2003 Job Search Privacy Study: Credits

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

The World Privacy Forum conducted this research with funding assistance from the Rose Foundation Consumer Privacy Rights Fund. Without this assistance, this research would not have been possible.

Pam Dixon, Principal investigator and author of study.
Robert Gellman, Privacy and Information Policy Consultant.
David Del Torto, CEO CryptoRights.
Chris Hoofnagle, EPIC.
Donald Harris, HR Privacy Solutions.
Beth Givens, Director Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
Les Rosen, President Employment Screening Resources.
Lance Cottrell, CEO Anonymizer.
Richard M. Smith, Internet Privacy and Security Expert.
Andrew Schulman, Software Litigation Consultant.
Deborah Pierce, Privacy Activism.
Kevin Davidson, Ogilvy.
Stephen Keating, Former Executive Director, Privacy Foundation.

Roadmap: 2003 Job Search Privacy Study – Job Searching in the Networked Environment: Consumer Privacy Benchmarks: XIII. Credits

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

Posted November 11, 2003 in Report: 2003 Job Search Privacy Study, Uncategorized

Global Visualization of Countries with Data Privacy Laws, Treaties, or Conventions

Background and Methodology: The conceptualization and initial research for this...
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...