Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFairness and Data Protection Impact Assessments
278
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Atoosa Kasirzadeh
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In this paper, we critically examine the effectiveness of the requirement to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in Article 35 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in light of fairness metrics. Through this analysis, we explore the role of the fairness principle as introduced in Article 5(1)(a) and its multifaceted interpretation in the obligation to conduct a DPIA. Our paper argues that although there is a significant theoretical role for the considerations of fairness in the DPIA process, an analysis of the various guidance documents issued by data protection authorities on the obligation to conduct a DPIA reveals that they rarely mention the fairness principle in practice.
rate research
Read More
Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to help humans make decisions in high-stakes settings, such as medicine, criminal justice and education. In each of these cases, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to inform actions, such as medical treatments or release conditions, often with the aim of reducing the likelihood of an adverse event such as hospital readmission or recidivism. Problematically, most tools are trained and evaluated on historical data in which the outcomes observed depend on the historical decision-making policy. These tools thus reflect risk under the historical policy, rather than under the different decision options that the tool is intended to inform. Even when tools are constructed to predict risk under a specific decision, they are often improperly evaluated as predictors of the target outcome. Focusing on the evaluation task, in this paper we define counterfactual analogues of common predictive performance and algorithmic fairness metrics that we argue are better suited for the decision-making context. We introduce a new method for estimating the proposed metrics using doubly robust estimation. We provide theoretical results that show that only under strong conditions can fairness according to the standard metric and the counterfactual metric simultaneously hold. Consequently, fairness-promoting methods that target parity in a standard fairness metric may --- and as we show empirically, do --- induce greater imbalance in the counterfactual analogue. We provide empirical comparisons on both synthetic data and a real world child welfare dataset to demonstrate how the proposed method improves upon standard practice.
Privacy protection in digital databases does not demand that data should not be collected, stored or used, but that there should be guarantees that the data can only be used for pre-approved and legitimate purposes. We argue that a data protection law based on traditional understanding of privacy protection and detection of privacy infringements is unlikely to be successful, and that what is required is a law based on an understanding of the architectural requirements of authorisation, audit and access control in real-time. Despite the protection principles being sound, privacy protection in digital databases has been less than effective, anywhere, mainly because of weak enforcement methods.
We propose measurement modeling from the quantitative social sciences as a framework for understanding fairness in computational systems. Computational systems often involve unobservable theoretical constructs, such as socioeconomic status, teacher effectiveness, and risk of recidivism. Such constructs cannot be measured directly and must instead be inferred from measurements of observable properties (and other unobservable theoretical constructs) thought to be related to them -- i.e., operationalized via a measurement model. This process, which necessarily involves making assumptions, introduces the potential for mismatches between the theoretical understanding of the construct purported to be measured and its operationalization. We argue that many of the harms discussed in the literature on fairness in computational systems are direct results of such mismatches. We show how some of these harms could have been anticipated and, in some cases, mitigated if viewed through the lens of measurement modeling. To do this, we contribute fairness-oriented conceptualizations of construct reliability and construct validity that unite traditions from political science, education, and psychology and provide a set of tools for making explicit and testing assumptions about constructs and their operationalizations. We then turn to fairness itself, an essentially contested construct that has different theoretical understandings in different contexts. We argue that this contestedness underlies recent debates about fairness definitions: although these debates appear to be about different operationalizations, they are, in fact, debates about different theoretical understandings of fairness. We show how measurement modeling can provide a framework for getting to the core of these debates.
Formulating data science problems is an uncertain and difficult process. It requires various forms of discretionary work to translate high-level objectives or strategic goals into tractable problems, necessitating, among other things, the identification of appropriate target variables and proxies. While these choices are rarely self-evident, normative assessments of data science projects often take them for granted, even though different translations can raise profoundly different ethical concerns. Whether we consider a data science project fair often has as much to do with the formulation of the problem as any property of the resulting model. Building on six months of ethnographic fieldwork with a corporate data science team---and channeling ideas from sociology and history of science, critical data studies, and early writing on knowledge discovery in databases---we describe the complex set of actors and activities involved in problem formulation. Our research demonstrates that the specification and operationalization of the problem are always negotiated and elastic, and rarely worked out with explicit normative considerations in mind. In so doing, we show that careful accounts of everyday data science work can help us better understand how and why data science problems are posed in certain ways---and why specific formulations prevail in practice, even in the face of what might seem like normatively preferable alternatives. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings, arguing that effective normative interventions will require attending to the practical work of problem formulation.
The notion of individual fairness requires that similar people receive similar treatment. However, this is hard to achieve in practice since it is difficult to specify the appropriate similarity metric. In this work, we attempt to learn such similarity metric from human annotated data. We gather a new dataset of human judgments on a criminal recidivism prediction (COMPAS) task. By assuming the human supervision obeys the principle of individual fairness, we leverage prior work on metric learning, evaluate the performance of several metric learning methods on our dataset, and show that the learned metrics outperform the Euclidean and Precision metric under various criteria. We do not provide a way to directly learn a similarity metric satisfying the individual fairness, but to provide an empirical study on how to derive the similarity metric from human supervisors, then future work can use this as a tool to understand human supervision.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
