AI-Enabled Automation for Completeness Checking of Privacy Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technological advances in information sharing have raised concerns about data protection. Privacy policies contain privacy-related requirements about how the personal data of individuals will be handled by an organization or a software system (e.g., a web service or an app). In Europe, privacy policies are subject to compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A prerequisite for GDPR compliance checking is to verify whether the content of a privacy policy is complete according to the provisions of GDPR. Incomplete privacy policies might result in large fines on violating organization as well as incomplete privacy-related software specifications. Manual completeness checking is both time-consuming and error-prone. In this paper, we propose AI-based automation for the completeness checking of privacy policies. Through systematic qualitative methods, we first build two artifacts to characterize the privacy-related provisions of GDPR, namely a conceptual model and a set of completeness criteria. Then, we develop an automated solution on top of these artifacts by leveraging a combination of natural language processing and supervised machine learning. Specifically, we identify the GDPR-relevant information content in privacy policies and subsequently check them against the completeness criteria. To evaluate our approach, we collected 234 real privacy policies from the fund industry. Over a set of 48 unseen privacy policies, our approach detected 300 of the total of 334 violations of some completeness criteria correctly, while producing 23 false positives. The approach thus has a precision of 92.9% and recall of 89.8%. Compared to a baseline that applies keyword search only, our approach results in an improvement of 24.5% in precision and 38% in recall.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".