studying MIA on the pre-training data of large language models (LLMs). We perform a large-scale evaluation of MIAs over a suite of language models (LMs) trained on the Pile, ranging from 160M to 12B parameters. We find that MIAs barely outperform random guessing for most settings across varying LLM sizes and domains. Our further analyses reveal that this poor performance can be attributed to (1) the combination of a large dataset and few training iterations, and (2) an inherently fuzzy boundary between members and non-members. We identify specific settings where LLMs have been shown to be vulnerable to membership inference and show that the apparent success in such settings can be attributed to a distribution shift, such as when members and non-members are drawn from the seemingly identical domain but with different temporal ranges. We release our code and data as a unified benchmark package that includes all existing MIAs, supporting future work.