Independent algorithm audits hold the promise of bringing accountability to automated decision-making. However, third-party audits are often hindered by access restrictions, forcing auditors to rely on limited, low-quality data. To study how these limitations impact research integrity, we conduct audit simulations on two realistic case studies for recidivism and healthcare coverage prediction. We examine the accuracy of estimating group parity metrics across three levels of access: (a) aggregated statistics, (b) individual-level data with model outputs, and (c) individual-level data without model outputs. Despite selecting one of the simplest tasks for algorithmic auditing, we find that data minimization and anonymization practices can strongly increase error rates on individual-level data, leading to unreliable assessments. We discuss implications for independent auditors, as well as potential avenues for HCI researchers and regulators to improve data access and enable both reliable and holistic evaluations.

In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor---such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about the capabilities of AI systems. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception---in addition to a more expansive understanding of 1) methodological rigor---should include aspects related to 2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); 3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); 4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); 5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and 6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also provide useful language and a framework for much needed dialogue about the AI community's work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders.

Data and their processing have become an indispensable aspect for our society. Insights drawn from collective data make invaluable contribution to scientific, societal and communal research and business. However, there are increasing worries about privacy issues and data misuse, prompting the emergence of decentralised personal data stores (PDS) like Solid. However, existing PDS frameworks face challenges in ensuring data privacy when performing collective computation to combine data from multiple users. At a glance, Secure Multi-Party Computation (MPC) offers input secrecy protection while performing collective computation without relying on any single party. However, issues emerge when directly applying MPC in the context of PDS, particularly due to key factors like autonomy and decentralisation. In this work, we discuss the essence of this issue, identify the potential solution, and introduce a modular system architecture, Libertas, to integrate MPC with PDS like Solid, without requiring protocol-level changes. We introduce the paradigm shift from an 'omniscient' view to individual-based, user-centric view of trust and security, and discuss the threat model of Libertas. Two realistic use cases for collaborative data processing are used for evaluation, both for technical feasibility and empirical benchmark, highlighting its effectiveness in empowering gig workers and generating differentially private synthetic data. The results of our experiments underscore Libertas' linear scalability and provide valuable insights into compute optimisations, thereby advancing the state-of-the-art in privacy-preserving data processing practices. By offering practical solutions for maintaining both individual autonomy and privacy in collaborative data processing environments, Libertas contributes significantly to the ongoing discourse on privacy protection in data-driven decision-making contexts.

Information asymmetries create extractive, often harmful relationships between platform workers (e.g., Uber or Deliveroo drivers) and their algorithmic managers. Recent HCI studies have put forward more equitable platform designs but leave open questions about the social and technical infrastructures required to support them without the cooperation of platforms. We conducted a participatory design study in which platform workers deconstructed and re-imagined Uber’s schema for driver data. We analyzed the data structures and social institutions participants proposed, focusing on the stakeholders, roles, and strategies for mitigating conflicting interests of privacy, personal agency, and utility. Using critical theory, we reflected on the capability of participatory design to generate bottom-up collective data infrastructures. Based on the plurality of alternative institutions participants produced and their aptitude to navigate data stewardship decisions, we propose user-configurable tools for lightweight data institution building, as an alternative to redesigning existing platforms or delegating control to centralized trusts.

Critical examinations of AI systems often apply principles such as fairness, justice, accountability, and safety, which is reflected in AI regulations such as the EU AI Act. Are such principles sufficient to promote the design of systems that support human flourishing? Even if a system is in some sense fair, just, or 'safe', it can nonetheless be exploitative, coercive, inconvenient, or otherwise conflict with cultural, individual, or social values. This paper proposes a dimension of interactional ethics thus far overlooked: the ways AI systems should treat human beings. For this purpose, we explore the philosophical concept of respect: if respect is something everyone needs and deserves, shouldn't technology aim to be respectful? Despite its intuitive simplicity, respect in philosophy is a complex concept with many disparate senses. Like fairness or justice, respect can characterise how people deserve to be treated; but rather than relating primarily to the distribution of benefits or punishments, respect relates to how people regard one another, and how this translates to perception, treatment, and behaviour. We explore respect broadly across several literatures, synthesising perspectives on respect from Kantian, post-Kantian, dramaturgical, and agential realist design perspectives with a goal of drawing together a view of what respect could mean for AI. In so doing, we identify ways that respect may guide us towards more sociable artefacts that ethically and inclusively honour and recognise humans using the rich social language that we have evolved to interact with one another every day.

Abstract While many studies have looked at privacy properties of the Android and Google Play app ecosystem, comparatively much less is known about iOS and the Apple App Store, the most widely used ecosystem in the US. At the same time, there is increasing competition around privacy between these smartphone operating system providers. In this paper, we present a study of 24k Android and iOS apps from 2020 along several dimensions relating to user privacy. We find that third-party tracking and the sharing of unique user identifiers was widespread in apps from both ecosystems, even in apps aimed at children. In the children’s category, iOS apps tended to use fewer advertising-related tracking than their Android counterparts, but could more often access children’s location. Across all studied apps, our study highlights widespread potential violations of US, EU and UK privacy law, including 1) the use of third-party tracking without user consent, 2) the lack of parental consent before sharing personally identifiable information (PII) with third-parties in children’s apps, 3) the non-data-minimising configuration of tracking libraries, 4) the sending of personal data to countries without an adequate level of data protection, and 5) the continued absence of transparency around tracking, partly due to design decisions by Apple and Google. Overall, we find that neither platform is clearly better than the other for privacy across the dimensions we studied.

Homomorphic encryption, secure multi-party computation, and differential privacy are part of an emerging class of Privacy Enhancing Technologies which share a common promise: to preserve privacy whilst also obtaining the benefits of computational analysis. Due to their relative novelty, complexity, and opacity, these technologies provoke a variety of novel questions for design and governance. We interviewed researchers, developers, industry leaders, policymakers, and designers involved in their deployment to explore motivations, expectations, perceived opportunities and barriers to adoption. This provided insight into several pertinent challenges facing the adoption of these technologies, including: how they might make a nebulous concept like privacy computationally tractable; how to make them more usable by developers; and how they could be explained and made accountable to stakeholders and wider society. We conclude with implications for the development, deployment, and responsible governance of these privacy-preserving computation techniques.

The increasingly widespread use of 'smart' devices has raised multifarious ethical concerns regarding their use in domestic spaces. Previous work examining such ethical dimensions has typically either involved empirical studies of concerns raised by specific devices and use contexts, or alternatively expounded on abstract concepts like autonomy, privacy or trust in relation to 'smart homes' in general. This paper attempts to bridge these approaches by asking what features of smart devices users consider as rendering them 'smart' and how these relate to ethical concerns. Through a multimethod investigation including surveys with smart device users (n=120) and semi-structured interviews (n=15), we identify and describe eight types of smartness and explore how they engender a variety of ethical concerns including privacy, autonomy, and disruption of the social order. We argue that this middle ground, between concerns arising from particular devices and more abstract ethical concepts, can better anticipate potential ethical concerns regarding smart devices.

Connected devices in the home represent a potentially grave new privacy threat due to their unfettered access to the most personal spaces in people's lives. Prior work has shown that despite concerns about such devices, people often lack sufficient awareness, understanding, or means of taking effective action. To explore the potential for new tools that support such needs directly we developed Aretha, a privacy assistant technology probe that combines a network disaggregator, personal tutor, and firewall, to empower end-users with both the knowledge and mechanisms to control disclosures from their homes. We deployed Aretha in three households over six weeks, with the aim of understanding how this combination of capabilities might enable users to gain awareness of data disclosures by their devices, form educated privacy preferences, and to block unwanted data flows. The probe, with its novel affordances-and its limitations-prompted users to co-adapt, finding new control mechanisms and suggesting new approaches to address the challenge of regaining privacy in the connected home.

Many people struggle to control their use of digital devices. However, our understanding of the design mechanisms that support user self-control remains limited. In this paper, we make two contributions to HCI research in this space: first, we analyse 367 apps and browser extensions from the Google Play, Chrome Web, and Apple App stores to identify common core design features and intervention strategies afforded by current tools for digital self-control. Second, we adapt and apply an integrative dual systems model of self-regulation as a framework for organising and evaluating the design features found. Our analysis aims to help the design of better tools in two ways: (i) by identifying how, through a well-established model of self-regulation, current tools overlap and differ in how they support self-control; and (ii) by using the model to reveal underexplored cognitive mechanisms that could aid the design of new tools.

Data-driven decision-making consequential to individuals raises important questions of accountability and justice. Indeed, European law provides individuals limited rights to 'meaningful information about the logic' behind significant, autonomous decisions such as loan approvals, insurance quotes, and CV filtering. We undertake three experimental studies examining people's perceptions of justice in algorithmic decision-making under different scenarios and explanation styles. Dimensions of justice previously observed in response to human decision-making appear similarly engaged in response to algorithmic decisions. Qualitative analysis identified several concerns and heuristics involved in justice perceptions including arbitrariness, generalisation, and (in)dignity. Quantitative analysis indicates that explanation styles primarily matter to justice perceptions only when subjects are exposed to multiple different styles---under repeated exposure of one style, scenario effects obscure any explanation effects. Our results suggests there may be no 'best' approach to explaining algorithmic decisions, and that reflection on their automated nature both implicates and mitigates justice dimensions.

Most smartphone apps collect and share information with various first and third parties; yet, such data collection practices remain largely unbeknownst to, and outside the control of, end-users. In this paper, we seek to understand the potential for tools to help people refine their exposure to third parties, resulting from their app usage. We designed an interactive, focus-plus-context display called X-Ray Refine (Refine) that uses models of over 1 million Android apps to visualise a person's exposure profile based on their durations of app use. To support exploration of mitigation strategies, emphRefine can simulate actions such as app usage reduction, removal, and substitution. A lab study of emphRefine found participants achieved a high-level understanding of their exposure, and identified data collection behaviours that violated both their expectations and privacy preferences. Participants also devised bespoke strategies to achieve privacy goals, identifying the key barriers to achieving them.

Calls for heightened consideration of fairness and accountability in algorithmically-informed public decisions-like taxation, justice, and child protection-are now commonplace. How might designers support such human values? We interviewed 27 public sector machine learning practitioners across 5 OECD countries regarding challenges understanding and imbuing public values into their work. The results suggest a disconnect between organisational and institutional realities, constraints and needs, and those addressed by current research into usable, transparent and 'discrimination-aware' machine learning-absences likely to undermine practical initiatives unless addressed. We see design opportunities in this disconnect, such as in supporting the tracking of concept drift in secondary data sources, and in building usable transparency tools to identify risks and incorporate domain knowledge, aimed both at managers and at the 'street-level bureaucrats' on the frontlines of public service. We conclude by outlining ethical challenges and future directions for collaboration in these high-stakes applications.

Third-party networks collect vast amounts of data about users via websites and mobile applications. Consolidations among tracker companies can significantly increase their individual tracking capabilities, prompting scrutiny by competition regulators. Traditional measures of market share, based on revenue or sales, fail to represent the tracking capability of a tracker, especially if it spans both web and mobile. This article proposes a new approach to measure the concentration of tracking capability, based on the reach of a tracker on popular websites and apps. Our results reveal that tracker prominence and parent–subsidiary relationships have significant impact on accurately measuring concentration.

Most users of smartphone apps remain unaware of what data about them is being collected, by whom, and how these data are being used. In this mixed methods investigation, we examine the question of whether revealing key data collection practices of smartphone apps may help people make more informed privacy-related decisions. To investigate this question, we designed and prototyped a new class of privacy indicators, called Data Controller Indicators (DCIs), that expose previously hidden information flows out of the apps. Our lab study of DCIs suggests that such indicators do support people in making more confident and consistent choices, informed by a more diverse range of factors, including the number and nature of third-party companies that access users' data. Furthermore, personalised DCIs, which are contextualised against the other apps an individual already uses, enable them to reason effectively about the differential impacts on their overall information exposure.