mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

How Privacy-Savvy Are Large Language Models? A Case Study on Compliance and Privacy Technical Review

arXiv 2409.02375 ↗First posted 4 Sep 2024cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly expanded their applications across various fields such as language generation, summarization, and complex question answering. However, their application to privacy compliance and technical privacy reviews remains under-explored, raising critical concerns about their ability to adhere to global privacy standards and protect sensitive user data. This paper seeks to address this gap by providing a comprehensive case study evaluating LLMs' performance in privacy-related tasks such as privacy information extraction (PIE), legal and regulatory key point detection (KPD), and question answering (QA) with respect to privacy policies and data protection regulations. We introduce a Privacy Technical Review (PTR) framework, highlighting its role in mitigating privacy risks during the software development life-cycle. Through an empirical assessment, we investigate the capacity of several prominent LLMs, including BERT, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and custom models, in executing privacy compliance checks and technical privacy reviews. Our experiments benchmark the models across multiple dimensions, focusing on their precision, recall, and F1-scores in extracting privacy-sensitive information and detecting key regulatory compliance points. While LLMs show promise in automating privacy reviews and identifying regulatory discrepancies, significant gaps persist in their ability to fully comply with evolving legal standards. We provide actionable recommendations for enhancing LLMs' capabilities in privacy compliance, emphasizing the need for robust model improvements and better integration with legal and regulatory requirements. This study underscores the growing importance of developing privacy-aware LLMs that can both support businesses in compliance efforts and safeguard user privacy rights.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2024.

Builds on

17 of 36 references.

References · 17

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 568
  3. 2023Using an LLM to Help With Code Understandingcited by 222
  4. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilitiescited by 125
  5. 2024A Comprehensive Survey on Process-Oriented Automatic Text Summarization with Exploration of LLM-Based Methodscited by 101
  6. 2024Revolutionizing Finance with LLMs: An Overview of Applications and Insightscited by 88
  7. 2024A New Era in LLM Security: Exploring Security Concerns in Real-World LLM-based Systemscited by 74
  8. 2024Investigating Bias in LLM-Based Bias Detection: Disparities between LLMs and Human Perceptioncited by 55
  9. 2022Legal Prompt Engineering for Multilingual Legal Judgement Predictioncited by 54
  10. 2023Learning to Generate Better Than Your LLMcited by 49
  11. 2024Exposing Privacy Gaps: Membership Inference Attack on Preference Data for LLM Alignmentcited by 24
  12. 2024Noisy Neighbors: Efficient membership inference attacks against LLMscited by 20
5 more
  1. 2024Sampling-based Pseudo-Likelihood for Membership Inference Attackscited by 18
  2. 2023What can we learn from Data Leakage and Unlearning for Law?cited by 15
  3. 2024LawLuo: A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework for Multi-Round Chinese Legal Consultationcited by 14
  4. 2024No Free Lunch Theorem for Privacy-Preserving LLM Inferencecited by 13
  5. 2024Mapping LLM Security Landscapes: A Comprehensive Stakeholder Risk Assessment Proposalcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.

2 papers.