BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Benjamin Laufer

Benjamin Laufer contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYMachine LearningApplicationsArtificial IntelligenceCryptography and SecurityDigital LibrariesSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning

In 1996, Accountability in a Computerized Society [95] issued a clarion call concerning the erosion of accountability in society due to the ubiquitous delegation of consequential functions to computerized systems. Nissenbaum [95] described four barriers to accountability that computerization presented, which we revisit in relation to the ascendance of data-driven algorithmic systems--i.e., machine learning or artificial intelligence--to uncover new challenges for accountability that these systems present. Nissenbaum's original paper grounded discussion of the barriers in moral philosophy; we bring this analysis together with recent scholarship on relational accountability frameworks and discuss how the barriers present difficulties for instantiating a unified moral, relational framework in practice for data-driven algorithmic systems. We conclude by discussing ways of weakening the barriers in order to do so.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Collective Obfuscation and Crowdsourcing

Crowdsourcing technologies rely on groups of people to input information that may be critical for decision-making. This work examines obfuscation in the context of reporting technologies. We show that widespread use of reporting platforms comes with unique security and privacy implications, and introduce a threat model and corresponding taxonomy to outline some of the many attack vectors in this space. We then perform an empirical analysis of a dataset of call logs from a controversial, real-world reporting hotline and identify coordinated obfuscation strategies that are intended to hinder the platform's legitimacy. We propose a variety of statistical measures to quantify the strength of this obfuscation strategy with respect to the structural and semantic characteristics of the reporting attacks in our dataset.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Four Years of FAccT: A Reflexive, Mixed-Methods Analysis of Research Contributions, Shortcomings, and Future Prospects

Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) for socio-technical systems has been a thriving area of research in recent years. An ACM conference bearing the same name has been the central venue for scholars in this area to come together, provide peer feedback to one another, and publish their work. This reflexive study aims to shed light on FAccT's activities to date and identify major gaps and opportunities for translating contributions into broader positive impact. To this end, we utilize a mixed-methods research design. On the qualitative front, we develop a protocol for reviewing and coding prior FAccT papers, tracing their distribution of topics, methods, datasets, and disciplinary roots. We also design and administer a questionnaire to reflect the voices of FAccT community members and affiliates on a wide range of topics. On the quantitative front, we use the full text and citation network associated with prior FAccT publications to provide further evidence about topics and values represented in FAccT. We organize the findings from our analysis into four main dimensions: the themes present in FAccT scholarship, the values that underpin the work, the impact of the contributions both within academic circles and beyond, and the practices and informal norms of the community that has formed around FAccT. Finally, our work identifies several suggestions on directions for change, as voiced by community members.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Compounding Injustice: History and Prediction in Carceral Decision-Making

Risk assessment algorithms in criminal justice put people's lives at the discretion of a simple statistical tool. This thesis explores how algorithmic decision-making in criminal policy can exhibit feedback effects, where disadvantage accumulates among those deemed 'high risk' by the state. Evidence from Philadelphia suggests that risk - and, by extension, criminality - is not fundamental or in any way exogenous to political decision-making. A close look at the geographical and demographic properties of risk calls into question the current practice of prediction in criminal policy. Using court docket summaries from Philadelphia, we find evidence of a criminogenic effect of incarceration, even controlling for existing determinants of 'criminal risk'. With evidence that criminal treatment can influence future criminal convictions, we explore the theoretical implications of compounding effects in repeated carceral decisions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access