One of the papers workshopped at PLSC was Ari Ezra
Waldman’s paper, Designing Without Privacy. Ari’s paper, which will be published in Houston
Law Review, won the Best Paper Award from IAPP.
Here’s the abstract:
In Privacy on the Ground, the law
and information scholars Kenneth Bamberger and Deirdre Mulligan showed that
empowered chief privacy officers (CPOs) are pushing their companies to take
consumer privacy seriously, integrating privacy into the designs of new
technologies. But their work was just
the beginning of a larger research agenda. CPOs may set policies at the top, but they
alone cannot embed robust privacy norms into the corporate ethos, practice, and
routine. As such, if we want the mobile
apps, websites, robots, and smart devices we use to respect our privacy, we need
to institutionalize privacy throughout the corporations that make them. In
particular, privacy must be a priority among those actually doing the work of
design on the ground — namely, engineers, computer programmers, and
other technologists.
This Article presents findings
from an ethnographic study of how, if at all, technologists doing the work of
technology product design think about privacy, integrate privacy into their
work, and consider user needs in the design process. It also
looks at how attorneys at private firms draft privacy notices for their clients.
Based on these findings, this Article
presents a narrative running in parallel to the one described by Bamberger and
Mulligan. This alternative account,
where privacy is narrow, limited, and barely factoring into design, helps
explain why so many products seem to ignore our privacy expectations. The Article then proposes a framework for
understanding how factors both exogenous (theory and law) and endogenous
(corporate structure and individual cognitive frames and experience) to the
corporation prevent the CPOs’ robust privacy norms from diffusing throughout
technology companies and the industry as a whole. This framework also helps elucidate how
reforms at every level — theory, law, organization, and individual experience —
can incentivize companies to take privacy seriously, enhance organizational
learning, and eliminate the cognitive biases that lead to discrimination in
design.
You can access and download the full paper here.
What the government knows and when it knew it.
Paul Otto and Brian Kennedy report:
Earlier this month, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a technology
assessment of the Internet of Things (IoT) for Congressional members of the
IoT Caucus. The GAO report offers an
introduction to IoT; reviews the many uses and their associated benefits that
connected devices may bring to consumers, industry, and the public sector; and
highlights the potential implications of the use of IoT, including information
security challenges, privacy challenges, and government oversight. The report also identifies areas of apparent
consensus among experts regarding the challenges posed by IoT, though the
appropriate responses are disputed. Accordingly,
the report may act as a foundation for future policymaker discussions about
regulating IoT.
Read more on Hogan Lovells Chronicle
of Data Protection.
Horror, SciFi style.
Futurist David Brin: Get ready for the ‘first robotic empathy
crisis’
… “The first
robotic empathy crisis is going to happen very soon,” Brin said. “Within three to five years we will have
entities either in the physical world or online who demand human empathy, who
claim to be fully intelligent and claim to be enslaved beings, enslaved
artificial intelligences, and who sob and demand their rights.”
Thousands upon thousands of protesters will be in the
streets demanding rights for AI, Brin predicts, and those who aren’t
immediately convinced will be analyzed.
“If they fool 40 percent of people but 60 percent of
people aren’t fooled, all they have to do is use the data on those 60 percent
of people and their reactions to find out why they weren’t fooled. It’s going to be a trivial problem to solve
and we are going to be extremely vulnerable to it,” he said.
In a very subtle way, Dilbert has finally explained
government bureaucracy to me. I wonder
if President Trump sees the White House as “idiot free?”
No comments:
Post a Comment