Job Application Kiosks: Kiosk Industry Recommendations

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

• Kiosks and the retailers that use them must prominently post OECD-compliant privacy policies. The privacy policy should cover the third party running the kiosk as well as the retailer handling the applicant data.

• Employers must take responsibility for FCRA compliance.

• If an applicant does not want to apply using an online system, a paper alternative should be readily available to them at each and every retail location with a Unicru-powered kiosk or any other kind of kiosk.

• Employers should provide applicants with a way of printing out and retrieving the information they have supplied to the employer upon request, and they should be told that this is available to them and encouraged to avail themselves of this opportunity.

• The HR-XML consortium needs to re-open its technical background check specifications and fully incorporate the internationally accepted OECD guidelines.

Kiosks are not an inherently negative technology. But without meaningful privacy policies, Kiosks at this time represent a negative development in the job search industry. With the number of kiosks growing rapidly, this is an area that needs to be examined before negative consumer privacy practices become ingrained.

Kiosks, their associated Web sites at retailers, and the retailers themselves need to commit themselves to fully implementing the full Fair Information Principles as outlined by the Internationally agreed upon OECD 1980 guidelines. And if retailers and others are going to use kiosks and associated Web sites that make certain claims about FCRA compliance, they must follow those claims up meaningfully and “groundtruth” compliance.

Roadmap: Job Application Kiosks – Why is there less privacy for retail workers?: C. Kiosk Industry Recommendations

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

Posted November 11, 2008 in Best Practices, Job Search Privacy

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.