Big Data, Big Myths

WPF Blog Post

Forbes has published a thoughtful article about Big Data, reeling the hype attached to the catchy term back to reality. The article, written by Forbes contributors Woodrow Hartzog and Evan Selinger, outlines why the term Big Data isn’t used by people who actually work in Big Data. The article meanders through a couple of expected signposts, but then it takes an intriguing and fresh turn when the authors discuss the ways Big Data as a term and Privacy as a term are used.

The authors state:

“Ultimately, “big data” and “privacy” should be understood as heuristic terms. Heuristics are mental shortcuts that help individuals quickly make sense of complex and often conflicting pieces of information. Heuristic terms are useful for things like starting conversations, framing issues, and quickly grasping general trends that run throughout complex debates.

Once the conversation develops sufficiently, it generally becomes time to switch to a different way of speaking and adopt specific terms.

Specific terms involve greater precision than heuristic terms. They need to be used when implementing solutions to the problems that heuristic terms approximate. Examples of more specific privacy-related terms are “confidentiality”, “obscurity”, “transparency”, and “due process”. Big data-related specific terms might refer to acting on inferences gleaned from data sets, the dramatic increase in data inputs and the specific design of algorithms to uncover surprising correlations.”

This construction resonates with me. Privacy is best understood as a complex bundle of interrelated rights, laws, concepts, and norms, and is best discussed within a broad framework of Fair Information Principles. Likewise, Big Data is best understood as a complex bundle of interrelated issues regarding inferring value from the data through analysis and understanding and visualization of large data sets, and broadly includes the issues of data size, data velocity, data variety, data source, accuracy, data analytics and predictive analysis, and scoring, among many others.

The terms “privacy” and “big data” have suffered from rhetorical extremism and overly flippant use in some quarters. The two terms have also suffered from being broadly linked without proper factual basis or specificity. Big Data does not always invoke privacy issues, and this is important to acknowledge so that when large datasets do carry privacy risks, that those real risks get attention and mitigation. This article takes a step toward finding a more informed and moderate middle ground where a real discussion of both concepts — and how they do and do not interrelate — can take place.

–Pam Dixon

Links:

Forbes: Big Data, Big Hype

Posted November 22, 2013 in Big Data, Blog Post, Statistical Parity

New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...
Report: From the Filing Cabinet to the Cloud: Updating the Privacy Act of 1974

This comprehensive report and proposed bill text is focused on the Privacy Act of 1974, an important and early Federal privacy law that applies to the government sector and some contractors. The Privacy Act was written for the 1970s information era -- an era that was characterized by the use of mainframe computers and filing cabinets. Today's digital information era looks much different than the '70s: smart phones are smarter than the old mainframes, and documents are now routinely digitized and stored and perhaps even analyzed in the cloud, among many other changes. The report focuses on why the Privacy Act needs an update that will bring it into this century, and how that could look and work. This work was written by Robert Gellman, and informed by a two-year multi-stakeholder process.

Big Data, Big Myths

WPF Blog Post

Links:

Forbes: Big Data, Big Hype