skip to main content
10.1145/3630106.3658962acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Algorithmic Transparency and Participation through the Handoff Lens: Lessons Learned from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Adoption of Differential Privacy

Published: 05 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Emerging discussions on the responsible government use of algorithmic technologies propose transparency and public participation as key mechanisms for preserving accountability and trust. But in practice, the adoption and use of any technology shifts the social, organizational, and political context in which it is embedded. Therefore translating transparency and participation efforts into meaningful, effective accountability must take into account these shifts. We adopt two theoretical frames, Mulligan and Nissenbaum’s handoff model and Star and Griesemer’s boundary objects, to reveal such shifts during the U.S. Census Bureau’s adoption of differential privacy (DP) in its updated disclosure avoidance system (DAS) for the 2020 census. This update preserved (and arguably strengthened) the confidentiality protections that the Bureau is mandated to uphold, and the Bureau engaged in a range of activities to facilitate public understanding of and participation in the system design process. Using publicly available documents concerning the Census’ implementation of DP, this case study seeks to expand our understanding of how technical shifts implicate values, how such shifts can afford (or fail to afford) greater transparency and participation in system design, and the importance of localized expertise throughout. We present three lessons from this case study toward grounding understandings of algorithmic transparency and participation: (1) efforts towards transparency and participation in algorithmic governance must center values and policy decisions, not just technical design decisions; (2) the handoff model is a useful tool for revealing how such values may be cloaked beneath technical decisions; and (3) boundary objects alone cannot bridge distant communities without trusted experts traveling alongside to broker their adoption.

References

[1]
2021. Alabama v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce. 546 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (M.D. Ala.).
[2]
Rediet Abebe, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, Karen Levy, Manish Raghavan, and David G. Robinson. 2020. Roles for computing in social change. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372871
[3]
John Abowd, Robert Ashmead, Ryan Cumings-Menon, Simson Garfinkel, Micah Heineck, Christine Heiss, Robert Johns, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, Brett Moran, William Sexton, Matthew Spence, and Pavel Zhuravlev. 2022. The 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System TopDown Algorithm. Harvard Data Science ReviewSpecial Issue 2 (jun 24 2022). https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/7evz361i.
[4]
John M. Abowd. 2018. Disclosure Avoidance for Block Level Data and Protection of Confidentiality in Public Tabulations. https://www2.census.gov/cac/sac/meetings/2018-12/abowd-disclosure-avoidance.pdf
[5]
John M. Abowd. 2018. Protecting the Confidentiality of America’s Statistics: Adopting Modern Disclosure Avoidance Methods at the Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/research-matters/2018/08/protecting_the_confi.html Section: Government.
[6]
John M. Abowd. 2021. Declaration of John M. Abowd. In State of Alabama v. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://censusproject.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/2021.04.13-abowd-declaration-alabama-v.-commerce-ii-final-signed.pdf
[7]
John M. Abowd and Michael B. Hawes. 2023. Confidentiality Protection in the 2020 US Census of Population and Housing. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 10, 1 (March 2023), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-010422-034226
[8]
John M Abowd and Ian M Schmutte. 2019. An economic analysis of privacy protection and statistical accuracy as social choices. American Economic Review 109, 1 (2019), 171–202.
[9]
John M. Abowd and Victoria A. Velkoff. 2019. Balancing privacy and accuracy: New opportunity for disclosure avoidance analysis. Census Blogs (2019).
[10]
John M. Abowd and Victoria A. Velkoff. 2020. Modernizing disclosure avoidance: What we’ve learned, where we are now. Census Blogs (2020).
[11]
Madeleine Akrich. 1992. The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Wiebe E. Bijker, John Law, Trevor Pinch, and Rebecca Slayton (Eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 208.
[12]
Kevin Allis. 2020. [Letter from Kevin Allis to Steven D. Dillingham]. https://archive.ncai.org/policy-research-center/research-data/recommendations/NCAI_Letter_to_US_Census_Bureau_on_DAS_6_25_2020_FINAL_signed.pdf
[13]
Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. 2016. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society 20, 3 (2016), 973–989.
[14]
Solon Barocas and Moritz Hardt. 2014. Scope. https://www.fatml.org/schedule/2014/page/scope-2014
[15]
Andrew Bell, Ian Solano-Kamaiko, Oded Nov, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2022. It’s Just Not That Simple: An Empirical Study of the Accuracy-Explainability Trade-off in Machine Learning for Public Policy. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533090
[16]
Joseph R. Biden. 2023. Executive order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. (2023).
[17]
Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. Power to the people? opportunities and challenges for participatory AI. Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (2022), 1–8.
[18]
Dan Bouk and danah boyd. 2021. Democracy’s Data Infrastructure. http://knightcolumbia.org/content/democracys-data-infrastructure
[19]
danah boyd and Jayshree Sarathy. 2022. Differential Perspectives: Epistemic Disconnects Surrounding the U.S. Census Bureau’s Use of Differential Privacy. Harvard Data Science ReviewSpecial Issue 2 (June 2022). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.66882f0e
[20]
Jay Breidt, Deborah Balk, John Czajka, Kathy Pettit, Allison Plyer, Kunal Talwar, Richelle Winkler, and Joe Whitley. 2020. Differential Privacy Working Group Deliverables: Report of the CSAC Differential Privacy Working Group. https://www2.census.gov/cac/sac/differential-privacy-wg-deliverables.pdf
[21]
Jenna Burrell. 2016. How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society 3, 1 (June 2016), 205395171562251. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
[22]
Pat Cantwell. 2021. How We Complete the Census When Households or Group Quarters Don’t Respond. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2021/04/imputation-when-households-or-group-quarters-dont-respond.html Section: Government.
[23]
Paul R. Carlile. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13, 4 (2002), 442–455.
[24]
Stephanie Russo Carroll, Ibrahim Garba, Oscar L Figueroa-Rodríguez, Jarita Holbrook, Raymond Lovett, Simeon Materechera, Mark Parsons, Kay Raseroka, Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, Robyn Rowe, 2020. The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal 19 (2020), 43–43.
[25]
Danielle Keats Citron. 2007. Technological due process. Wash. UL Rev. 85 (2007), 1249.
[26]
Cary Coglianese and David Lehr. 2019. Transparency and algorithmic governance. Administrative law review 71, 1 (2019), 1–56.
[27]
European Commission. 2021. Laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain union legislative acts. Eur Comm 106 (2021), 1–108.
[28]
A Feder Cooper, Emanuel Moss, Benjamin Laufer, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2022. Accountability in an algorithmic society: relationality, responsibility, and robustness in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 864–876.
[29]
Ned Cooper, Tiffanie Horne, Gillian R Hayes, Courtney Heldreth, Michal Lahav, Jess Holbrook, and Lauren Wilcox. 2022. A systematic review and thematic analysis of community-collaborative approaches to computing research. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18.
[30]
Eric Corbett and Emily Denton. 2023. Interrogating the T in FAccT. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1624–1634.
[31]
Eric Corbett, Emily Denton, and Sheena Erete. 2023. Power and Public Participation in AI. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–13.
[32]
Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.
[33]
Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2021. Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond" Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir". arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01122 (2021).
[34]
Deloitte. 2020. Trustworthy AI: Bridging the ethics gap surrounding AI. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/deloitte-analytics/solutions/ethics-of-ai-framework.html
[35]
William Deringer. 2018. Calculated values: Finance, politics, and the quantitative age. Harvard University Press.
[36]
Uma Desai. 2019. uscensusbureau/census-dp. https://github.com/uscensusbureau/census-dp
[37]
Alain Desrosières. 1998. The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Harvard University Press.
[38]
Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2016. Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Commun. ACM 59, 2 (2016), 56–62.
[39]
Nicholas Diakopoulos and Michael Koliska. 2017. Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital journalism 5, 7 (2017), 809–828.
[40]
Irit Dinur and Kobbi Nissim. 2003. Revealing information while preserving privacy. In Proceedings of the twenty-second ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems. ACM, San Diego California, 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1145/773153.773173
[41]
Cynthia Dwork, Gary King, Ruth Greenwood, William T. Adler, and Joel Alvarez. 2021. Re: Request for release of "noisy measurements file" by September 30 along with redistricting data products. https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/2021.08.12_group_letter_to_abowd_re_noisy_measurements.pdf
[42]
Cynthia Dwork, Nitin Kohli, and Deirdre Mulligan. 2019. Differential Privacy in Practice: Expose your Epsilons!Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 9, 2 (Oct. 2019). https://doi.org/10.29012/jpc.689
[43]
Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. 2006. Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis. In Theory of Cryptography(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Shai Halevi and Tal Rabin (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/11681878_14
[44]
Upol Ehsan, Q Vera Liao, Michael Muller, Mark O Riedl, and Justin D Weisz. 2021. Expanding explainability: Towards social transparency in ai systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19.
[45]
John Eltinge, Robert Sienkiewicz, Michael B. Hawes, Quentin Brummet, Edward Mulrow, Kurt Wolter, David Van Riper, Tracy Kugler, Johnathan Schroeder, José Pacas, Steven Ruggles, Brian Asquith, Brad Hershbien, Shane Reed, and Steve Yesiltepe. 2019. Differential Privacy for 2020 US Census. https://assets.pubpub.org/j2yr11kl/11587735061843.pdf
[46]
Wendy Nelson Espeland and Mitchell L. Stevens. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 1 (1998), 313–343.
[47]
Wendy Nelson Espeland and Berit Irene Vannebo. 2007. Accountability, quantification, and law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3 (2007), 21–43.
[48]
International Organization for Standardization. 2020. ISO/IEC TR 24028:2020 Overview of trustworthiness in artificial intelligence. https://www.iso.org/standard/77608.html
[49]
Jody Freeman. 1997. Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA L. Rev. 45 (1997), 1.
[50]
Simson L. Garfinkel, John M. Abowd, and Sarah Powazek. 2018. Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacy. In Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. ACM, Toronto Canada, 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267323.3268949
[51]
Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé III, and Kate Crawford. 2021. Datasheets for datasets. Commun. ACM 64, 12 (Nov. 2021), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723
[52]
Ruobin Gong. 2022. Transparent privacy is principled privacy. Harvard Data Science ReviewSpecial Issue 2 (June 2022). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.b5d3faaa
[53]
Ben Green. 2019. "Good" isn’t good enough. In Conference and Workshop on Neural Information Processing Systems(AI for Social Good Workshop). Vancouver. https://aiforsocialgood.github.io/neurips2019/accepted/track3/pdfs/67_aisg_neurips2019.pdf
[54]
Kenneth Haase. 2021. uscensusbureau/DAS\_2020\_Redistricting\_Production\_Code. https://github.com/uscensusbureau/DAS_2020_Redistricting_Production_Code
[55]
Sam Haney, William Sexton, Ashwin Machanavajjhala, Michael Hay, and Gerome Miklau. 2021. Differentially Private Algorithms for 2020 Census Detailed DHC Race & Ethnicity. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.10659 arXiv:2107.10659 [cs, stat].
[56]
Michael Hawes. 2021. The Census Bureau’s Simulated Reconstruction-Abetted Re-identification Attack on the 2010 Census. https://www.census.gov/data/academy/webinars/2021/disclosure-avoidance-series/simulated-reconstruction-abetted-re-identification-attack-on-the-2010-census.html Section: Government.
[57]
Sarah Holland, Ahmed Hosny, Sarah Newman, Joshua Joseph, and Kasia Chmielinski. 2020. The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework to Drive Higher Data Quality Standards. In Data Protection and Democracy, Dara Hallinan, Ronald Leenes, Serge Gutwirth, and Paul De Hert (Eds.). Data Protection and Privacy, Vol. 12. Bloomsbury Publishing, 1–26. Google-Books-ID: F2HRDwAAQBAJ.
[58]
V Joseph Hotz, Christopher R Bollinger, Tatiana Komarova, Charles F Manski, Robert A Moffitt, Denis Nekipelov, Aaron Sojourner, and Bruce D Spencer. 2022. Balancing data privacy and usability in the federal statistical system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, 31 (2022), e2104906119.
[59]
V. Joseph Hotz and Joseph Salvo. 2022. A Chronicle of the Application of Differential Privacy to the 2020 Census. Harvard Data Science ReviewSpecial Issue 2 (June 2022). https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/ql9z7ehf.
[60]
Jessica Hullman. 2022. Show me the noisy numbers! (or not). https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/12/28/show-me-the-noisy-numbers-or-not/
[61]
Ben Hutchinson, Andrew Smart, Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Christina Greer, Oddur Kjartansson, Parker Barnes, and Margaret Mitchell. 2021. Towards accountability for machine learning datasets: Practices from software engineering and infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 560–575.
[62]
Abigail Z Jacobs. 2021. Measurement as governance in and for responsible AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05658 (2021).
[63]
Abigail Z Jacobs and Deirdre K Mulligan. 2022. The Hidden Governance in AI. The Regulatory Review (July 2022).
[64]
Julia Jahansoozi. 2006. Organization-stakeholder relationships: exploring trust and transparency. Journal of management development 25, 10 (2006), 942–955.
[65]
Ron S Jarmin, John M Abowd, Robert Ashmead, Ryan Cumings-Menon, Nathan Goldschlag, Michael B Hawes, Sallie Ann Keller, Daniel Kifer, Philip Leclerc, Jerome P Reiter, 2023. An in-depth examination of requirements for disclosure risk assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 43 (2023), e2220558120.
[66]
Sheila Jasanoff. 2016. Reclaiming the Future. In The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 211–245.
[67]
Margot E. Kaminski. 2020. Understanding transparency in algorithmic accountability. In Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms, Woodrow Barfield (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, 20–34.
[68]
Davinder Kaur, Suleyman Uslu, Kaley J Rittichier, and Arjan Durresi. 2022. Trustworthy artificial intelligence: a review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55, 2 (2022), 1–38.
[69]
Sallie Ann Keller and John M. Abowd. 2023. Database reconstruction does compromise confidentiality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 12 (March 2023), e2300976120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2300976120 Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[70]
Christopher T Kenny, Shiro Kuriwaki, Cory McCartan, Evan TR Rosenman, Tyler Simko, and Kosuke Imai. 2022. Comment: The Essential Role of Policy Evaluation for the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08383 (2022).
[71]
Christopher T. Kenny, Shiro Kuriwaki, Cory McCartan, Evan T. R. Rosenman, Tyler Simko, and Kosuke Imai. 2021. The use of differential privacy for census data and its impact on redistricting: The case of the 2020 U.S. Census. Science Advances 7, 41 (Oct. 2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abk3283
[72]
Chris Kimble, Corinne Grenier, and Karine Goglio-Primard. 2010. Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers. International Journal of Information Management 30, 5 (2010), 437–444.
[73]
Daniel N Kluttz, Nitin Kohli, and Deirdre K Mulligan. 2022. Shaping our tools: Contestability as a means to promote responsible algorithmic decision making in the professions. Ethics of Data and Analytics. Auerbach Publications (2022), 420–428.
[74]
Joshua A Kroll. 2018. The fallacy of inscrutability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376, 2133 (2018), 20180084.
[75]
Joshua A Kroll. 2021. Outlining traceability: A principle for operationalizing accountability in computing systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 758–771.
[76]
Joshua A Kroll, Joanna Huey, Solon Barocas, Edward W Felten, Joel R Reidenberg, David G Robinson, and Harlan Yu. 2017. Accountable Algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165, 3 (2017), 633.
[77]
Ann Langley, Kajsa Lindberg, BjÞrn Erik MÞrk, Davide Nicolini, Elena Raviola, and Lars Walter. 2019. Boundary Work among Groups, Occupations, and Organizations: From Cartography to Process. Academy of Management Annals 13, 2 (July 2019), 704–736. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0089 Publisher: Academy of Management.
[78]
Bruno Lepri, Nuria Oliver, Emmanuel Letouzé, Alex Pentland, and Patrick Vinck. 2018. Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes: The premise, the proposed solutions, and the open challenges. Philosophy & Technology 31 (2018), 611–627.
[79]
Nancy G Leveson. 2016. Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. The MIT Press.
[80]
Karen Levy, Kyla E Chasalow, and Sarah Riley. 2021. Algorithms and decision-making in the public sector. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 17 (2021), 309–334.
[81]
Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, Jin Keun Jeong, and Meeyoung Cha. 2022. The conflict between explainable and accountable decision-making algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2103–2113.
[82]
Michele Loi, Andrea Ferrario, and Eleonora Viganò. 2021. Transparency as design publicity: explaining and justifying inscrutable algorithms. Ethics and Information Technology 23, 3 (2021), 253–263.
[83]
Michael Madaio, Lisa Egede, Hariharan Subramonyam, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2022. Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners’ Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–26.
[84]
Kirsten Martin. 2019. Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics 160 (2019), 835–850.
[85]
Laura McKenna. 2018. Disclosure Avoidance Techniques Used for the 1970 through 2010 Decennial Censuses of Population and Housing. Technical Report. U.S. Census Bureau Research & Methodology Directorate. https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2018/CES-WP-18-47.pdf
[86]
Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, and danah boyd. 2019. Owning ethics: Corporate logics, silicon valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. Social Research: An International Quarterly 86, 2 (2019), 449–476.
[87]
minutephysics. 2019. Protecting Privacy with MATH (Collab with the Census). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT19VwBAqKA
[88]
Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596
[89]
Deirdre K Mulligan and Kenneth A Bamberger. 2018. Saving governance-by-design. California Law Review 106, 3 (2018), 697–784.
[90]
Deirdre K. Mulligan and Kenneth A. Bamberger. 2019. Procurement as policy: Administrative process for machine learning. Berkeley Tech. LJ 34 (2019), 773.
[91]
Deirdre K. Mulligan and Helen Nissenbaum. 2020. The concept of handoff as a model for ethical analysis and design. The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI 1, 1 (2020), 233.
[92]
Priyanka Nanayakkara and Jessica Hullman. 2022. What’s driving conflicts around differential privacy for the U.S. Census. IEEE Security & Privacy01 (2022), 2–11.
[93]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. National Academies Press.
[94]
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2021. Differential Privacy for Census Data Explained. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/differential-privacy-for-census-data-explained
[95]
NCAI Policy Research Center. 2021. Differential Privacy and the 2020 Census: A Guide to the Data Analyses and Impacts on AI/AN Data. Research Policy Update. National Congress of American Indians, Washington, D.C.https://archive.ncai.org/policy-research-center/research-data/prc-publications/NCAI_PRC_2020_Census_Guide_to_Data_and_Impacts_5_17_2021_FINAL.pdf
[96]
Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash. L. Rev. 79 (2004), 119.
[97]
Steven A. Ochoa and Terry Ao Minnis. 2021. Impact of Differential Privacy & the 2020 Census on Latinos, Asian Americans and Redistricting. https://www.maldef.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FINAL-MALDEF-AAJC-Differential-Privacy-Preliminary-Report-4.5.2021-1.pdf
[98]
OECD. 2021. Tools for trustworthy AI: A framework to compare implementation tools for trustworthy AI systems. OECD Digital Economy Papers312 (Jun 2021). https://doi.org/10.1787/008232ec-en
[99]
National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2023. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). (Jan 2023). https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.ai.100-1
[100]
Jennifer Pierre, Roderic Crooks, Morgan Currie, Britt Paris, and Irene Pasquetto. 2021. Getting Ourselves Together: Data-centered participatory design research & epistemic burden. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.
[101]
Theodore M. Porter. 1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press.
[102]
Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. 2020. Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 33–44.
[103]
Brad Rawlins. 2008. Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of public relations research 21, 1 (2008), 71–99.
[104]
David Gerald Robinson. 2022. Voices in the code: a story about people, their values, and the algorithm they made. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
[105]
Simo Sarkki, Hannu I. Heikkinen, Teresa Komu, Mari Partanen, Karoliina Vanhanen, and Elise Lepy. 2020. How boundary objects help to perform roles of science arbiter, honest broker, and issue advocate. Science and Public Policy 47, 2 (2020), 161–171.
[106]
Andrew K. Schnackenberg and Edward C. Tomlinson. 2016. Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of management 42, 7 (2016), 1784–1810.
[107]
Mike Schneider. 2021. Census releases guidelines for controversial privacy tool. https://apnews.com/article/business-census-2020-55519b7534bd8d61028020d79854e909 Section: Voting rights.
[108]
Jeremy Seeman. 2023. Framing Effects in the Operationalization of Differential Privacy Systems as Code-Driven Law. In International Conference on Computer Ethics, Vol. 1.
[109]
Jeremy Seeman and Daniel Susser. 2023. Between Privacy and Utility: On Differential Privacy in Theory and Practice. ACM J. Responsib. Comput. (oct 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3626494 Just Accepted.
[110]
Andrew D Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 59–68.
[111]
Mona Sloane and Emanuel Moss. 2022. Introducing a Practice-Based Compliance Framework for Addressing New Regulatory Challenges in the AI Field. TechReg Chronicle (2022).
[112]
Mona Sloane, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. 2022. Participation is not a design fix for machine learning. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–6.
[113]
Mona Sloane, Ian René Solano-Kamaiko, Jun Yuan, Aritra Dasgupta, and Julia Stoyanovich. 2023. Introducing contextual transparency for automated decision systems. Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 3 (2023), 187–195.
[114]
Mona Sloane and Janina Zakrzewski. 2022. German AI Start-Ups and “AI Ethics”: Using A Social Practice Lens for Assessing and Implementing Socio-Technical Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 935–947.
[115]
Susan Leigh Star. 2010. This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35, 5 (2010), 601–617.
[116]
Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19, 3 (1989), 387–420.
[117]
Ryan Steed, Terrance Liu, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2022. Policy impacts of statistical uncertainty and privacy. Science 377, 6609 (2022), 928–931. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq4481 arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abq4481
[118]
Cass R Sunstein. 2002. The cost-benefit state: the future of regulatory protection. American Bar Association.
[119]
Latanya Sweeney. 2000. Simple Demographics Often Identify People Uniquely. Working Paper. Carnegie Mellon University Data Privacy Lab, Pittsburgh. https://dataprivacylab.org/projects/identifiability/paper1.pdf
[120]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Soliciting Feedback From Users on 2020 Census Data Products. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/19/2018-15458/soliciting-feedback-from-users-on-2020-census-data-products
[121]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. 2020 Census Tribal Consultations with Federally Recognized Tribes. Report. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/dec/census-federal-tc-final-report-2020-508.pdf
[122]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Invariants Set for 2020 Census Data Products. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/process/disclosure-avoidance/2020-das-updates/2020-11-25.html
[123]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Census Bureau Sets Key Parameters to Protect Privacy in 2020 Census Results. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-census-key-parameters.html Section: Government.
[124]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Disclosure Avoidance for the 2020 Census: An Introduction. Handbook. US Government Publishing Office, Washington, D.C.https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/2020-census-disclosure-avoidance-handbook.pdf
[125]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. 2020 Decennial Census: Processing the Count: Disclosure Avoidance Modernization. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/process/disclosure-avoidance.html
[126]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. Coming This Spring: New 2010 Redistricting and DHC "Production Settings" Demonstration Microdata with Noisy Measurement Files. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning-management/process/disclosure-avoidance/newsletters/new-2010-redistricting-dhc-demo-microdata.html Section: Government.
[127]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. Disclosure Avoidance Webinar Series. https://www.census.gov/data/academy/webinars/series/disclosure-avoidance.html Section: Government.
[128]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2023. Why the Census Bureau Chose Differential Privacy. Brief C2020BR-03. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/census-briefs/c2020br-03.pdf
[129]
Kristen Vaccaro, Karrie Karahalios, Deirdre K Mulligan, Daniel Kluttz, and Tad Hirsch. 2019. Contestability in algorithmic systems. In Conference companion publication of the 2019 on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 523–527.
[130]
David Van Riper, Jonathan Schroeder, and Steven Ruggles. 2021. Feedback on the April 2021 Census Demonstration Files. https://users.pop.umn.edu/ ruggl001/Articles/IPUMS_response_to_Census.pdf
[131]
Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14.
[132]
Salome Viljoen. 2021. A relational theory of data governance. Yale Law Journal 131 (2021), 573.
[133]
Maranke Wieringa. 2020. What to account for when accounting for algorithms: a systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 1–18.
[134]
Aaron R. Williams and Claire McKay Bowen. 2023. The promise and limitations of formal privacy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics (2023), e1615.
[135]
Richmond Y. Wong. 2020. Values by Design Imaginaries: Exploring Values Work in UX Practice. PhD Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
[136]
Richmond Y Wong, Michael A Madaio, and Nick Merrill. 2023. Seeing like a toolkit: How toolkits envision the work of AI ethics. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–27.
[137]
Larry Wright, Jr.2022. Letter from National Congress of American Indians CEO to to US Census Director. https://www.ncai.org/policy-research-center/research-data/prc-publications/20220728_NCAI_Letter_to_US_Census_Bureau_FINAL.pdf
[138]
Felix T Wu. 2013. Defining Privacy and Utility in Data Sets. University of Colorado Law Review 84 (2013), 1117–1177.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Algorithmic Transparency and Participation through the Handoff Lens: Lessons Learned from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Adoption of Differential Privacy

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        FAccT '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
        June 2024
        2580 pages
        ISBN:9798400704505
        DOI:10.1145/3630106
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 05 June 2024

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. census
        2. critical transparency studies
        3. differential privacy
        4. participatory AI

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Funding Sources

        Conference

        FAccT '24

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)225
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)77
        Reflects downloads up to 06 Nov 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Get Access

        Login options

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media