Algorithmic Transparency: End Secret Profiling

Top News

• Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Use of Sentencing Algorithms, But Recognizes Risks: The Wisconsin Supreme Court this week rejected a challenge to the use of a risk-assessment algorithm in a sentencing proceeding. These algorithms score an individual's risk of committing future crime. The Court sanctioned the use of such algorithms, provided they are not the exclusive determining factor of a sentence, and judges receive written warnings about the algorithm's shortcomings. Professor Danielle Citron warned that the court's faith in the secret techniques is "unwarranted" particularly because "human beings have a tendency to rely on automated decisions even when they suspect system malfunction." EPIC has advocated for algorithmic transparency and maintains a website describing the use of algorithms in the criminal justice system. (Jul. 16, 2016)
• White House Report Points to Risks with Big Data: A new White House report "Big Data: A Report on Algorithmic Systems, Opportunity, and Civil Rights" points to risks with big data analytics. According to the authors, "[t]he algorithmic systems that turn data into information are not infallible--they rely on the imperfect inputs, logic, probability, and people who design them." An earlier White House report warned of "the potential of encoding discrimination in automated decisions." EPIC launched a campaign on "Algorithmic Transparency" after warning about the risks of secretive decision making coupled with "big data." (May. 5, 2016)

More top news

At UNESCO, EPIC's Rotenberg Argues for Algorithmic Transparency (Dec. 8, 2015) +

Speaking at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, EPIC President Marc Rotenberg explained that algorithms, complex mathematical formulas, have an increasing impact on people's lives in such areas as commerce, employment, education, and housing. He warned that processes would continue to become more opaque as more decision making was automated. He said to experts in Freedom of Expression, Communication, and Information at UNESCO that "knowledge of the algorithm is a fundamental right, a human right," EPIC has launched a new program on Algorithmic Transparency, building on the work of several members of the EPIC Advisory Board.

EPIC Pursues Public Release of Secret DNA Forensic Source Code (Oct. 14, 2015) +

EPIC has filed public records requests in six states to obtain the source code of "TrueAllele," a software product used in DNA forensic analysis. According to recent news reports, law enforcement officials use TrueAllele test results to establish guilt, but individuals accused of crimes are denied access to the source code that produces the results. A similar program used by New Zealand prosecutors was recently found to have a coding error that provided incorrect results in 60 cases, including a high-profile murder case. EPIC has previously urged the US Supreme Court to carefully consider the reliability of new investigative techniques and argued a federal appeals case against DNA dragnet surveillance. Citing the importance of algorithmic transparency in the criminal justice system, EPIC filed requests in California, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

EPIC Pursues Lawsuit about Secret Government Profiling Program (Aug. 11, 2015) +

EPIC has filed a reply brief in federal court, rebutting the government's claim that it can withhold information about automated profiling. In EPIC v. CBP, a Freedom of Information Act case, EPIC seeks documents about the "Analytical Framework for Intelligence," which incorporates personal information from government agencies, commercial data brokers, and the Internet. The agency then uses secret, analytic tools to assign "risk assessments" to travelers, including U.S. citizens traveling solely within the United States. EPIC submitted a FOIA request in 2014 for documents relating the framework. EPIC has called for "algorithmic transparency" in automated decisions concerning individuals.

Facebook Applies for Patent to Collect Users' Credit Scores (Aug. 5, 2015) +

Facebook has applied for a patent that would allow lenders to make credit decisions on a user based on the user's Facebook activity. If the patent is approved, Facebook will be able to collect the credit scores of a user's "friends" and supply a creditor with their average score. If that average is below a certain threshold, the lender will reject the application. EPIC has filed extensive comments with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, urging the agency to limit the amount of information creditors can access about consumers. EPIC has called for algorithmic transparency in automated decisions concerning individuals.

EPIC Pursues Documents about Secret Government Profiling Program (Jul. 1, 2015) +

EPIC has filed papers in federal court challenging the government's claim that it can withhold information about automated profiling. In EPIC v. CBP, a Freedom of Information Act case, EPIC seeks documents about the "Analytical Framework for Intelligence" which incorporates personal information from government agencies, commercial data brokers, and the Internet. The agency then uses secret, analytic tools to assign "risk assessments" to travelers, including U.S. citizens traveling solely within the United States. EPIC has called for "algorithmic transparency" in automated decisions concerning individuals.

White House Report on "Big Data" Explores Price Discrimination, Opaque Decisionmaking (Feb. 5, 2015) +

A White House report on Big Data and Differential Pricing released today examines new forms of discrimination resulting from big data analytics. The White House explained the risks to consumers, acknowledged the failure of self-regulatory efforts, and called for greater transparency and consumer control over their personal information. Last year, EPIC and a coalition of NGOs urged the President to establish privacy protections - including "algorithmic transparency", consumer control, and robust privacy techniques - to address Big Data risks.

Senators Challenge Verizon's Secret Mobile Tracking Program (Jan. 30, 2015) +

In a letter to Verizon, Senators on the Commerce Committee challenged the company's practice of placing a "super cookie" oncustomers' smartphones. The letter follows the recent discovery that the advertising company Turn was secretly tracking Verizon customers, even after customers deleted its cookies. In the letter, the Senators asked Verizon to stop tracking users with undeletable cookies. EPIC has urged the White House and the Federal Trade Commission to limit the use of persistent identifiers. EPIC supports opt-in requirements and Privacy Enhancing Techniques for consumers, and algorithmic transparency for data collectors.

EPIC Urges House to Safeguard Consumer Privacy (Jan. 26, 2015) +

EPIC has sent a statement to the House Commerce Committee for the hearing, "What are the Elements of Sound Data Breach Legislation?". EPIC had testified before the House Committee in 2011 on data breach notification, urging Congress to set a national baseline standard. EPIC also supports enactment of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. EPIC also urged the House Committee to promote "algorithmic transparency." EPIC has warned that “[t]he ongoing collection of personal information in the United States without sufficient privacy safeguards has led to staggering increases in identity theft,security breaches, and financial fraud.”

Facebook Modifies User Privacy Policy (Jan. 2, 2015) +

Facebook has modified its privacy and data use policies, effective January 1, 2015. Facebook will now allow advertisers to include a “buy” button directly on targeted advertisements on a user’s page. Facebook will also allow advertisers to use the location data gathered from tools like “Nearby Friends” and location "check-ins” to push geolocation-based targeted advertisements. For instance, a Facebook user who checks in near a restaurant that partners with Facebook may now be shown menu items from that restaurant. Last month, the Dutch data protection commission announced that it planned to open an investigation into Facebook’s policy modifications. In July 2014, EPIC and a coalition of consumer privacy groups urged the FTC to halt Facebook’s plan to collect web-browsing information from its users. Facebook is already under a 20 year consent decree from the FTC that requires Facebook to protect user privacy. The consent decree resulted from complaints brought by EPIC and a coalition of consumer privacy organizations in 2009 and 2010. For more information, see EPIC: Facebook Privacy; and EPIC: FTC.

Resources

• EPIC: Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System
• Alessandro Acquisti, Why Privacy Matters (Jun 2013)
• Alessandro Acquisti, Ralph Gross, Fred Stutzman, Faces of Facebook: Privacy in the Age of Augmented Reality (Aug. 4, 2011)
• Alessandro Acquisti, Price Discrimination, Privacy Technologies, and User Acceptance (2006)
• Steven Aftergood, “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic Government,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (Apr. 30, 2008)
• Phil Agre, Your Face Is Not a Bar Code: Arguments Against Automatic Face Recognition in Public Places
• Ross Anderson, The Collection, Linking and Use of Data in Biomedical Research and Health Care: Ethical Issues (Feb. 2015)
• James Bamford, The Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America (2009)
• Grayson Barber, How Transparency Protects Privacy in Government Records (May 2011) (with Frank L. Corrado)
• Colin Bennett, Transparent Lives: Surveillance in Canada
• danah boyd, Networked Privacy (2012)
• David Burnham, The Rise of the Computer State (1983)
• Julie E. Cohen, Power/play: Discussion of Configuring the Networked Self, 6 Jerusalem Rev. Legal Stud. 137-149 (2012)
• Julie E. Cohen, Julie E. Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press 2012)
• Julie E. Cohen, Privacy, Visibility, Transparency, and Exposure (2008)
• Danielle Keats CItron & Frank Pasquale, The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions, 89 Washington Law Review (2014) 1
• Cynthia Dwork & Aaron Roth, The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy, 9(4) Theoretical Computer Science (2014) 211 
• David J. Farber & Gerald R Faulhaber, The Open Internet: A Consumer-Centric Framework 
• Ed Felten, Algorithms can be more accountable than people, Freedom to Tinker  
• Ed Felten, David G Robinson, Harlan Yu & William P Zeller, Government Data and the Invisible Hand, 11 Yale Journal of Law & Technology (2009) 160
• Ed Felten, CITP Web Privacy and Transparency Conference Panel 2
  
• A Michael Froomkin, The Death of Privacy, 52 Stanford Law Review (2000)  1461 
• Urs Gasser et. al., ed, Internet Monitor 2014; Reflections on the Digital World Berkman Center for Internet and Society 
• Urs Gasser, Regulating Search Engines: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead, 9 YALE J.L. & TECH. 124 (2006)  
• Jeff Jonas, Using Transparency as a Mask, (Aug. 4, 2010) 
• Jeff Jonas & Ann Cavoukian, Privacy by Design in the Age of Big Data (Jun. 8, 2010)
• Ian Kerr, Privacy, Identity and Anonymity (Sep. 1, 2011 )
• Dr Ian Kerr Prediction, Presumption, Preemption: The Path of Law After the Computational Turn (Jul. 30, 2011)
• Rebeca MacKinnon, Where is Microsoft Bing’s Transparency Report? The Guardian (Feb. 14, 2014)
• Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Jan. 5, 2015)
• Frank Pasquale, The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions, 89 Washington Law Review 1 (2014) (with Danielle Citron)
• Frank Pasquale, Restoring Transparency to Automated Authority, 9 Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 235 (2011)
• Frank Pasquale, Beyond Innovation and Competition: The Need for Qualified Transparency in Internet Intermediaries, 104 Northwestern University Law Review 105 (2010)
• Frank Pasquale, Internet Nondiscrimination Principles: Commercial Ethics for Carriers and Search Engines, 2008 University of Chicago Legal Forum 263 (2008)
• Bruce Schneier, Accountable Algorithms (Sep. 21, 2012)
  
• Latanya Sweeney, Privacy Enhanced Linking, ACM SIGKDD Explorations 7(2) (Dec. 2005)
• Tim Wu, TNR Debate: Too Much Transparency? New Republic