arXiv subjects

Hao-Ping Lee

Publications and source records attributed to Hao-Ping Lee.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

PIA-Bench: Towards Automated Privacy Impact Assessment with Large Language Models

Privacy impact assessment (PIA) is a critical instrument for institutions to proactively identify privacy risks and develop mitigation strategies before system deployment. While mandated across regulatory and institutional contexts, executing PIA requires extensive privacy and technical expertise, posing a particular challenge for teams without access to such resources. Prior work shows the potential of leveraging large language models (LLMs) to assist practitioners' privacy decisions, but little is known about how accurately and reliably LLMs can automate PIA. To this end, we develop PIA-Bench, the first open benchmark for evaluating LLMs on real-world PIAs. We first audited 499 expert-authored PIAs published by US federal agencies and curated 73 structured PIAs, comprising a total of 451 privacy risk and 831 mitigation items, to evaluate LLMs' ability to assess privacy risks and propose mitigations of complex systems. Our results show that off-the-shelf LLMs produce meaningful assessments and identify avenues for future improvement. Finally, we call for improving domain-specific workflows for LLM agents, developing accountable LLM infrastructure, and designing new quality standards for PIAs.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

The Perils of Agency: How Developers Perceive, Prioritize, and Address Risks in Agentic AI Products

Agentic AI systems act autonomously, use tools, adapt to context, and operate in complex real-world environments. However, these same characteristics can create or exacerbate product risks. We studied how industry developers (n=35) perceive, prioritize, and address the risks in their agentic AI products. We found that developers' perceptions of risk were closely tied to the qualities that made the product agentic, such as autonomy, tool use, and usage in a real-world context. Developers prioritized product and business risks before considering downstream societal risks like job displacement and end-user privacy. This prioritization also impacted developers' ability and motivation to mitigate agentic risks. Finally, developers lacked mature controls for containing agentic risks, often relying on constraining the same characteristics that make agents useful: e.g., autonomy and goal complexity. These findings reveal a capability vs. risk control tension in agentic AI development: developers need to address risks that emerge from agentic capabilities, yet they currently have limited support for doing so without constraining agentic functionality.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Promoting Critical Thinking With Domain-Specific Generative AI Provocations

The evidence on the effects of generative AI (GenAI) on critical thinking is mixed, with studies suggesting both potential harms and benefits depending on its implementation. Some argue that AI-driven provocations, such as questions asking for human clarification and justification, are beneficial for eliciting critical thinking. Drawing on our experience designing and evaluating two GenAI-powered tools for knowledge work, ArtBot in the domain of fine art interpretation and Privy in the domain of AI privacy, we reflect on how design decisions shape the form and effectiveness of such provocations. Our observations and user feedback suggest that domain-specific provocations, implemented through productive friction and interactions that depend on user contribution, can meaningfully support critical thinking. We present participant experiences with both prototypes and discuss how supporting critical thinking may require moving beyond static provocations toward approaches that adapt to user preferences and levels of expertise.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

How Well Can LLM Agents Simulate End-User Security and Privacy Attitudes and Behaviors?

A growing body of research assumes that large language model (LLM) agents can serve as proxies for how people form attitudes toward and behave in response to security and privacy (S&P) threats. If correct, these simulations could offer a scalable way to forecast S&P risks in products prior to deployment. We interrogate this assumption using SP-ABCBench, a new benchmark of 30 tests derived from validated S&P human-subject studies, which measures alignment between simulations and human-subjects studies on a 0-100 ascending scale, where higher scores indicate better alignment across three dimensions: Attitude, Behavior, and Coherence. Evaluating twelve LLMs, four persona construction strategies, and two prompting methods, we found that there remains substantial room for improvement: all models score between 50 and 64 on average. Newer, bigger, and smarter models do not reliably do better and sometimes do worse. Some simulation configurations, however, do yield high alignment: e.g., with scores above 95 for some behavior tests when agents are prompted to apply bounded rationality and weigh privacy costs against perceived benefits. We release SP-ABCBench to enable reproducible evaluation as methods improve.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Privy: Envisioning and Mitigating Privacy Risks for Consumer-facing AI Product Concepts

AI creates and exacerbates privacy risks, yet practitioners lack effective resources to identify and mitigate these risks. We present Privy, a tool that guides practitioners without privacy expertise through structured privacy impact assessments to: (i) identify relevant risks in novel AI product concepts, and (ii) propose appropriate mitigations. Privy was shaped by a formative study with 11 practitioners, which informed two versions -- one LLM-powered, the other template-based. We evaluated these two versions of Privy through a between-subjects, controlled study with 24 separate practitioners, whose assessments were reviewed by 13 independent privacy experts. Results show that Privy helps practitioners produce privacy assessments that experts deemed high quality: practitioners identified relevant risks and proposed appropriate mitigation strategies. These effects were augmented in the LLM-powered version. Practitioners themselves rated Privy as being useful and usable, and their feedback illustrates how it helps overcome long-standing awareness, motivation, and ability barriers in privacy work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

"It's a Fair Game", or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agents

The widespread use of Large Language Model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs), especially in high-stakes domains, raises many privacy concerns. Building ethical LLM-based CAs that respect user privacy requires an in-depth understanding of the privacy risks that concern users the most. However, existing research, primarily model-centered, does not provide insight into users' perspectives. To bridge this gap, we analyzed sensitive disclosures in real-world ChatGPT conversations and conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 LLM-based CA users. We found that users are constantly faced with trade-offs between privacy, utility, and convenience when using LLM-based CAs. However, users' erroneous mental models and the dark patterns in system design limited their awareness and comprehension of the privacy risks. Additionally, the human-like interactions encouraged more sensitive disclosures, which complicated users' ability to navigate the trade-offs. We discuss practical design guidelines and the needs for paradigm shifts to protect the privacy of LLM-based CA users.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Deepfakes, Phrenology, Surveillance, and More! A Taxonomy of AI Privacy Risks

Privacy is a key principle for developing ethical AI technologies, but how does including AI technologies in products and services change privacy risks? We constructed a taxonomy of AI privacy risks by analyzing 321 documented AI privacy incidents. We codified how the unique capabilities and requirements of AI technologies described in those incidents generated new privacy risks, exacerbated known ones, or otherwise did not meaningfully alter the risk. We present 12 high-level privacy risks that AI technologies either newly created (e.g., exposure risks from deepfake pornography) or exacerbated (e.g., surveillance risks from collecting training data). One upshot of our work is that incorporating AI technologies into a product can alter the privacy risks it entails. Yet, current approaches to privacy-preserving AI/ML (e.g., federated learning, differential privacy, checklists) only address a subset of the privacy risks arising from the capabilities and data requirements of AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Human-Centered Privacy Research in the Age of Large Language Models

The emergence of large language models (LLMs), and their increased use in user-facing systems, has led to substantial privacy concerns. To date, research on these privacy concerns has been model-centered: exploring how LLMs lead to privacy risks like memorization, or can be used to infer personal characteristics about people from their content. We argue that there is a need for more research focusing on the human aspect of these privacy issues: e.g., research on how design paradigms for LLMs affect users' disclosure behaviors, users' mental models and preferences for privacy controls, and the design of tools, systems, and artifacts that empower end-users to reclaim ownership over their personal data. To build usable, efficient, and privacy-friendly systems powered by these models with imperfect privacy properties, our goal is to initiate discussions to outline an agenda for conducting human-centered research on privacy issues in LLM-powered systems. This Special Interest Group (SIG) aims to bring together researchers with backgrounds in usable security and privacy, human-AI collaboration, NLP, or any other related domains to share their perspectives and experiences on this problem, to help our community establish a collective understanding of the challenges, research opportunities, research methods, and strategies to collaborate with researchers outside of HCI.

cs.HC↗