Privacy Law Scholar’s Conference, WPF Commenter

WPF’s Pam Dixon will present review comments for this year’s Privacy Law Scholar’s Conference. The annual conference will be held this year June 1-2, in Berkeley, CA. The full PLSC schedule is here.

More about PLSC:

Dates: Thursday and Friday, June 1-2, 2017

Location: Claremont Hotel, Berkeley, CA

Co-Chairs: George Washington University Law Professor Daniel J. Solove & Berkeley School of Information & School of Law Adjunct Professor Chris Jay Hoofnagle

PLSC assembles privacy law scholars and practitioners from around the world to discuss current issues and foster greater connections between academia and practice. It brings together privacy law scholars, privacy scholars from other disciplines (economics, philosophy, political science, computer science), and practitioners (industry, legal, advocacy, and government).

PLSC is a paper workshop. There are no published proceedings, and after the event, papers are not available. Because authors’ drafts are works in progress, we do not publicly release these writings, nor do we publicize them (no Tweeting, blogging, etc.), as authors’ ideas are often inchoate and need incubation for full development.

At PLSC, papers workshops are led by a “commenter” who facilitates a discussion among participants on an author’s paper. Authors are encouraged to participate in “listening” mode. There are no panels or talking head events at PLSC.

Posted May 30, 2017 in

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...