PrivacyAkinator: Articulating Key Privacy Design Decisions by Answering LLM-Generated Multiple-choice Questions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20206v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:49:29 GMT
• Title: PrivacyAkinator: Articulating Key Privacy Design Decisions by Answering LLM-Generated Multiple-choice Questions
• Abstract summary: NIST's Privacy Risk Assessment methodology (PRAM) provides a structured framework for privacy experts to assess privacy risks.<n>Its complexity and reliance on expert knowledge make it difficult for novice developers to use effectively.<n>We first performed an observational study with 12 participants using PRAM in real-world scenarios, and found that novice developers struggled most with articulating privacy-related design decisions.<n>We then developed PrivacyAkinator, an interactive tool that helps developers articulate key privacy decisions.
• Score: 8.736562969448634
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: NIST's Privacy Risk Assessment Methodology (PRAM) provides a structured framework for privacy experts to assess privacy risks. However, its complexity and reliance on expert knowledge make it difficult for novice developers to use effectively. This paper explores methods to lower these barriers. We first performed an observational study with 12 participants using PRAM in real-world scenarios, and found that novice developers struggled most with articulating privacy-related design decisions. We then developed PrivacyAkinator, an interactive tool that helps developers articulate key privacy decisions by answering LLM-generated multiple-choice questions. PrivacyAkinator introduces three innovations: a universal privacy representation that abstracts privacy-related design decisions into data flows and stakeholder interactions; a domain-aware design space mined from 10K privacy-related news articles; and a dynamic question-generation workflow to prioritize relevant questions. Our user study with 24 participants suggests that developers using PrivacyAkinator identified 47% more key decisions in 73% less time compared to PRAM.

Related papers

• Profiling for Pennies: Unveiling the Privacy Iceberg of LLM Agents [52.02752011119451]
  We investigate privacy perception in the real world through the lens of human awareness.<n>We propose the PrivacyIceberg, which categorizes real-world human privacy risks into three tiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T13:21:44Z)
• "I need to learn better searching tactics for privacy policy laws.'' Investigating Software Developers' Behavior When Using Sources on Privacy Issues [8.662963983664223]
  Our study highlights major shortcomings in existing support for privacy-related development tasks.<n>Based on our findings, we discuss the need for more accessible, understandable, and actionable privacy resources for developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T09:58:06Z)
• Privy: Envisioning and Mitigating Privacy Risks for Consumer-facing AI Product Concepts [15.368491131846461]
  AI creates and exacerbates privacy risks, yet practitioners lack effective resources to identify and mitigate these risks.<n>We present Privy, a tool that guides practitioners through structured privacy impact assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T23:08:24Z)
• MAGPIE: A dataset for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluation [54.410825977390274]
  Existing benchmarks to evaluate contextual privacy in LLM-agents primarily assess single-turn, low-complexity tasks.<n>We first present a benchmark - MAGPIE comprising 158 real-life high-stakes scenarios across 15 domains.<n>We then evaluate the current state-of-the-art LLMs on their understanding of contextually private data and their ability to collaborate without violating user privacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T18:04:25Z)
• "Sorry for bugging you so much." Exploring Developers' Behavior Towards Privacy-Compliant Implementation [7.736621118547534]
  We conducted a study with 30 professional software developers on privacy-sensitive programming tasks.<n>None of the 3 tasks were privacy-compliant by all 30 participants.<n>Participants reported severe issues addressing common privacy requirements such as purpose limitation, user consent, or data minimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T08:59:17Z)
• Multi-P$^2$A: A Multi-perspective Benchmark on Privacy Assessment for Large Vision-Language Models [65.2761254581209]
  We evaluate the privacy preservation capabilities of 21 open-source and 2 closed-source Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>Based on Multi-P$2$A, we evaluate the privacy preservation capabilities of 21 open-source and 2 closed-source LVLMs.<n>Our results reveal that current LVLMs generally pose a high risk of facilitating privacy breaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-27T07:33:39Z)
• Privacy in Fine-tuning Large Language Models: Attacks, Defenses, and Future Directions [11.338466798715906]
  Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve state-of-the-art performance across various domains.<n>This paper provides a comprehensive survey of privacy challenges associated with fine-tuning LLMs.<n>We highlight vulnerabilities to various privacy attacks, including membership inference, data extraction, and backdoor attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-21T06:41:29Z)
• Privacy Risks of General-Purpose AI Systems: A Foundation for Investigating Practitioner Perspectives [47.17703009473386]
  Powerful AI models have led to impressive leaps in performance across a wide range of tasks. Privacy concerns have led to a wealth of literature covering various privacy risks and vulnerabilities of AI models. We conduct a systematic review of these survey papers to provide a concise and usable overview of privacy risks in GPAIS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T07:49:48Z)
• Mind the Privacy Unit! User-Level Differential Privacy for Language Model Fine-Tuning [62.224804688233]
  differential privacy (DP) offers a promising solution by ensuring models are 'almost indistinguishable' with or without any particular privacy unit. We study user-level DP motivated by applications where it necessary to ensure uniform privacy protection across users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T13:54:32Z)
• Evaluating Privacy Perceptions, Experience, and Behavior of Software Development Teams [2.818645620433775]
  Our survey includes 362 participants from 23 countries, encompassing roles such as product managers, developers, and testers. Our results show diverse definitions of privacy across SDLC roles, emphasizing the need for a holistic privacy approach throughout SDLC. Most participants are more familiar with HIPAA and other regulations, with multi-jurisdictional compliance being their primary concern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T17:55:10Z)
• Advancing Differential Privacy: Where We Are Now and Future Directions for Real-World Deployment [100.1798289103163]
  We present a detailed review of current practices and state-of-the-art methodologies in the field of differential privacy (DP) Key points and high-level contents of the article were originated from the discussions from "Differential Privacy (DP): Challenges Towards the Next Frontier" This article aims to provide a reference point for the algorithmic and design decisions within the realm of privacy, highlighting important challenges and potential research directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-14T05:29:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.