Stefaan Verhulst
Hamish Robertson and Joanne Travaglia in LSE’s The Impact Blog: “This is not the first ‘big data’ era but the second. The first was the explosion in data collection that occurred from the early 19th century – Hacking’s ‘avalanche of numbers’, precisely situated between 1820 and 1840. This was an analogue big data era, different to our current digital one but characterized by some very similar problems and concerns. Contemporary problems of data analysis and control include a variety of accepted factors that make them ‘big’ and these generally include size, complexity and technology issues. We also suggest that digitisation is a central process in this second big data era, one that seems obvious but which has also appears to have reached a new threshold. Until a decade or so ago ‘big data’ looked just like a digital version of conventional analogue records and systems. Ones whose management had become normalised through statistical and mathematical analysis. Now however we see a level of concern and anxiety, similar to the concerns that were faced in the first big data era.
This situation brings with it a socio-political dimension of interest to us, one in which our understanding of people and our actions on individuals, groups and populations are deeply implicated. The collection of social data had a purpose – understanding and controlling the population in a time of significant social change. To achieve this, new kinds of information and new methods for generating knowledge were required. Many ideas, concepts and categories developed during that first data revolution remain intact today, some uncritically accepted more now than when they were first developed. In this piece we draw out some connections between these two data ‘revolutions’ and the implications for the politics of information in contemporary society. It is clear that many of the problems in this first big data age and, more specifically, their solutions persist down to the present big data era….Our question then is how do we go about re-writing the ideological inheritance of that first data revolution? Can we or will we unpack the ideological sequelae of that past revolution during this present one? The initial indicators are not good in that there is a pervasive assumption in this broad interdisciplinary field that reductive categories are both necessary and natural. Our social ordering practices have influenced our social epistemology. We run the risk in the social sciences of perpetuating the ideological victories of the first data revolution as we progress through the second. The need for critical analysis grows apace not just with the production of each new technique or technology but with the uncritical acceptance of the concepts, categories and assumptions that emerged from that first data revolution. That first data revolution proved to be a successful anti-revolutionary response to the numerous threats to social order posed by the incredible changes of the nineteenth century, rather than the Enlightenment emancipation that was promised. (More)”
This is part of a wider series on the Politics of Data. For more on this topic, also see Mark Carrigan’sPhilosophy of Data Science interview series and the Discover Society special issue on the Politics of Data (Science).
Jennifer Hunter Childs et al in Survey Practice: “Periodically, the US Federal Government suffers from negative publicity, decreasing the confidence and trust people have in the government. Consequently, the leaders of several federal statistical agencies were interested in knowing if their public image would suffer from negative publicity. The researchers used data gathered in the Gallup Daily Poll to analyze and understand if negative government perceptions would negatively influence the perception of federal statistical agencies. The results indicate that as level of knowledge about and use of federal statistics increases, respondents’ differentiation among government entities also increases. For example, the strength of the relationship between people’s confidence in federal statistical agencies increased, whereas, the confidence in Congress and the military decreased. When confidence in Congress is particularly poor, results support the notion that increasing knowledge about the statistical system and increasing the public’s use of statistical data (through programs like the Census Bureau’s “Statistics in Schools”) could help people differentiate between sectors of the government, consequently increasing confidence in federal statistical agencies….(More)”
Michael McDonald, Peter Licari and Lia Merivaki in the Washington Post: “In modern campaigns, buzzwords like “microtargeting” and “big data” are often bandied about as essential to victory. These terms refer to the practice of analyzing (or “microtargeting”) millions of voter registration records (“big data”) to predict who will vote and for whom.
If you’ve ever gotten a message from a campaign, there’s a good chance you’ve been microtargeted. Serious campaigns use microtargeting to persuade voters through mailings, phone calls, knocking on doors, and — in our increasingly connected world — social media.
But the big data that fuels such efforts comes at a big price, which can create a serious barrier to entry for candidates and groups seeking to participate in elections — that is, if they are allowed to buy the data at all.
When we asked state election officials about prices and restrictions on who can use their voter registration files, we learned that the rules are unsettlingly arbitrary.
Contrast Arizona and Washington. Arizona sells its statewide voter file for an estimated $32,500, while Washington gives its file away for free. Before jumping to the conclusion that this is a red- state/blue-state thing, consider that Oklahoma gives its file away, too.
A number of states base their prices on a per-record formula, which can massively drive up the price despite the fact that files are often delivered electronically. Alabama sells its records for 1 cent per voter , which yields an approximately $30,000 charge for the lot. Seriously, in this day and age, who prices an electronic database by the record?
Some states will give more data to candidates than to outside groups. Delaware will provide phone numbers to candidates but not to nonprofit organizations doing nonpartisan voter mobilization.
In some states, the voter file is not even available to the general public. States such as South Carolina and Maryland permit access only to residents who are registered voters. States including Kentucky and North Dakota grant access only to campaigns, parties and other political organizations.
We estimate that it would cost roughly $140,000 for an independent presidential campaign or national nonprofit organization to compile a national voter file, and this would not be a one-time cost. Voter lists frequently change as voters are added and deleted.
Guess who most benefits from all the administrative chaos? Political parties and their candidates. Not only are they capable of raising the vast amounts of money needed to purchase the data, but, adding insult to injury, they sometimes don’t even have to. Some states literally bequeath the data to parties at no cost. Alabama goes so far as to give parties a free statewide copy for every election.
Who is hurt by this? Independent candidates and nonprofit organizations that want to run national campaigns but don’t have deep pockets. If someone like Donald Trump launched an independent presidential run, he could buy the necessary data without much difficulty. But a nonprofit focused on mobilizing low-income voters could be stretched thin….(More)”
Louise Pakseresht at Royal Society’s “Verba”: “We live in an era of data. The world is generating 1.7 million billion bytes of data every minute and the total amount of global data is expected to grow 40% year on year for the next decade (PDF). In 2003 scientists declared the mapping of the human genome complete. It took over 10 years and cost $1billion – today it takes mere days and can be done at a fraction of the cost.
Making the most of the data revolution will be key to future scientific and economic progress. Unlocking the value of data by improving the way that we collect, analyse and use data has the potential to improve lives across a multitude of areas, ranging from business to health, and from tackling climate change to aiding civic engagement. However, its potential for public benefit must be balanced against the need for data to be used intelligently and with respect for individuals’ privacy.
Getting regulation right
The UK Data Protection Act was transposed into UK law following the 1995 European Data Protection Directive. This was at a time before wide-spread use of internet and smartphones. In 2012, recognising the pace of technological change, the European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of EU data protection rules including a new Data Protection Regulation that would update and harmonise these rules across the EU.
The draft regulation is currently going through the EU legislative process. During this, the European Parliament has proposed changes to the Commission’s text. These changes have raised concerns for researchers across Europe that the Regulation could risk restricting the use of personal data for research which could prevent much vital health research. For example, researchers currently use these data to better understand how to prevent and treat conditions such as cancer, diabetes and dementia. The final details of the regulation are now being negotiated and the research community has come together to highlight the importance of data in research and articulate their concerns in a joint statement, which the Society supports.
The Society considers that datasets should be managed according to a system of proportionate governance. Personal data should only be shared if it is necessary for research with the potential for high public value and should be proportionate to the particular needs of a research project. It should also draw on consent, authorisation and safe havens – secure sites for databases containing sensitive personal data that can only be accessed by authorised researchers – as appropriate…..
However, many challenges remain that are unlikely to be resolved in the current European negotiations. The new legislation covers personal data but not anonymised data, which are data that have had information that can identify persons removed or replaced with a code. The assumption is that anonymisation is a foolproof way to protect personal identity. However, there have been examples of reidentification from anonymised data and computer scientists have long pointed out the flaws of relying on anonymisation to protect an individual’s privacy….There is also a risk of leaving the public behind with lack of information and failed efforts to earn trust; and it is clear that a better understanding of the role of consent and ethical governance is needed to ensure the continuation of cutting edge research which respects the principles of privacy.
These are problems that will require attention, and questions that the Society will continue to explore. …(More)”
Press Release: “The U.S. Census Bureau will join statistical organizations throughout the world to celebrate the second World Statistics Day on Oct. 20, 2015.
This interactive infographic is a compilation of news graphics that highlights the wide range of ways the Census Bureau supports this year’s theme of “Better data. Better lives.”
The Census Bureau uses statistics to provide critical and timely information about the people, places and economy of the United States.
For more information on World Statistics Day 2015, please see the links provided below.
- Infographic: World Statistics Day 2015
- Facts for Features: *Special Edition* World Statistics Day: Oct. 20, 2015 | PDF Version
- Video: Statistics All Around Us
- Official United Nations World Statistics Day 2015 Website“
Eric A. Fischer at the Congressional Research Service: “Internet of Things” (IoT) refers to networks of objects that communicate with other objects and with computers through the Internet. “Things” may include virtually any object for which remote communication, data collection, or control might be useful, such as vehicles, appliances, medical devices, electric grids, transportation infrastructure, manufacturing equipment, or building systems. In other words, the IoT potentially includes huge numbers and kinds of interconnected objects. It is often considered the next major stage in the evolution of cyberspace. Some observers believe it might even lead to a world where cyberspace and human space would seem to effectively merge, with unpredictable but potentially momentous societal and cultural impacts.
Two features makes objects part of the IoT—a unique identifier and Internet connectivity. Such “smart” objects each have a unique Internet Protocol (IP) address to identify the object sending and receiving information. Smart objects can form systems that communicate among themselves, usually in concert with computers, allowing automated and remote control of many independent processes and potentially transforming them into integrated systems. Those systems can potentially impact homes and communities, factories and cities, and every sector of the economy, both domestically and globally. Although the full extent and nature of the IoT’s impacts remain uncertain, economic analyses predict that it will contribute trillions of dollars to economic growth over the next decade. Sectors that may be particularly affected include agriculture, energy, government, health care, manufacturing, and transportation.
The IoT can contribute to more integrated and functional infrastructure, especially in “smart cities,” with projected improvements in transportation, utilities, and other municipal services. The Obama Administration announced a smart-cities initiative in September 2015. There is no single federal agency that has overall responsibility for the IoT. Agencies may find IoT applications useful in helping them fulfill their missions. Each is responsible for the functioning and security of its own IoT, although some technologies, such as drones, may fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies as well. Various agencies also have relevant regulatory, sector-specific, and other mission-related responsibilities, such as the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Transportation, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Security and privacy are often cited as major issues for the IoT, given the perceived difficulties of providing adequate cybersecurity for it, the increasing role of smart objects in controlling components of infrastructure, and the enormous increase in potential points of attack posed by the proliferation of such objects. The IoT may also pose increased risks to privacy, with cyberattacks potentially resulting in exfiltration of identifying or other sensitive information about an individual. With an increasing number of IoT objects in use, privacy concerns also include questions about the ownership, processing, and use of the data they generate….(More)”
Book edited by Stephen Coleman: “Politics continues to evolve in the digital era, spurred in part by the accelerating pace of technological development. This cutting-edge Handbook includes the very latest research on the relationship between digital information, communication technologies and politics.
Written by leading scholars in the field, the chapters explore in seven parts: theories of digital politics, government and policy, collective action and civic engagement, political talk, journalism, internet governance and new frontiers in digital politics research. The contributors focus on the politics behind the implementation of digital technologies in society today.
All students in the fields of politics, media and communication studies, journalism, science and sociology will find this book to be a useful resource in their studies. Political practitioners seeking digital strategies, as well as web and other digital practitioners wanting to know more about political applications for their work will also find this book to be of interest….(More)”
Ben Williamson at Code Acts in Education: “Digital technologies are increasingly playing a significant role in techniques of governance in sectors such as education as well as healthcare, urban management, and in government innovation and citizen engagement in government services. But these technologies need to be sponsored and advocated by particular individuals and groups before they are embedded in these settings.
I have produced a working paper entitled Testing governance: the laboratory lives and methods of policy innovation labs which examines the role of innovation labs as sponsors of new digital technologies of governance. By combining resources and practices from politics, data analysis, media, design, and digital innovation, labs act as experimental R&D labs and practical ideas organizations for solving social and public problems, located in the borderlands between sectors, fields and disciplinary methodologies. Labs are making methods such as data analytics, design thinking and experimentation into a powerful set of governing resources.They are, in other words, making digital methods into key techniques for understanding social and public issues, and in the creation and circulation of solutions to the problems of contemporary governance–in education and elsewhere.
The working paper analyses the key methods and messages of the labs field, in particular by investigating the documentary history of Futurelab, a prototypical lab for education research and innovation that operated in Bristol, UK, between 2002 and 2010, and tracing methodological continuities through the current wave of lab development. Centrally, the working paper explores Futurelab’s contribution to the production and stabilization of a ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of the future of education specifically, and to the future of public services more generally. It offers some preliminary analysis of how such an imaginary was embedded in the ‘laboratory life’ of Futurelab, established through its organizational networks, and operationalized in its digital methods of research and development as well as its modes of communication….(More)”
Magdalena Mis at Reuters: “Struggling with frequent water cuts, residents of Syria‘s battered city of Aleppo have a new way to find the water needed for their daily lives – an interactive map on mobile phones.
The online map, created by the Red Cross and accessible through mobile phones with 3G technology, helps to locate the closest of over 80 water points across the divided city of 2 million and guides them to it using a Global Positioning System.
“The map is very simple and works on every phone, and everybody now has access to a mobile phone with 3G,” International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) spokesman Pawel Krzysiek told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a phone interview from Damascus on Wednesday.
“The important thing is that it’s not just a map – which many people may not know how to read – it’s the GPS that’s making a difference because people can actually be guided to the water point closest to them,” he said.
Aleppo was Syria’s most populated city and commercial hub before the civil war erupted in 2011, but many areas have been reduced to rubble and the city has been carved up between government forces and various insurgent groups.
Water cuts are a regular occurrence, amounting to about two weeks each month, and the infrastructure is on the brink of collapse, Krzysiek said.
The water supply was restored on Wednesday after a four-day cut caused by damage to the main power line providing electricity to some 80 percent of households, Krzysiek said.
More cuts are likely because fighting is preventing engineers from repairing the power line, and diesel, used for standby generators, may run out, he added….
Krzysiek said the ICRC started working on the map after a simple version created for engineers was posted on its Facebook page in the summer, sparking a wave of comments and requests.
“Suddenly people started to share this map and were sending comments on how to improve it and asking for a new, more detailed one.”
Krzysiek said that about 140,000 people were using the old version of the map and 20,000 had already used the new version, launched on Monday…(More)”
Ed Jong at the Atlantic: “…In 2010, I posted a vial of my finest spit to the genetic-testing company 23andme. In return, I got to see what my genes reveal about my ancestry, how they affect my risk of diseases or my responses to medical drugs, and even what they say about the texture of my earwax. (It’s dry.) 23andme now has around a million users, as do other similar companies like Ancestry.com.
But these communities are largely separated from one another, a situation that frustrated Yaniv Erlich from the New York Genome Center and Columbia University. “Tens of millions of people will soon have access to their genomes,” he says. “Are we just going to let these data sit in silos, or can we partner with these large communities to enable some really large science? That’s why we developed DNA.LAND.”
DNA.LAND, which Erlich developed together with colleague Joe Pickrell, is a website that allows customers of other genetic-testing services to upload files containing their genetic data. Scientists can then use this data for research, to the extent that each user consents to. “DNA.LAND is a way for getting the general public to participate in large-scale genetic studies,” says Erlich. “And we’re not a company. We’re a non-profit website, run by scientists.”…(More)”