WPF to present on machine learning, privacy, and ethics at the U.S. – U.K. Sackler Forum

The Sackler Forum is jointly sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society

January 25, 2017

For Immediate Release

WPF Executive Director Pam Dixon will present a lecture on privacy, ethics, machine learning, and society at the Sackler Forum Feb. 1 in Washington, DC. The Sackler forum is jointly sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society and was established to help the scientific leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. forge partnerships on pressing scientific topics.

The meeting will be held January 31-February 1, 2017 in Washington, D.C., and will discuss “the frontiers of machine learning, legal and ethical considerations, and opportunities in the research and commercial worlds.” The meeting agenda is available here; speakers include Vint Cerf, Peter Donnelly (Oxford), Michael Kearns (U Penn), among other notable scientists and thinkers.

The Sackler Forum on Machine Learning will be live streamed, streaming information is available here.

More information about the Sackler Forum is available at the NAS website.

The World Privacy Forum is a nonprofit, non-partisan 501(C)(3) public interest research group. The organization is focused on conducting in-depth research, analysis, and consumer education in the area of data privacy, and focuses on pressing and emerging issues.

www.worldprivacyforum.org

@privacyforum

Posted January 25, 2017 in Data Ethics, Future of Privacy, Machine Learning, News, Press, and Media

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.