CSET

Talking Past Progress: Discussions on Privacy Policy from the Academic Perspective

Autumn Toney

July 24, 2023

Collaborations between researchers and policymakers are necessary for progress, but can be challenging in practice. This blog post reports on recent discussions by privacy experts on the obstacles they face when engaging in the policy space and advice on how to improve these barriers.

During the 23rd Privacy Enhancing Technology Symposium, privacy experts Dr. Susan Landau, Dr. Carmela Troncoso, and Dr. Serge Egelman led a one-hour Ask Me Anything (AMA) session for symposium participants. PETS is a conference focused on privacy technology research, with publications ranging from censorship techniques to privacy perceptions. Audience members asked questions on issues such as academic ethical responsibility, establishing federal privacy laws, and inclusion of interdisciplinary research in conference calls for papers. 

Similar to the findings presented in a recent CSET data brief, The Inigo Montoya Problem for Trustworthy AI, the panelists emphasized that academics and policymakers have not yet established agreed-upon definitions for terminology surrounding key ideas within the privacy space, making it difficult for the two groups to work together effectively. Landau and Troncoso pointed out how language can be a barrier to enacting effective privacy policy and conducting interdisciplinary research, highlighting the importance of a shared language. Landau, the director of the M.S. in Cybersecurity and Public Policy program at Tufts University, emphasized the need for graduate students to learn policy language alongside the technical curriculum, noting that it is essential to understand policymakers’ vocabulary and mindset. Researchers are traditionally constrained to black and white problem spaces, Landau explained. “We think in binary,” she observed. “[Policymakers] don’t–it’s all gray.” When asked how the privacy community can get involved in policy, Troncoso recommended that researchers engage in policy conversations outside of academia to “get the language that [policymakers] speak, which is not our language.”

How Policymakers Can Engage with the PETs Community

With the conversation focused on how the academic community can participate in policy development, I asked the panel a question with the converse framing: what can policymakers do to better interact with the privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) community, or more broadly, the academic community?

Egelman suggested that staffers should be sent to conferences like PETS regardless of their technical background. Troncoso acknowledged that for both groups, participating in each other’s communities is difficult because each lacks the necessary knowledge to actively listen and participate as they do in their area of expertise. She encouraged both groups to be more open-minded and willing to become comfortable with the unknown, working towards mutual interdisciplinary understanding. Lastly, Landau reminded the audience to be eager to work alongside policymakers –as such collaborations are in both communities’ best interests and should be prioritized. 

When Troncoso was asked how she organized her collaborative work with the Red Cross, she encouraged researchers to “get out of our comfort zone” and attend events, programs, and meetings where we can ask humanitarian organizations what they need. This approach, she pointed out, allows researchers to build projects around these real-world problems versus trying to fit their research agendas into solutions for current challenges. The panelists addressed the obstacles in prioritizing these types of collaborations, as the academic business model pushes for high volumes of scientific publications in top-tier venues, as opposed to interdisciplinary work with lower scientific value but significant societal impact.

Law and Policy Research

In addition to the AMA session, PETS facilitated paper presentation sessions on 17 topics over the three day conference, one of which was law and policy research. This session was a collection of papers that  provided insights into current privacy law and regulation enforcement, as opposed to technical contributions in the privacy space. The following six papers on privacy policy were presented:

Related Content

Data Brief

The Inigo Montoya Problem for Trustworthy AI

 June 2023

When the technology and policy communities use terms associated with trustworthy AI, could they be talking past one another? This paper examines the use of trustworthy AI keywords and the potential for an “Inigo Montoya problem” in trustworthy AI, inspired by "The Princess Bride" movie quote: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Data Brief

Who Cares About Trust?

 July 2023

Artificial intelligence-enabled systems are transforming society and driving an intense focus on what policy and technical communities can do to ensure that those systems are trustworthy and used responsibly. This analysis draws on prior work about the use of trustworthy AI terms to identify 18 clusters of research papers that contribute to the development of trustworthy AI. In identifying these clusters, the analysis also reveals that some concepts, like "explainability," are forming distinct research areas, whereas other concepts, like "reliability," appear to be accepted as metrics and broadly applied.

Analysis

A Common Language for Responsible AI

 October 2022

Policymakers, engineers, program managers and operators need the bedrock of a common set of terms to instantiate responsible AI for the Department of Defense. Rather than create a DOD-specific set of terms, this paper argues that the DOD could benefit by adopting the key characteristics defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in its draft AI Risk Management Framework with only two exceptions.

Analysis

Ethics and Artificial Intelligence

 April 2021

The law plays a vital role in how artificial intelligence can be developed and used in ethical ways. But the law is not enough when it contains gaps due to lack of a federal nexus, interest, or the political will to legislate. And law may be too much if it imposes regulatory rigidity and burdens when flexibility and innovation are required. Sound ethical codes and principles concerning AI can help fill legal gaps. In this paper, CSET Distinguished Fellow James E. Baker offers a primer on the limits and promise of three mechanisms to help shape a regulatory regime that maximizes the benefits of AI and minimizes its potential harms.