Assessing differentially private deep learning with Membership Inference
  Attacks that aim to identify the training data of public neural networks
represent a severe threat to the privacy of individuals participating in the
training data set. A possible protection is offered by anonymization of the
training data or training function with differential privacy. However, data
scientists can choose between local and central differential privacy and need
to select meaningful privacy parameters $\epsilon$ which is challenging for
non-privacy experts. We empirically compare local and central differential
privacy mechanisms under white- and black-box membership inference to evaluate
their relative privacy-accuracy trade-offs. We experiment with several datasets
and show that this trade-off is similar for both types of mechanisms. This
suggests that local differential privacy is a sound alternative to central
differential privacy for differentially private deep learning, since small
$\epsilon$ in central differential privacy and large $\epsilon$ in local
differential privacy result in similar membership inference attack risk.
