Search for: All records

The near universal condemnation of proxy discrimination hides a disagreement over what it is. This work surveys various notions of proxy and proxy discrimination found in prior work and represents them in a common framework. These notions variously turn on statistical dependencies, causal effects, and intentions. It discusses the limitations and uses of each notation and of the concept as a whole. 

We mathematically compare four competing definitions of group-level nondiscrimination: demographic parity, equalized odds, predictive parity, and calibration. Using the theoretical framework of Friedler et al., we study the properties of each definition under various worldviews, which are assumptions about how, if at all, the observed data is biased. We argue that different worldviews call for different definitions of fairness, and we specify the worldviews that, when combined with the desire to avoid a criterion for discrimination that we call disparity amplification, motivate demographic parity and equalized odds. We also argue that predictive parity and calibration are insufficient for avoiding disparity amplification because predictive parity allows an arbitrarily large inter-group disparity and calibration is not robust to post-processing. Finally, we define a worldview that is more realistic than the previously considered ones, and we introduce a new notion of fairness that corresponds to this worldview. 

We present associative and causal views of differential privacy. Under the associative view, the possibility of dependencies between data points precludes a simple statement of differential privacy's guarantee as conditioning upon a single changed data point. However, we show that a simple characterization of differential privacy as limiting the effect of a single data point does exist under the causal view, without independence assumptions about data points. We believe this characterization resolves disagreement and confusion in prior work about the consequences of differential privacy. The associative view needing assumptions boils down to the contrapositive of the maxim that correlation doesn’t imply causation: differential privacy ensuring a lack of (strong) causation does not imply a lack of (strong) association. Our characterization also opens up the possibility of applying results from statistics, experimental design, and science about causation while studying differential privacy. 

Interactions between bids to show ads online can lead to an advertiser's ad being shown to more men than women even when the advertiser does not target towards men. We design bidding strategies that advertisers can use to avoid such emergent discrimination without having to modify the auction mechanism. We mathematically analyze the strategies to determine the additional cost to the advertiser for avoiding discrimination, proving our strategies to be optimal in some settings. We use simulations to understand other settings. 

We study how to evaluate Anti-Fingerprinting Privacy Enhancing Technologies (AFPETs). Experimental methods have the advantage of control and precision, and can be applied to new AFPETs that currently lack a user base. Observational methods have the advantage of scale and drawing from the browsers currently in real-world use. We propose a novel combination of these methods, offering the best of both worlds, by applying experimentally created models of a AFPET's behavior to an observational dataset. We apply our evaluation methods to a collection of AFPETs to find the Tor Browser Bundle to be the most effective among them. We further uncover inconsistencies in some AFPETs' behaviors. 

We explore ways in which discrimination may arise in the targeting of job-related advertising, noting the potential for multiple parties to contribute to its occurrence. We then examine the statutes and case law interpreting the prohibition on advertisements that indicate a preference based on protected class, and consider its application to online advertising. We focus on its interaction with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides interactive computer services with immunity for providing access to information created by a third party. We argue that such services can lose that immunity if they target ads toward or away from protected classes without explicit instructions from advertisers to do so.