arXiv subjects

Konrad Kollnig

Publications and source records attributed to Konrad Kollnig.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

"If I Had to Buy Just ONE: Galaxy S26 Ultra": Auditing AI-Generated Product Recommendations

Consumers increasingly use AI chatbots for advice on what to buy. With companies like OpenAI and Google monetising their AI through advertising, this raises difficult questions about the bias and impartiality of such advice. In response, we conduct an AI audit of popular chatbots using real commercial-advice queries. First, we curate a dataset of 2,528 real commercial-advice queries (ConsumerQ). Then, we evaluate 1,536 responses to product queries from popular AI chatbots: ChatGPT (chatbot and API), Google Gemini (chatbot and API), and Google Search (AI Overviews). We find that ChatGPT expresses a first-person product preference in 79% of product-recommending responses, compared with 7% for Gemini and 2% for AI Overviews, while the products recommended often change across repeated requests. Displayed sources vary strongly: for the same query, the ChatGPT and Gemini interfaces share only 5.4% of domains on average, with no domain in common in 76.7% of comparisons. APIs provide a different view from their corresponding interfaces, with mean domain overlaps of 12.0% for ChatGPT and 14.8% for Gemini, and also differ in the types and layers of source information they expose. Our findings show that neither isolated responses nor API observations can be assumed to represent the commercial advice consumers encounter. Independent audits of AI-mediated commercial advice should therefore account for repeated responses, consumer-facing conditions, and the source layer being observed.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Exploring the "Banality" of Deception in Generative AI

Current approaches to addressing deceptive design largely focus on visible interface manipulations, commonly referred to as "dark patterns". With the rise of generative AI, deception is becoming more difficult to spot and easier to live with, as it is quietly embedded in default settings, automated suggestions, and conversational interactions rather than discrete interface elements. These subtle, normalised forms of influence, which Simone Natale frames as "banal deception", shape everyday digital use and blur the line between AI-enabled assistance and manipulation. This position paper explores banality as a lens through which to reason through deception in generative AI experiences, especially with chatbots. We explore what Natale describes as users' own involvement in their deception, and argue that this perspective could lead to future work for introducing friction to safeguard users from deception in generative AI interactions, such as empowering users through raising awareness, providing them with intervention tools, and regulatory or enforcement improvements. We present these concepts as points for discussion for the deceptive design scholarly community.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Can the GPC standard eliminate consent banners in the EU?

In the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation and the ePrivacy Directive mandate consent for the use of personal data for the purpose of behavioural advertising and tracking technologies. However, the ubiquity of consent banners has led to widespread consent fatigue and questions about the effectiveness of these mechanisms in protecting data subjects' data. To simplify digital laws and make the EU more competitive, the EU Commission recently proposed the Digital Omnibus, introducing a new Article 88b GDPR to express data subjects' choices in a technical way. While the Digital Omnibus is under legislative negotiation, California residents and residents of other US states can already exercise their rights via Global Privacy Control (GPC), a privacy signal to automatically broadcast a legally binding opt-out request to websites. In light of the Digital Omnibus, we evaluate to which extent GPC can be adapted to the EU legal framework to reduce consent banners, mitigate consent fatigue, and improve data protection for EU users. GPC is based on a technical specification, currently being standardised at the World Wide Web Consortium. By sending a GPC signal, data subjects can express their refusal or withdrawal of consent under the GDPR to the use of their personal data for cross-context ad targeting and, in some cases, to express their objection under the GDPR against the use of their data for such purposes. Our evaluation identifies friction between the GPC specification and current EU data protection law. In the longer term, it would be possible for the EU legislator to amend EU laws, as proposed in the current Digital Omnibus, in such a way that internet users can use automated signals to express choices about personal data use and online tracking. In the shorter term, websites and companies who conduct online tracking can already honour GPC.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Is your AI Model Accurate Enough? The Difficult Choices Behind Rigorous AI Development and the EU AI Act

Technical and legal debates frequently suggest that "accuracy" is an objective, measurable, and purely technical property. We challenge this view, showing that evaluating AI performance fundamentally depends on context-dependent normative decisions. These techno-normative choices are crucial for rigorous AI deployment, as they determine which errors are prioritised, how risks are distributed, and how trade-offs between competing objectives are resolved. This paper provides a legal-technical analysis of the choices that shape how accuracy is defined, measured, and assessed, using the 2024 European Union AI Act -- which mandates an "appropriate level of accuracy" for high-risk systems -- as a primary case study. We identify and analyse four choices central to any robust performance evaluation: (1) selecting metrics, (2) balancing multiple metrics, (3) measuring metrics against representative data, and (4) determining acceptance thresholds. For each choice, we study its relationship to the AI Act's accuracy requirement and associated documentation obligations, show how its technical implementation embeds implicit or explicit assumptions about acceptable risks, errors, and trade-offs, and discuss the implications for the practical implementation of the AI Act by examples and related technical standards. By making the techno-normative dimensions of accuracy explicit, this paper contributes to broader interdisciplinary debates on AI governance and regulation, and offers specific guidance for regulators, auditors, and developers tasked with translating (legal) safety requirements into technical practice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Understanding Data Collection, Brokerage, and Spam in the Lead Marketing Ecosystem

The lead marketing ecosystem enables collection, sale, and use of personal data submitted via web forms to deliver personalized quotes in high-value verticals such as insurance. Despite its scale and sensitivity of the collected data, this ecosystem remains largely unexplored by the research community. We present the first empirical study of privacy and spam risks in lead marketing, developing an end-to-end measurement framework to trace data flows from data collection to consumer contact. Our setup instruments over 100 health-related lead-generation websites and monitors 200 controlled phone numbers and email addresses to understand downstream marketing practices. We observe sharing of highly personal and sensitive health information to more than 70 distinct third parties on these lead generation websites. By purchasing our own and other organic leads from three major lead platforms, we uncover deceptive brokerage practices, where consumer data is sold to unvetted buyers and often augmented or fabricated with attributes such as health status and weight. We received a total of over 8,000 telemarketing phone calls, 600 text messages, and 200 emails, where calls often began within seconds of form submission. Many campaigns relied on VoIP-based neighbor spoofing and high-frequency dialing, at times rendering phones unusable. Our experiments with phone and email opt-outs suggest phone-based opt-outs to help the most, although all were ineffective at completely stopping marketing communications. Analysis of 7,432 Better Business Bureau (BBB) complaints and reviews corroborates these findings from the consumer perspective. Overall, our results reveal a highly interconnected and non-compliant lead marketing ecosystem that aggressively monetizes sensitive consumer data.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Exercising the CCPA Opt-out Right on Android: Legally Mandated but Practically Challenging

Many mobile apps' business model is based on sharing user data with ad networks to deliver personalized ads. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) gives California residents a right to opt out. In two experiments we evaluate to which extent popular Android apps enable California residents to exercise their right. In our first experiment -- manually exercising the right via app-level UIs -- we find that only 48 out of 100 apps implement a respective setting, which suggests that CCPA opt-out right compliance on the Android platform is generally low. In our second experiment -- automatically exercising the opt-out right by sending Global Privacy Control (GPC) signals -- we find for an app dataset of 1,811 apps that GPC is largely ineffective. While we estimate with 95% confidence that 62%--81% of apps in our app dataset must respect the CCPA opt-out right, many apps do not do so. Our evaluation of disabling apps' access to the AdID -- which is technically not intended for exercising the CCPA opt-out right but could be practically effective -- does not change our conclusion. For example, when sending GPC signals and disabling apps' access to the AdID, 338 apps still had the ccpa status of the ad network Vungle set to opted_in while only 26 had set it to opted_out. Overall, our results suggest a compliance gap as California residents have no effective way of exercising their CCPA opt-out right on the Android platform; neither at the app nor at the platform-level. We think that re-purposing the Android AdID setting as an opt-out right setting with legal meaning under the CCPA and other laws could close this gap and improve users' privacy on the platform significantly.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

The enshittification of online search? Privacy and quality of Google, Bing and Apple in coding advice

Even though currently being challenged by ChatGPT and other large-language models (LLMs), Google Search remains one of the primary means for many individuals to find information on the internet. Interestingly, the way that we retrieve information on the web has hardly changed ever since Google was established in 1998, raising concerns as to Google's dominance in search and lack of competition. If the market for search was sufficiently competitive, then we should probably see a steady increase in search quality over time as well as alternative approaches to the Google's approach to search. However, hardly any research has so far looked at search quality, which is a key facet of a competitive market, especially not over time. In this report, we conducted a relatively large-scale quantitative comparison of search quality of 1,467 search queries relating to coding advice in October 2023. We focus on coding advice because the study of general search quality is difficult, with the aim of learning more about the assessment of search quality and motivating follow-up research into this important topic. We evaluate the search quality of Google Search, Microsoft Bing, and Apple Search, with a special emphasis on Apple Search, a widely used search engine that has never been explored in previous research. For the assessment of search quality, we use two independent metrics of search quality: 1) the number of trackers on the first search result, as a measure of privacy in web search, and 2) the average rank of the first Stack Overflow search result, under the assumption that Stack Overflow gives the best coding advice. Our results suggest that the privacy of search results is higher on Bing than on Google and Apple. Similarly, the quality of coding advice -- as measured by the average rank of Stack Overflow -- was highest on Bing.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Can LLMs Create Legally Relevant Summaries and Analyses of Videos?

Understanding the legally relevant factual basis of an event and conveying it through text is a key skill of legal professionals. This skill is important for preparing forms (e.g., insurance claims) or other legal documents (e.g., court claims), but often presents a challenge for laypeople. Current AI approaches aim to bridge this gap, but mostly rely on the user to articulate what has happened in text, which may be challenging for many. Here, we investigate the capability of large language models (LLMs) to understand and summarize events occurring in videos. We ask an LLM to summarize and draft legal letters, based on 120 YouTube videos showing legal issues in various domains. Overall, 71.7\% of the summaries were rated as of high or medium quality, which is a promising result, opening the door to a number of applications in e.g. access to justice.

cs.MM↗

arXiv2025

Adoption of Watermarking for Generative AI Systems in Practice and Implications under the new EU AI Act

AI-generated images have become so good in recent years that individuals often cannot distinguish them any more from "real" images. This development, combined with the rapid spread of AI-generated content online, creates a series of societal risks. Watermarking, a technique that involves embedding information within images and other content to indicate their AI-generated nature, has emerged as a primary mechanism to address the risks posed by AI-generated content. Indeed, watermarking and AI labelling measures are now becoming a legal requirement in many jurisdictions, including under the 2024 European Union AI Act. Despite the widespread use of AI image generation systems, the practical implications and the current status of implementation of these measures remain largely unexamined. The present paper therefore provides both an empirical and a legal analysis of these measures. In our legal analysis, we identify four categories of generative AI deployment scenarios and outline how the legal obligations could apply in each category. In our empirical analysis, we find that only a minority number of AI image generators currently implement adequate watermarking (38%) and deep fake labelling (18%) practices. In response, we suggest a range of avenues of how the implementation of these legally mandated techniques can be improved, and publicly share our tooling for the detection of watermarks in images.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Every Keystroke You Make: A Tech-Law Measurement and Analysis of Event Listeners for Wiretapping

The privacy community has a long track record of investigating emerging types of web tracking techniques. Recent work has focused on compliance of web trackers with new privacy laws such as Europe's GDPR and California's CCPA. Despite the growing body of research documenting widespread lack of compliance with new privacy laws, there is a lack of robust enforcement. Different from prior work, we conduct a tech-law analysis to map decades-old U.S. laws about interception of electronic communications--so-called wiretapping--to web tracking. Bridging the tech-law gap for older wiretapping laws is important and timely because, in cases where legal harm to privacy is proven, they can provide statutory private right of action, are at the forefront of recent privacy enforcement, and could ultimately lead to a meaningful change in the web tracking landscape. In this paper, we focus on a particularly invasive tracking technique: the use of JavaScript event listeners by third-party trackers for real-time keystroke interception on websites. We use an instrumented web browser to crawl a sample of the top-million websites to investigate the use of event listeners that aligns with the criteria for wiretapping, according to U.S. wiretapping law at the federal level and in California. We find evidence that 38.52% websites installed third-party event listeners to intercept keystrokes, and that at least 3.18% websites transmitted intercepted information to a third-party server, which aligns with the criteria for wiretapping. We further find evidence that the intercepted information such as email addresses typed into form fields are used for unsolicited email marketing. Beyond our work that maps the intersection between technical measurement and U.S. wiretapping law, additional future legal research is required to determine when the wiretapping observed in our paper passes the threshold for illegality.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

Are Companies Taking AI Risks Seriously? A Systematic Analysis of Companies' AI Risk Disclosures in SEC 10-K forms

As Artificial Intelligence becomes increasingly central to corporate strategies, concerns over its risks are growing too. In response, regulators are pushing for greater transparency in how companies identify, report and mitigate AI-related risks. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) repeatedly warned companies to provide their investors with more accurate disclosures of AI-related risks; recent enforcement and litigation against companies' misleading AI claims reinforce these warnings. In the EU, new laws - like the AI Act and Digital Services Act - introduced additional rules on AI risk reporting and mitigation. Given these developments, it is essential to examine if and how companies report AI-related risks to the public. This study presents the first large-scale systematic analysis of AI risk disclosures in SEC 10-K filings, which require public companies to report material risks to their company. We analyse over 30,000 filings from more than 7,000 companies over the past five years, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis. Our findings reveal a sharp increase in the companies that mention AI risk, up from 4% in 2020 to over 43% in the most recent 2024 filings. While legal and competitive AI risks are the most frequently mentioned, we also find growing attention to societal AI risks, such as cyberattacks, fraud, and technical limitations of AI systems. However, many disclosures remain generic or lack details on mitigation strategies, echoing concerns raised recently by the SEC about the quality of AI-related risk reporting. To support future research, we publicly release a web-based tool for easily extracting and analysing keyword-based disclosures across SEC filings.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Google's Chrome Antitrust Paradox

This Article examines Google's dominance of the browser market, highlighting how Google's Chrome browser plays a critical role in reinforcing Google's dominance in other markets. While Google portrays Chrome as a neutral platform built on open-source technologies, this Article shows that Chrome is instrumental in Google's strategy to reinforce its dominance in the online advertising, publishing, and browser markets. The examination of Google's strategic acquisitions, anticompetitive practices, and implementation of so-called "privacy controls" underlines that Chrome is far from a neutral gateway to the web. Rather, it serves as a key tool for Google to maintain and extend its market power, often to the detriment of competition and innovation in the digital economy. This Article illustrates how Chrome not only bolsters Google's position in online advertising and publishing through practices such as coercion and self-preferencing, but also leverages its advertising clout to engage in a "pay-to-play" paradigm--the cornerstone of Google's larger strategy of market control. It also outlines potential regulatory interventions and remedies by drawing on historical antitrust precedents. Lastly, this Article proposes a triad of solutions motivated by an analysis of Google's abuse of Chrome, including behavioral remedies targeting specific anticompetitive practices, structural remedies involving an internal separation of Google's divisions, and divestiture of Chrome from Google into an independent organization. (Abstract abridged for arXiv. Full abstract available in published version.)

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Exploring Antitrust and Platform Power in Generative AI

The concentration of power in a few digital technology companies has become a subject of increasing interest in both academic and non-academic discussions. One of the most noteworthy contributions to the debate is Lina Khan's Amazon's Antitrust Paradox. In this work, Khan contends that Amazon has systematically exerted its dominance in online retail to eliminate competitors and subsequently charge above-market prices. This work contributed to Khan's appointment as the chair of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), one of the most influential antitrust organisations. Today, several ongoing antitrust lawsuits in the US and Europe involve major technology companies like Apple, Google/Alphabet, and Facebook/Meta. In the realm of generative AI, we are once again witnessing the same companies taking the lead in technological advancements, leaving little room for others to compete. This article examines the market dominance of these corporations in the technology stack behind generative AI from an antitrust law perspective.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

We Are Not There Yet: The Implications of Insufficient Knowledge Management for Organisational Compliance

Since GDPR went into effect in 2018, many other data protection and privacy regulations have been released. With the new regulation, there has been an associated increase in industry professionals focused on data protection and privacy. Building on related work showing the potential benefits of knowledge management in organisational compliance and privacy engineering, this paper presents the findings of an exploratory qualitative study with data protection officers and other privacy professionals. We found issues with knowledge management to be the underlying challenge of our participants' feedback. Our participants noted four categories of feedback: (1) a perceived disconnect between regulation and practice, (2) a general lack of clear job description, (3) the need for data protection and privacy to be involved at every level of an organisation, (4) knowledge management tools exist but are not used effectively. This paper questions what knowledge management or automation solutions may prove to be effective in establishing better computer-supported work environments.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Before and after China's new Data Laws: Privacy in Apps

Privacy in apps is a topic of widespread interest because many apps collect and share large amounts of highly sensitive information. In response, China introduced a range of new data protection laws over recent years, notably the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) in 2021. So far, there exists limited research on the impacts of these new laws on apps' privacy practices. To address this gap, this paper analyses data collection in pairs of 634 Chinese iOS apps, one version from early 2020 and one from late 2021. Our work finds that many more apps now implement consent. Yet, those end-users that decline consent will often be forced to exit the app. Fewer apps now collect data without consent but many still integrate tracking libraries. We see our findings as characteristic of a first iteration at Chinese data regulation with room for improvement.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Priorities for more effective tech regulation

Ample research has demonstrated that compliance with data protection principles remains limited on the web and mobile. For example, almost none of the apps on the Google Play Store fulfil the minimum requirements regarding consent under EU and UK law, while most of them share tracking data with companies like Google/Alphabet and Facebook/Meta and would likely need to seek consent from their users. Indeed, recent privacy efforts and enforcement by Apple have had - in some regards - a more pronounced effect on apps' data practices than the EU's ambitious General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Given the current mismatch between the law on the books and data practices in reality, iterative changes to current legal practice will not be enough to meaningfully tame egregious data practices. Hence, this technical report proposes a range of priorities for academia, regulators and the interested public in order to move beyond the status quo.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Imagining, Studying and Realising A Less Harmful App Ecosystem

Desktop browser extensions have long allowed users to improve their experience online and tackle widespread harms on websites. So far, no equivalent solution exists for mobile apps, despite the fact that individuals now spend significantly more time on mobile than on desktop, and arguably face similarly widespread harms. In this work, we investigate mobile app extensions, a previously underexplored concept to study and address digital harms within mobile apps in a decentralised, community-driven way. We analyse challenges to adoption of this approach so far, and present a ready-to-use implementation for Android as a result of significant and careful system development. Through a range of case studies, we demonstrate that our implementation can already reduce (though not completely eliminate) a wide range of harms - similarly as browser extensions do on desktops. Our method provides a versatile foundation for a range of follow-up research into digital harms in mobile apps that has not previously been possible, given that browser extensions have long been a fruitful foundation for research studies on desktops. In other words, our system tries to address the gap of a focus on desktop interventions in previous research.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

The Cost of the GDPR for Apps? Nearly Impossible to Study without Platform Data

A recently published pre-print titled 'GDPR and the Lost Generation of Innovative Apps' by Janßen et al. observes that a third of apps on the Google Play Store disappeared from this app store around the introduction of the GDPR in May 2018. The authors deduce 'that GDPR is the cause'. The effects of the GDPR on the app economy are an important field to study. Unfortunately, the paper currently lacks a control condition and a key variable. As a result, the effects on app exits reported in the paper are likely overestimated, as we will discuss. We believe there are other factors which may better explain these changes in the Play Store aside from the GDPR.

cs.CY↗