Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Obfuscation of Online Third-Party Information Sharing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of sharing online user information with external third parties has become the focal point of privacy concerns for consumer advocacy groups and policy makers. We explore the decisions by websites regarding the obfuscation that they use to make it difficult for users to discover the extent of information sharing. Using a Bayesian model, we shed light on the websites’ incentive to obfuscate user information sharing. We find that as content sensitivity increases, a website reduces its level of obfuscation. Furthermore, more popular websites engage in higher levels of obfuscation than less popular ones. We provide an empirical analysis of obfuscation and user information sharing in News (low content sensitivity) and Health (high content sensitivity) websites and confirm key results from our analytical model. Our analysis illustrates that obfuscation of information sharing is a viable strategy that websites use to improve their profits. History: Ram Ramesh, area editor for Data Science & Machine Learning. Funding: Financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2022.1266 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2021.0070 ) at http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7336098 .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it