By Nico Ebert (ZHAW)
translated from the original German language version published at Inside IT
A common narrative in practice sounds something like this: “people claim data protection is important to them, but in reality they give away everything on the internet anyway”. There are also some science studies that seem to prove this again and again: that we are generally careless with our and other personal data and that we consider data protection important but neglect it in everyday life. For example, a “pizza experiment” with 3,000 students at a US university in 2017 concluded that a free pizza was enough of an incentive to reveal the email addresses of three fellow students (Athey et al. 2017).
By Christoph Heitz (ZHAW)
translated from original German language version published at Inside IT
Can a prisoner be released early, or released on
bail? A judge who decides this should also consider the risk of
recidivism of the person to be released. Wouldn’t it be an
advantage to be able to assess this risk objectively and reliably?
This was the idea behind the COMPAS system developed by the US
system makes an individual prediction of the chance of recidivism for
imprisoned offenders, based on a wide range of personal data. The
result is a risk score between 1 and 10, where 10 corresponds to a
very high risk of recidivism. This system has been used for many
years in various U.S. states to support decision making of judges –
more than one million prisoners have already been evaluated using
COMPAS. The advantages are obvious: the system produces an objective
risk prediction that has been developed and validated on the basis of
thousands of cases.
May 2016, however, the journalists’ association ProPublica published
the results of research suggesting that this software systematically
discriminates against black people and overestimates their risk
(Angwin et al. 2016): 45 percent of black offenders who did not
reoffend after their release were identified as high-risk. In the
corresponding group of whites, however, only 23 percent were
attributed a high risk by the algorithm. This means that the
probability of being falsely assigned a high risk of recidivism is
twice as high for a black person as for a white person.
By Nico Ebert (ZHAW)
The original version of this post was published in German on Privacy Bits and English on vetri.global
In a lecture for the Fair Data Forum, I dealt with the question “What value does data protection have for individuals and what are they willing to pay for it?”
The three data privacy types
As always, there is not one “individual”, as everyone has different data protection preferences and thus, attributes different value to having personal data safeguarded. Therefore, in order to classify individuals, there are different “typologies”. For example, Westin distinguishes between data protection fundamentalists, data protection pragmatists and completely unconcerned individuals. In 2002, Sheehan (2002) selected 889 persons in the USA and classified them with a questionnaire. Conclusion: 16% of the respondents were completely unconcerned about data protection, 81% were classified as pragmatists, and 3% as fundamentalists.