LinkedIn and AI Data Privacy
LinkedIn and AI Data Privacy | |
---|---|
Short Title | LinkedIn and Al Data Privacy |
Location | LinkedIn (Worldwide impact) |
Date | September 2024 |
Solove Harm | Increased Accessibility, Distortion |
Information | Identifying, Professional, Contact, Demographic, Social Network, History, Facial Images |
Threat Actors | Microsoft, Artificial Intelligence |
Individuals | |
Affected | LinkedIn users whose data was collected without |
High Risk Groups | Employees, Students |
Tangible Harms | Invasion of privacy, Loss of Trust, Anxiety, Privacy Violations |
Al companies utilize Linkedin user data for model training which increases privacy issues because users lack transparency and knowledge.
Description
The case under discussion is about utilizing the data obtained from LinkedIn to train AI solutions and raise crucial privacy and ethic issues. The large user base of LinkedIn and the professional connections it provides provide a lot of data and its terms of service does not restrict data curation for AI. However, it is a fact that many users do not know that their personal and professional information are being used to enhance AI without their permission thus increasing accessibility and distortion of data.
As more and more AI companies try to enhance the results of their models with data, the issue of how data is collected and processed at LinkedIn becomes a concern regarding the privacy of its users. This practice shows how users’ personal and working data are exposed to being used in ways that probably the users did not for see or agree, for example, being input to an AI system that may misuse or distort the users’ data. There are also several ethical concerns due to users receiving unintended and perhaps undesirable effects for providing data that may be used in other settings without their knowledge.
Even though this approach meets the letter of the law according to LinkedIn’s user policies, it opens up an interesting question about the difference between legal and ethical utilization of data. This case points to the need for better rules around data usage, more disclosure and consent in data use for AI training and development. When it comes to the protection of users’ data and the fight against unfair practices in the creation of AI, there are more and more demands for regulatory framework – from the GDPR in the EU to state laws in the USA.