Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

No More Trade-Offs. GPT and Fully Informative Privacy Policies

Published 27 Dec 2023 in cs.CY and cs.CR | (2402.00013v1)

Abstract: The paper reports the results of an experiment aimed at testing to what extent ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 is able to answer questions regarding privacy policies designed in the new format that we propose. In a world of human-only interpreters, there was a trade-off between comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of privacy policies, leading to the actual policies not containing enough information for users to learn anything meaningful. Having shown that GPT performs relatively well with the new format, we provide experimental evidence supporting our policy suggestion, namely that the law should require fully comprehensive privacy policies, even if this means they become less concise.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (41)
  1. Kamala D. Harris (Attorney General California Department of Justice). Making your privacy practices public: Recommendations on developing a meaningful privacy policy. Accessible at: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-issues-guide-privacy-policies-and-do-not-track, 2014.
  2. Large language models and the perils of their hallucinations. Critical Care, 27(1):1–2, 2023.
  3. Does anyone read the fine print? consumer attention to standard-form contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1):1–35, 2014.
  4. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023, 2023.
  5. Searching for the common law: The quantitative approach of the restatement of consumer contracts. The University of Chicago Law Review, pages 7–35, 2017.
  6. Simplification of privacy disclosures: an experimental test. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45(S2):S41–S67, 2016.
  7. Ryan Calo. Against notice skepticism in privacy (and elsewhere). Notre Dame L. Rev., 87:1027, 2011.
  8. LexGLUE: A benchmark dataset for legal language understanding in english. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.00976, 2021.
  9. Danielle Keats Citron. The privacy policymaking of state attorneys general. Notre Dame L. Rev., 92:747, 2016.
  10. Claudette meets GDPR: Automating the evaluation of privacy policies using artificial intelligence. Available at SSRN 3208596, 2018.
  11. Automated processing of privacy policies under the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 313:51–60, 2018.
  12. Why do liberals drink lattes? American Journal of Sociology, 120(5):1473–1511, 2015.
  13. An informative security and privacy “nutrition” label for internet of things devices. IEEE Security & Privacy, 20(2):31–39, 2021.
  14. An ontology for privacy requirements via a systematic literature review. Journal on Data Semantics, 9:123–149, 2020.
  15. Polisis: Automated analysis and presentation of privacy policies using deep learning. In 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 18), pages 531–548, 2018.
  16. Margot E Kaminski. The right to explanation, explained. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(1):189–218, 2019.
  17. GPT-4 passes the bar exam. Available at SSRN 4389233, 2023.
  18. A “nutrition label” for privacy. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pages 1–12, 2009.
  19. A survey of privacy policy languages. In Workshop on Usable IT Security Management (USM 07): Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, ACM, 2007.
  20. GDPR privacy policies in CLAUDETTE: Challenges of omission, context and multilingualism. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, volume 2385. CEUR-WS, 2019.
  21. Harnessing the collective potential of gdpr access rights: towards an ecology of transparency. Internet Policy Review, 6, 2020.
  22. What’s your favorite music? Music preferences cue racial identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 76:74–91, 2018.
  23. The cost of reading privacy policies. Isjlp, 4:543, 2008.
  24. The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society, 23(1):128–147, 2020.
  25. Pronto: Privacy ontology for legal reasoning. In Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective: 7th International Conference, EGOVIS 2018, Regensburg, Germany, September 3–5, 2018, Proceedings 7, pages 139–152. Springer, 2018.
  26. Annotated privacy policies of 100 online platforms. Mendeley Data, V1, 2023.
  27. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  28. Question answering for privacy policies: Combining computational and legal perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00841, 2019.
  29. Disagreeable privacy policies: Mismatches between meaning and users’ understanding. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 30:39, 2015.
  30. The pathologies of digital consent. Wash. UL Rev., 96:1461, 2018.
  31. Can GPT-4 support analysis of textual data in tasks requiring highly specialized domain expertise? arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13906, 2023.
  32. The ftc and the new common law of privacy. Colum. L. Rev., 114:583, 2014.
  33. Alicia Solow-Niederman. Information privacy and the inference economy. Nw. UL Rev., 117:357, 2022.
  34. PolicyGPT: Automated analysis of privacy policies with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10238, 2023.
  35. Towards a similarity metric for comparing machine-readable privacy policies. In Open Problems in Network Security: IFIP WG 11.4 International Workshop, iNetSec 2011, Lucerne, Switzerland, June 9, 2011, Revised Selected Papers, pages 89–103. Springer, 2012.
  36. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  37. Ari Ezra Waldman. Privacy, notice, and design. Stan. Tech. L. Rev., 21:74, 2018.
  38. Demystifying the modernized european data protection regime: Cross-disciplinary insights from legal and regulatory governance scholarship. Regulation & Governance, 16(1):137–155, 2022.
  39. Exploring the effectiveness of prompt engineering for legal reasoning tasks. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13582–13596, 2023.
  40. Privacycheck: Automatic summarization of privacy policies using data mining. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 18(4):1–18, 2018.
  41. How does NLP benefit legal system: A summary of legal artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12158, 2020.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free