<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-09-19T21:55:56Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/104826" metadataPrefix="dim">https://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/104826</identifier><datestamp>2022-02-01T17:37:14Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_1721.1_7582</setSpec><setSpec>com_1721.1_7581</setSpec><setSpec>col_1721.1_131023</setSpec></header><metadata><dim:dim xmlns:dim="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim http://www.dspace.org/schema/dim.xsd">
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="advisor" lang="en_US">Daniel J. Weitzner.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="author" lang="en_US">Rahman, Amn</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="other" lang="en_US">Technology and Policy Program.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="department">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="department">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="department">Technology and Policy Program</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="accessioned">2016-10-14T15:54:30Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="available">2016-10-14T15:54:30Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="copyright" lang="en_US">2016</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="issued" lang="en_US">2016</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/104826</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="oclc" lang="en_US">959236314</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Thesis: S.M. in Technology and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, Technology and Policy Program, 2016.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Includes bibliographical references (pages 96-107).</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="abstract" lang="en_US">In 1968, the US Congress enacted a detailed list of requirements for transparency reporting of wiretaps but with subsequent surveillance statutes with minimal reporting requirements and rapidly evolving Internet technologies, the gap in surveillance transparency grew. The Snowden disclosures in 2013 provided a peek into the surveillance landscape and the central role of ICT companies in fostering it. While attempting to salvage their tarnished reputations and encourage public discussion, several companies began to see an incentive in publishing 'transparency reports', providing statistics on user data requested by the government. Since then, publishing these reports has become a norm in the industry but the reports provide little benefit in bridging the transparency gap. The varying formats, definitions and levels of granularity in the reports and the absence of a governance framework in the industry, prevent the reports from becoming useful tools for stakeholders wishing to inform policy decisions. In addition, new technologies, modern surveillance techniques, and evolving business models have created a set of transparency requirements that is markedly different from the initial set of requirements established under the US Wiretap Act. This thesis identifies the missing elements in the current transparency reports while providing a detailed list of necessary features. In addition, it uncovers the incentives that can be leveraged using available tools to encourage better reporting practices and suggests technical, legal and policy solutions so that transparency reporting may become a useful public policy tool rather than a ritualistic practice.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="statementofresponsibility" lang="en_US">by Amn Rahman</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="degree" lang="en_US">S.M. in Technology and Policy</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="extent" lang="en_US">112 pages</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="language" qualifier="iso" lang="en_US">eng</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="publisher" lang="en_US">Massachusetts Institute of Technology</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" lang="en_US">M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" qualifier="uri" lang="en_US">http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="subject" lang="en_US">Institute for Data, Systems, and Society.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="subject" lang="en_US">Engineering Systems Division.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="subject" lang="en_US">Technology and Policy Program.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="title" lang="en_US">Improving the transparency of government requests for user data from ICT companies</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="type" lang="en_US">Thesis</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="mimetype">application/pdf</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dspace" element="authorsordered">false</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dspace" element="entity" qualifier="type">Publication</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="cerif" element="openaire" authority="" confidence="-1">&lt;Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="262eb4d1-4e2c-40d8-a90d-795e31857f78">
	&lt;Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843&lt;/Type>
	&lt;Language>eng&lt;/Language>
   	&lt;Title>Improving the transparency of government requests for user data from ICT companies&lt;/Title>
   	&lt;PublishedIn>
    	&lt;Publication>
      	&lt;/Publication>
   	&lt;/PublishedIn>
   	&lt;PublicationDate>2016&lt;/PublicationDate>
   	&lt;Authors>
      	&lt;Author>
        	&lt;DisplayName>Rahman, Amn&lt;/DisplayName>
         	&lt;Affiliation>
         		&lt;OrgUnit>
         		&lt;/OrgUnit>
         	&lt;/Affiliation>
      	&lt;/Author>
	&lt;/Authors>
   	&lt;Editors>
	&lt;/Editors>
    &lt;Publishers>
        &lt;Publisher>
            &lt;DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology&lt;/DisplayName>
            &lt;OrgUnit />
        &lt;/Publisher>
    &lt;/Publishers>
    &lt;License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582&lt;/License>
    &lt;Keyword>Institute for Data, Systems, and Society.&lt;/Keyword>
    &lt;Keyword>Engineering Systems Division.&lt;/Keyword>
    &lt;Keyword>Technology and Policy Program.&lt;/Keyword>
   	&lt;Abstract>In 1968, the US Congress enacted a detailed list of requirements for transparency reporting of wiretaps but with subsequent surveillance statutes with minimal reporting requirements and rapidly evolving Internet technologies, the gap in surveillance transparency grew. The Snowden disclosures in 2013 provided a peek into the surveillance landscape and the central role of ICT companies in fostering it. While attempting to salvage their tarnished reputations and encourage public discussion, several companies began to see an incentive in publishing &amp;apos;transparency reports&amp;apos;, providing statistics on user data requested by the government. Since then, publishing these reports has become a norm in the industry but the reports provide little benefit in bridging the transparency gap. The varying formats, definitions and levels of granularity in the reports and the absence of a governance framework in the industry, prevent the reports from becoming useful tools for stakeholders wishing to inform policy decisions. In addition, new technologies, modern surveillance techniques, and evolving business models have created a set of transparency requirements that is markedly different from the initial set of requirements established under the US Wiretap Act. This thesis identifies the missing elements in the current transparency reports while providing a detailed list of necessary features. In addition, it uncovers the incentives that can be leveraged using available tools to encourage better reporting practices and suggests technical, legal and policy solutions so that transparency reporting may become a useful public policy tool rather than a ritualistic practice.&lt;/Abstract>
	&lt;Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right" 
    >
    &lt;/Access>
&lt;/Publication>
</dim:field>
</dim:dim>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>