Abstract:Emerging discussions on the responsible government use of algorithmic technologies propose transparency and public participation as key mechanisms for preserving accountability and trust. But in practice, the adoption and use of any technology shifts the social, organizational, and political context in which it is embedded. Therefore translating transparency and participation efforts into meaningful, effective accountability must take into account these shifts. We adopt two theoretical frames, Mulligan and Nissenbaum's handoff model and Star and Griesemer's boundary objects, to reveal such shifts during the U.S. Census Bureau's adoption of differential privacy (DP) in its updated disclosure avoidance system (DAS) for the 2020 census. This update preserved (and arguably strengthened) the confidentiality protections that the Bureau is mandated to uphold, and the Bureau engaged in a range of activities to facilitate public understanding of and participation in the system design process. Using publicly available documents concerning the Census' implementation of DP, this case study seeks to expand our understanding of how technical shifts implicate values, how such shifts can afford (or fail to afford) greater transparency and participation in system design, and the importance of localized expertise throughout. We present three lessons from this case study toward grounding understandings of algorithmic transparency and participation: (1) efforts towards transparency and participation in algorithmic governance must center values and policy decisions, not just technical design decisions; (2) the handoff model is a useful tool for revealing how such values may be cloaked beneath technical decisions; and (3) boundary objects alone cannot bridge distant communities without trusted experts traveling alongside to broker their adoption.

Disclosure Avoidance for the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File

The Impact of the U.S. Census Disclosure Avoidance System on Redistricting and Voting Rights Analysis

Full-Information Estimation For Hierarchical Data

Confidentiality Protection in the 2020 US Census of Population and Housing

Impacts of Census Differential Privacy for Small-Area Disease Mapping to Monitor Health Inequities

Comment: The Essential Role of Policy Evaluation for the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System

An In-Depth Examination of Requirements for Disclosure Risk Assessment

Escalation of Commitment: A Case Study of the United States Census Bureau Efforts to Implement Differential Privacy for the 2020 Decennial Census

The 2010 Census Confidentiality Protections Failed, Here's How and Why

Understanding and Mitigating the Impacts of Differentially Private Census Data on State Level Redistricting

Quantifying Privacy Risks of Public Statistics to Residents of Subsidized Housing

Differential Privacy in the 2020 Decennial Census and the Implications for Available Data Products

Assessing Statistical Disclosure Risk for Differentially Private, Hierarchical Count Data, with Application to the 2020 U.S. Decennial Census

Differential Privacy Protections in 2020 U.S. Decennial Census Data Do Not Impede Measurement of Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Census TopDown: The Impacts of Differential Privacy on Redistricting

Synthetic Census Data Generation via Multidimensional Multiset Sum

The 2020 United States Decennial Census Is More Private Than You (Might) Think

Algorithmic Transparency and Participation through the Handoff Lens: Lessons Learned from the U.S. Census Bureau's Adoption of Differential Privacy

When Privacy Protection Goes Wrong: How and Why the 2020 Census Confidentiality Program Failed

The Impact of De-Identification on Single-Year-of-Age Counts in the U.S. Census

Evaluating bias and noise induced by the U.S. Census Bureau's privacy protection methods