The development of tools and techniques to analyze and extract organizations’ data habits from privacy policies are critical for scalable regulatory compliance audits. Unfortunately, these tools are becoming increasingly limited in their ability to identify compliance issues and fixes. After all, most were developed using regulation-agnostic datasets of annotated privacy policies obtained from a time before the introduction of landmark privacy regulations such as EU’s GDPR and California’s CCPA. In this paper, we describe the first open regulation-aware dataset of expert-annotated privacy policies, C3PA (CCPA Privacy Policy Provision Annotations), aimed to address this challenge. C3PA contains over 48K expert-labeled privacy policy text segments associated with responses to CCPA-specific disclosure mandates from 411 unique organizations. We demonstrate that the C3PA dataset is uniquely suited for aiding automated audits of compliance with CCPA-related disclosure mandates.

Deep learning (DL) is being used extensively for text classification. However, researchers have demonstrated the vulnerability of such classifiers to adversarial attacks. Attackers modify the text in a way which misleads the classifier while keeping the original meaning close to intact. State-of-the-art (SOTA) attack algorithms follow the general principle of making minimal changes to the text so as to not jeopardize semantics. Taking advantage of this we propose a novel and intuitive defense strategy called Sample Shielding.It is attacker and classifier agnostic, does not require any reconfiguration of the classifier or external resources and is simple to implement. Essentially, we sample subsets of the input text, classify them and summarize these into a final decision. We shield three popular DL text classifiers with Sample Shielding, test their resilience against four SOTA attackers across three datasets in a realistic threat setting. Even when given the advantage of knowing about our shielding strategy the adversary’s attack success rate is <=10% with only one exception and often < 5%. Additionally, Sample Shielding maintains near original accuracy when applied to original texts. Crucially, we show that the ‘make minimal changes’ approach of SOTA attackers leads to critical vulnerabilities that can be defended against with an intuitive sampling strategy.

Recent advances in natural language processing have enabled powerful privacy-invasive authorship attribution. To counter authorship attribution, researchers have proposed a variety of rule-based and learning-based text obfuscation approaches. However, existing authorship obfuscation approaches do not consider the adversarial threat model. Specifically, they are not evaluated against adversarially trained authorship attributors that are aware of potential obfuscation. To fill this gap, we investigate the problem of adversarial authorship attribution for deobfuscation. We show that adversarially trained authorship attributors are able to degrade the effectiveness of existing obfuscators from 20-30% to 5-10%. We also evaluate the effectiveness of adversarial training when the attributor makes incorrect assumptions about whether and which obfuscator was used. While there is a a clear degradation in attribution accuracy, it is noteworthy that this degradation is still at or above the attribution accuracy of the attributor that is not adversarially trained at all. Our results motivate the need to develop authorship obfuscation approaches that are resistant to deobfuscation.

Social media platforms are deploying machine learning based offensive language classification systems to combat hateful, racist, and other forms of offensive speech at scale. However, despite their real-world deployment, we do not yet comprehensively understand the extent to which offensive language classifiers are robust against adversarial attacks. Prior work in this space is limited to studying robustness of offensive language classifiers against primitive attacks such as misspellings and extraneous spaces. To address this gap, we systematically analyze the robustness of state-of-the-art offensive language classifiers against more crafty adversarial attacks that leverage greedy- and attention-based word selection and context-aware embeddings for word replacement. Our results on multiple datasets show that these crafty adversarial attacks can degrade the accuracy of offensive language classifiers by more than 50% while also being able to preserve the readability and meaning of the modified text.

Prior research has discussed and illustrated the need to consider linguistic norms at the community level when studying taboo (hateful/offensive/toxic etc.) language. However, a methodology for doing so, that is firmly founded on community language norms is still largely absent. This can lead both to biases in taboo text classification and limitations in our understanding of the causes of bias. We propose a method to study bias in taboo classification and annotation where a community perspective is front and center. This is accomplished by using special classifiers tuned for each community’s language. In essence, these classifiers represent community level language norms. We use these to study bias and find, for example, biases are largest against African Americans (7/10 datasets and all 3 classifiers examined). In contrast to previous papers we also study other communities and find, for example, strong biases against South Asians. In a small scale user study we illustrate our key idea which is that common utterances, i.e., those with high alignment scores with a community (community classifier confidence scores) are unlikely to be regarded taboo. Annotators who are community members contradict taboo classification decisions and annotations in a majority of instances. This paper is a significant step toward reducing false positive taboo decisions that over time harm minority communities.

It is well recognized that sensory perceptions and language have interconnections through numerous studies in psychology, neuroscience, and sensorial linguistics. Set in this rich context we ask whether the use of sensorial language in writings is part of linguistic style? This question is important from the view of stylometrics research where a rich set of language features have been explored, but with insufficient attention given to features related to sensorial language. Taking this as the goal we explore several angles about sensorial language and style in collections of lyrics, novels, and poetry. We find, for example, that individual use of sensorial language is not a random phenomenon; choice is likely involved. Also, sensorial style is generally stable over time - the shifts are extremely small. Moreover, style can be extracted from just a few hundred sentences that have sensorial terms. We also identify representative and distinctive features within each genre. For example, we observe that 4 of the top 6 representative features in novels collection involved individuals using olfactory language where we expected them to use non-olfactory language.

Given the potential misuse of recent advances in synthetic text generation by language models (LMs), it is important to have the capacity to attribute authorship of synthetic text. While stylometric organic (i.e., human written) authorship attribution has been quite successful, it is unclear whether similar approaches can be used to attribute a synthetic text to its source LM. We address this question with the key insight that synthetic texts carry subtle distinguishing marks inherited from their source LM and that these marks can be leveraged by machine learning (ML) algorithms for attribution. We propose and test several ML-based attribution methods. Our best attributor built using a fine-tuned version of XLNet (XLNet-FT) consistently achieves excellent accuracy scores (91% to near perfect 98%) in terms of attributing the parent pre-trained LM behind a synthetic text. Our experiments show promising results across a range of experiments where the synthetic text may be generated using pre-trained LMs, fine-tuned LMs, or by varying text generation parameters.

Authorship attribution aims to identify the author of a text based on the stylometric analysis. Authorship obfuscation, on the other hand, aims to protect against authorship attribution by modifying a text’s style. In this paper, we evaluate the stealthiness of state-of-the-art authorship obfuscation methods under an adversarial threat model. An obfuscator is stealthy to the extent an adversary finds it challenging to detect whether or not a text modified by the obfuscator is obfuscated – a decision that is key to the adversary interested in authorship attribution. We show that the existing authorship obfuscation methods are not stealthy as their obfuscated texts can be identified with an average F1 score of 0.87. The reason for the lack of stealthiness is that these obfuscators degrade text smoothness, as ascertained by neural language models, in a detectable manner. Our results highlight the need to develop stealthy authorship obfuscation methods that can better protect the identity of an author seeking anonymity.

This paper proposes a system for OffensEval (SemEval 2019 Task 6), which calls for a system to classify offensive language into several categories. Our system is a text based CNN, which learns only from the provided training data. Our system achieves 80 - 90% accuracy for the binary classification problems (offensive vs not offensive and targeted vs untargeted) and 63% accuracy for trinary classification (group vs individual vs other).