Legally Binding but Unfair? Towards Assessing Fairness of Privacy Policies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Privacy policies are expected to inform data subjects about their data protection rights and should explain the data controller's data management practices. Privacy policies only fulfill their purpose, if they are correctly interpreted, understood, and trusted by the data subject. This implies that a privacy policy is written in a fair way, e.g., it does not use polarizing terms, does not require a certain education, or does not assume a particular social background. We outline our approach to assessing fairness in privacy policies. We identify from fundamental legal sources and fairness research, how the dimensions informational fairness, representational fairness and ethics / morality are related to privacy policies. We propose options to automatically assess policies in these fairness dimensions, based on text statistics, linguistic methods and artificial intelligence. We conduct initial experiments with German privacy policies to provide evidence that our approach is applicable. Our experiments indicate that there are issues in all three dimensions of fairness. This is important, as future privacy policies may be used in a corpus for legal artificial intelligence models.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 95 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2024.
Builds on
26 of 95 references.
References · 26
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,579
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2024Mixtral of Expertscited by 1,785
- 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2023Can Generalist Foundation Models Outcompete Special-Purpose Tuning? Case Study in Medicinecited by 319
- 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 251
- 2022"I'm sorry to hear that": Finding New Biases in Language Models with a Holistic Descriptor Datasetcited by 160
- 2021Gender Bias in Machine Translationcited by 116
- 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
14 more
- 2022Handling Bias in Toxic Speech Detection: A Surveycited by 60
- 2018Polisis: Automated Analysis and Presentation of Privacy Policies Using Deep Learningcited by 50
- 2022DiscoScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT and Discourse Coherencecited by 35
- 2021Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmic Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literaturecited by 27
- 2019Fairness in representation: quantifying stereotyping as a representational harmcited by 26
- 2022"There Is Not Enough Information": On the Effects of Explanations on Perceptions of Informational Fairness and Trustworthiness in Automated Decision-Makingcited by 19
- 2022The Long Arc of Fairness: Formalisations and Ethical Discoursecited by 12
- 2019word2word: A Collection of Bilingual Lexicons for 3,564 Language Pairscited by 7
- 2021AI-enabled Automation for Completeness Checking of Privacy Policiescited by 7
- 2021Evaluating Metrics for Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 7
- 2023Maximal Fairnesscited by 6
- 2023The Gender-GAP Pipeline: A Gender-Aware Polyglot Pipeline for Gender Characterisation in 55 Languagescited by 3
- 2018How to Make Privacy Policies both GDPR-Compliant and Usablecited by 2
- 2023LLMs grasp morality in conceptcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.
- 2025Helping Johnny Make Sense of Privacy Policies with LLMscited by 5
- 2025Helping Johnny Make Sense of Privacy Policies with LLMs27 Jan 2025