ArticleFrontiers in big data2024
Equitable differential privacy.
Article in Frontiers in big data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differential privacy (DP) has been in the public spotlight since the announcement of its use in the 2020 U.S. Census. While DP algorithms have substantially improved the confidentiality protections provided to Census respondents, concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the DP-protected Census data. The extent to which the use of DP distorts the ability to draw inferences that drive policy about small-populations, especially marginalized communities, has been of particular concern to researchers and policy makers. After all, inaccurate information about marginalized populations can often engender policies that exacerbate rather than ameliorate social inequities. Consequently, computer science experts have focused on developing mechanisms that help achieve equitable privacy, i.e., mechanisms that mitigate the data distortions introduced by privacy protections to ensure equitable outcomes and benefits for all groups, particularly marginalized groups. Our paper extends the conversation on equitable privacy by highlighting the importance of inclusive communication in ensuring equitable outcomes for all social groups through all the stages of deploying a differentially private system. We conceptualize Equitable DP as the design, communication, and implementation of DP algorithms that ensure equitable outcomes. Thus, in addition to adopting computer scientists' recommendations of incorporating equity parameters within DP algorithms, we suggest that it is critical for an organization to also facilitate inclusive communication throughout the design, development, and implementation stages of a DP algorithm to ensure it has an equitable impact on social groups and does not hinder the redressal of social inequities. To demonstrate the importance of communication for Equitable DP, we undertake a case study of the process through which DP was adopted as the newest disclosure avoidance system for the 2020 U.S. Census. Drawing on the Inclusive Science Communication (ISC) framework, we examine the extent to which the Census Bureau's communication strategies encouraged engagement across the diverse groups of users that employ the decennial Census data for research and policy making. Our analysis provides lessons that can be used by other government organizations interested in incorporating the Equitable DP approach in their data collection practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.