Congress should designate an entity to oversee data security, GAO says

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Matt Bracken: “Federal agencies may need to rethink how they handle individuals’ personal data to protect their civil rights and civil liberties, a congressional watchdog said in a new report Tuesday.

Without federal guidance governing the protection of the public’s civil rights and liberties, agencies have pursued a patchwork system of policies tied to the collection, sharing and use of data, the Government Accountability Office said. 

To address that problem head-on, the GAO is recommending that Congress select “an appropriate federal entity” to produce guidance or regulations regarding data protection that would apply to all agencies, giving that entity “the explicit authority to make needed technical and policy choices or explicitly stating Congress’s own choices.”

That recommendation was formed after the GAO sent a questionnaire to all 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies asking for information about their use of emerging technologies and data capabilities and how they’re guaranteeing that personally identifiable information is safeguarded.

The GAO found that 16 of those CFO Act agencies have policies or procedures in place to protect civil rights and civil liberties with regard to data use, while the other eight have not taken steps to do the same.

The most commonly cited issues for agencies in their efforts to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of the public were “complexities in handling protections associated with new and emerging technologies” and “a lack of qualified staff possessing needed skills in civil rights, civil liberties, and emerging technologies.”

“Further, eight of the 24 agencies believed that additional government-wide law or guidance would strengthen consistency in addressing civil rights and civil liberties protections,” the GAO wrote. “One agency noted that such guidance could eliminate the hodge-podge approach to the governance of data and technology.”

All 24 CFO Act agencies have internal offices to “handle the protection of the public’s civil rights as identified in federal laws,” with much of that work centered on the handling of civil rights violations and related complaints. Four agencies — the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and Education — have offices to specifically manage civil liberty protections across their entire agencies. The other 20 agencies have mostly adopted a “decentralized approach to protecting civil liberties, including when collecting, sharing, and using data,” the GAO noted…(More)”.

The New Artificial Intelligentsia

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Ruha Benjamin: “In the Fall of 2016, I gave a talk at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton titled “Are Robots Racist?” Headlines such as “Can Computers Be Racist? The Human-Like Bias of Algorithms,” “Artificial Intelligence’s White Guy Problem,” and “Is an Algorithm Any Less Racist Than a Human?” had captured my attention in the months before. What better venue to discuss the growing concerns about emerging technologies, I thought, than an institution established during the early rise of fascism in Europe, which once housed intellectual giants like J. Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein, and prides itself on “protecting and promoting independent inquiry.”

My initial remarks focused on how emerging technologies reflect and reproduce social inequities, using specific examples of what some termed “algorithmic discrimination” and “machine bias.” A lively discussion ensued. The most memorable exchange was with a mathematician who politely acknowledged the importance of the issues I raised but then assured me that “as AI advances, it will eventually show us how to address these problems.” Struck by his earnest faith in technology as a force for good, I wanted to sputter, “But what about those already being harmed by the deployment of experimental AI in healthcare, education, criminal justice, and more—are they expected to wait for a mythical future where sentient systems act as sage stewards of humanity?”

Fast-forward almost 10 years, and we are living in the imagination of AI evangelists racing to build artificial general intelligence (AGI), even as they warn of its potential to destroy us. This gospel of love and fear insists on “aligning” AI with human values to rein in these digital deities. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, echoed the sentiment of my IAS colleague: “We are improving our AI systems’ ability to learn from human feedback and to assist humans at evaluating AI. Our goal is to build a sufficiently aligned AI system that can help us solve all other alignment problems.” They envision a time when, eventually, “our AI systems can take over more and more of our alignment work and ultimately conceive, implement, study, and develop better alignment techniques than we have now. They will work together with humans to ensure that their own successors are more aligned with humans.” For many, this is not reassuring…(More)”.

Advancing Data Equity: An Action-Oriented Framework

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

WEF Report: “Automated decision-making systems based on algorithms and data are increasingly common today, with profound implications for individuals, communities and society. More than ever before, data equity is a shared responsibility that requires collective action to create data practices and systems that promote fair and just outcomes for all.

This paper, produced by members of the Global Future Council on Data Equity, proposes a data equity definition and framework for inquiry that spurs ongoing dialogue and continuous action towards implementing data equity in organizations. This framework serves as a dynamic tool for stakeholders committed to operationalizing data equity, across various sectors and regions, given the rapidly evolving data and technology landscapes…(More)”.

Geographies of missing data: Spatializing counterdata production against feminicide

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Catherine D’Ignazio et al: “Feminicide is the gender-related killing of cisgender and transgender women and girls. It reflects patriarchal and racialized systems of oppression and reveals how territories and socio-economic landscapes configure everyday gender-related violence. In recent decades, many grassroots data production initiatives have emerged with the aim of monitoring this extreme but invisibilized phenomenon. We bridge scholarship in feminist and information geographies with data feminism to examine the ways in which space, broadly defined, shapes the counterdata production strategies of feminicide data activists. Drawing on a qualitative study of 33 monitoring efforts led by civil society organizations across 15 countries, primarily in Latin America, we provide a conceptual framework for examining the spatial dimensions of data activism. We show how there are striking transnational patterns related to where feminicide goes unrecorded, resulting in geographies of missing data. In response to these omissions, activists deploy multiple spatialized strategies to make these geographies visible, to situate and contextualize each case of feminicide, to reclaim databases as spaces for memory and witnessing, and to build transnational networks of solidarity. In this sense, we argue that data activism about feminicide constitutes a space of resistance and resignification of everyday forms of gender-related violence…(More)”.

Generative Discrimination: What Happens When Generative AI Exhibits Bias, and What Can Be Done About It

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Philipp Hacker, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, Brent Mittelstadt and Sandra Wachter: “Generative AI (genAI) technologies, while beneficial, risk increasing discrimination by producing demeaning content and subtle biases through inadequate representation of protected groups. This chapter examines these issues, categorizing problematic outputs into three legal categories: discriminatory content; harassment; and legally hard cases like harmful stereotypes. It argues for holding genAI providers and deployers liable for discriminatory outputs and highlights the inadequacy of traditional legal frameworks to address genAI-specific issues. The chapter suggests updating EU laws to mitigate biases in training and input data, mandating testing and auditing, and evolving legislation to enforce standards for bias mitigation and inclusivity as technology advances…(More)”.

How the Rise of the Camera Launched a Fight to Protect Gilded Age Americans’ Privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sohini Desai: “In 1904, a widow named Elizabeth Peck had her portrait taken at a studio in a small Iowa town. The photographer sold the negatives to Duffy’s Pure Malt Whiskey, a company that avoided liquor taxes for years by falsely advertising its product as medicinal. Duffy’s ads claimed the fantastical: that it cured everything from influenza to consumption, that it was endorsed by clergymen, that it could help you live until the age of 106. The portrait of Peck ended up in one of these dubious ads, published in newspapers across the country alongside what appeared to be her unqualified praise: “After years of constant use of your Pure Malt Whiskey, both by myself and as given to patients in my capacity as nurse, I have no hesitation in recommending it.”

Duffy’s lies were numerous. Peck (misleadingly identified as “Mrs. A. Schuman”) was not a nurse, and she had not spent years constantly slinging back malt beverages. In fact, she fully abstained from alcohol. Peck never consented to the ad.

The camera’s first great age—which began in 1888 when George Eastman debuted the Kodak—is full of stories like this one. Beyond the wonders of a quickly developing art form and technology lay widespread lack of control over one’s own image, perverse incentives to make a quick buck, and generalized fear at the prospect of humiliation and the invasion of privacy…(More)”.

A lack of data hampers efforts to fix racial disparities in utility cutoffs

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Akielly Hu: “Each year, nearly 1.3 million households across the country have their electricity shut off because they cannot pay their bill. Beyond risking the health, or even lives, of those who need that energy to power medical devices and inconveniencing people in myriad ways, losing power poses a grave threat during a heat wave or cold snap.

Such disruptions tend to disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic families, a point underscored by a recent study that found customers of Minnesota’s largest electricity utility who live in communities of color were more than three times as likely to experience a shutoff than those in predominantly white neighborhoods. The finding, by University of Minnesota researchers, held even when accounting for income, poverty level, and homeownership. 

Energy policy researchers say they consistently see similar racial disparities nationwide, but a lack of empirical data to illustrate the problem is hindering efforts to address the problem. Only 30 states require utilities to report disconnections, and of those, only a handful provide data revealing where they happen. As climate change brings hotter temperatures, more frequent cold snaps, and other extremes in weather, energy analysts and advocates for disadvantaged communities say understanding these disparities and providing equitable access to reliable power will become ever more important…(More)”.

Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data (GID)

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Framework by The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA): “Australian Public Service agencies now have a single Framework for working with Indigenous data.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency will collaborate across the Australian Public Service to implement the Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data in 2024.

Commonwealth agencies are expected to develop a seven-year implementation plan, guided by four principles:

  1. Partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
  2. Build data-related capabilities
  3. Provide knowledge of data assets
  4. Build an inclusive data system

The Framework represents the culmination of over 18 months of co-design effort between the Australian Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partners. While we know we have some way to go, the Framework serves as a significant step forward to improve the collection, use and disclosure of data, to better serve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander priorities.

The Framework places Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at its core. Recognising the importance of authentic engagement, it emphasises the need for First Nations communities to have a say in decisions affecting them, including the use of data in government policy-making.

Acknowledging data’s significance in self-determination, the Framework provides a stepping stone towards greater awareness and acceptance by Australian Government agencies of the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

It offers practical guidance on implementing key aspects of data governance aligned with both Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles and the objectives of the Australian Government…(More)”.

Using ChatGPT to Facilitate Truly Informed Medical Consent

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Fatima N. Mirza: “Informed consent is integral to the practice of medicine. Most informed consent documents are written at a reading level that surpasses the reading comprehension level of the average American. Large language models, a type of artificial intelligence (AI) with the ability to summarize and revise content, present a novel opportunity to make the language used in consent forms more accessible to the average American and thus, improve the quality of informed consent. In this study, we present the experience of the largest health care system in the state of Rhode Island in implementing AI to improve the readability of informed consent documents, highlighting one tangible application for emerging AI in the clinical setting…(More)”.

The tensions of data sharing for human rights: A modern slavery case study

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jamie Hancock et al: “There are calls for greater data sharing to address human rights issues. Advocates claim this will provide an evidence-base to increase transparency, improve accountability, enhance decision-making, identify abuses, and offer remedies for rights violations. However, these well-intentioned efforts have been found to sometimes enable harms against the people they seek to protect. This paper shows issues relating to fairness, accountability, or transparency (FAccT) in and around data sharing can produce such ‘ironic’ consequences. It does so using an empirical case study: efforts to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking in the UK. We draw on a qualitative analysis of expert interviews, workshops, ecosystem mapping exercises, and a desk-based review. The findings show how, in the UK, a large ecosystem of data providers, hubs, and users emerged to process and exchange data from across the country. We identify how issues including legal uncertainties, non-transparent sharing procedures, and limited accountability regarding downstream uses of data may undermine efforts to tackle modern slavery and place victims of abuses at risk of further harms. Our findings help explain why data sharing activities can have negative consequences for human rights, even within human rights initiatives. Moreover, our analysis offers a window into how FAccT principles for technology relate to the human rights implications of data sharing. Finally, we discuss why these tensions may be echoed in other areas where data sharing is pursued for human rights concerns, identifying common features which may lead to similar results, especially where sensitive data is shared to achieve social goods or policy objectives…(More)”.