Human motion is a behavioral biometric trait that can be used to identify individuals and infer private attributes such as medical conditions. This poses a serious threat to privacy as motion extraction from video and motion capture are increasingly used for a variety of applications, including mixed reality, robotics, medicine, and the quantified self. In order to protect the privacy of the tracked individuals, anonymization techniques that preserve the utility of the data are required. However, anonymizing motion data is a challenging task because there are many dependencies in motion sequences (such as physiological constraints) that, if ignored, make the anonymized motion sequence appear unnatural. In this paper, we propose Pantomime, a full-body anonymization technique for motion data, which uses foundation motion models to generate motion sequences that adhere to the dependencies in the data, thus keeping the utility of the anonymized data high. Our results show that Pantomime can maintain the naturalness of the motion sequences while reducing the identification accuracy to 10%.

Smart cities promise safer streets, smoother traffic, and more efficient services, enabled by dense networks of urban sensors. Yet this infrastructure, often unnoticed by citizens, introduces pervasive privacy risks, from tracking, profiling, and sensitive inferences to subtle forms of self-censorship. Despite widespread deployment, little is known about how the public understands and perceives these sensing systems. To address this gap, we present an intervention based user study (n = 172) in which participants are exposed to data collection by six urban sensors, including cameras and alternative technologies commonly framed as privacy-preserving. Participants encounter either the sensors alone or sensors accompanied by real-time data visualizations. Our results reveal widespread misunderstanding of some sensors (radar, LiDAR, Wi-Fi, depth, and thermal imaging sensors), particularly their capacity for identification and for attribute inferences such as gender or age. We also identify persistent misconceptions, including the belief that Wi-Fi poses privacy risks only when users connect to public networks. While making sensors visible and visualizing collected data improves privacy awareness, these measures alone are not enough for citizens to understand the actual risks of urban sensing. We derive recommendations for privacy-respecting smart city environments grounded in citizens’ informational needs and expectations.

Beamforming, as introduced in WiFi 5, requires clients to broadcast observations of their channel characteristics. This introduces a new information source for WiFi sensing with privacy threats that have not been explored, so far. With WiFi networks being ubiquitous in our everyday lives, the impact of unknown privacy threats is likely severe. To investigate this concern, we introduce BFId, the first identity inference attack using BFI-based sensing and evaluate its efficacy on a novel dataset containing WiFi recordings of 197 individuals. We show that we can infer the identity of individuals with very high accuracy, across different walking styles and perspectives, even with large sample sizes.

Biometric data contains distinctive human traits such as facial features or gait patterns. The use of biometric data permits an individuation so exact that the data is utilized effectively in identification and authentication systems. But for this same reason, privacy protections become indispensably necessary. Privacy protection is extensively afforded by the technique of anonymization. Anonymization techniques protect sensitive personal data from biometrics by obfuscating or removing information that allows linking records to the generating individuals, to achieve high levels of anonymity. However, our understanding and possibility to develop effective anonymization relies, in equal parts, on the effectiveness of the methods employed to evaluate anonymization performance. In this paper, we assess the state-of-the-art methods used to evaluate the performance of anonymization techniques for facial images and for gait patterns. We demonstrate that the state-of-the-art evaluation methods have serious and frequent shortcomings. In particular, we find that the underlying assumptions of the state-of-the-art are quite unwarranted. State-of-the-art methods generally assume a difficult recognition scenario and thus a weak adversary. However, that assumption causes state-of-the-art evaluations to grossly overestimate the performance of the anonymization. Therefore, we propose a strong adversary which is aware of the anonymization in place. This adversary model implements an appropriate measure of anonymization performance. We improve the selection process for the evaluation dataset, and we reduce the numbers of identities contained in the dataset while ensuring that these identities remain easily distinguishable from one another. Our novel evaluation methodology surpasses the state-of-the-art because we measure worst-case performance and so deliver a highly reliable evaluation of biometric anonymization techniques.

Face images are a rich source of information that can be used to identify individuals and infer private information about them. To mitigate this privacy risk, anonymizations employ transformations on clear images to obfuscate sensitive information, all while retaining some utility. Albeit published with impressive claims, they sometimes are not evaluated with convincing methodology. Reversing anonymized images to resemble their real input --- and even be identified by face recognition approaches --- represents the strongest indicator for flawed anonymization. Some recent results indeed indicate that this is possible for some approaches. It is, however, not well understood, which approaches are reversible, and why. In this paper, we provide an exhaustive investigation in the phenomenon of face anonymization reversibility. Among other things, we find that 11 out of 15 tested face anonymizations are at least partially reversible and highlight how both reconstruction and inversion are the underlying processes that make reversal possible.