MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Semi-Automated Seeding of Personal Privacy Policies in E-Services

2006· book-chapter· en· W2495850764 on OpenAlexaff
George Yee, Larry Korba

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivacy policyConsumer privacyBusinessInternet privacyInformation privacyService providerPersonally identifiable informationPrivacy by DesignPrivacy softwareService (business)MarketingComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of the Internet has been accompanied by a proliferation of e-services targeting consumers. E-services are available for banking, shopping, learning, government online, and healthcare. However, each of these services requires a consumer’s personally identifiable information (PII) in one form or another. This leads to concerns over privacy. In order for e-services to be successful, privacy must be protected (Ackerman, Cranor, & Reagle, 1999). An effective and flexible way of handling privacy is management via privacy policies. In this approach, a consumer of an e-service has a personal privacy policy that describes what private information the consumer is willing to give up to the e-service, with which parties the provider of the e-service may share the private information, and how long the private information may be kept by the provider. The provider likewise has a provider privacy policy describing similar privacy constraints as in the consumer’s policy, but from the viewpoint of the provider, (i.e., the nature of the private information and the disclosure/retention requirements that are needed by the e-service). Before the consumer engages the e-service, the provider’s privacy policy must match with the consumer’s privacy policy. In this way, the consumer’s privacy is protected, assuming that the provider complies with the consumer’s privacy policy. Note that policy compliance is outside the scope of this work but see Yee and Korba (July, 2004). Initial attempts at conserving consumer privacy for e-services over the last few years have focused on the use of Web site privacy policies that state the privacy rules or preferences of the Web site or service provider. Some of these policies are merely statements in plain English and it is up to the consumer to read it. This has the drawback that very few consumers take the trouble to read it. Even when they do take the time to look at it, online privacy policies have been far too complicated for consumers to understand and suffer from other deficiencies (Lichtenstein, Swatman, & Babu, 2003; Jensen & Potts, 2004). Still other privacy policies are specified using P3P (W3C) that allows a consumer’s browser to automatically check the privacy policy via a browser plug-in. This, of course, is better than plain English policies but a major drawback is that it is a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach. There is no recourse for the consumer who has a conflict with the Web site’s P3P policy, except to try another Web site. In this case, we have advocated a negotiations approach to resolve the conflict (Yee & Korba, Jan., May, 2003). However, this requires a machine-processable personal privacy policy for the consumer. We assume that providers in general have sufficient resources to generate their privacy policies. Certainly, the literature is full of works relating to enterprise privacy policies and models (e.g., Barth & Mitchell, 2005; Karjoth & Schunter 2002). Consumers, on the other hand, need help in formulating machine-processable privacy policies. In addition, the creation of such policies needs to be as easy as possible or consumers would simply avoid using them. Existing privacy specification languages such as P3P, APPEL (W3C; W3C, 2002), and EPAL (IBM) are far too complicated for the average internet user to understand. Understanding or changing a privacy policy expressed in these languages effectively requires knowing how to program. Moreover, most of these languages suffer from inadequate expressiveness (Stufflebeam, Anton, He, & Jain, 2004). What is needed is an easy, semi-automated way of seeding a personal privacy policy with a consumer’s privacy preferences. In this work, we present two semi-automated approaches for obtaining consumer personal privacy policies for e-services through seeding. This article is based on our work in Yee and Korba (2004). The section “Background” examines related work and the content of personal privacy policies. The section “Semi-Automated Seeding of Personal Privacy Policies” shows how personal privacy policies can be semi-automatically seeded or generated. The section “Future Trends” identifies some of the developments we see in this area over the next few years. We end with ”Conclusion”.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207