Paper by Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan in Science: “Health systems rely on commercial prediction algorithms to identify and help patients with complex health needs. We show that a widely used algorithm, typical of this industry-wide approach and affecting millions of patients, exhibits significant racial bias: At a given risk score, Black patients are considerably sicker than White patients, as evidenced by signs of uncontrolled illnesses. Remedying this disparity would increase the percentage of Black patients receiving additional help from 17.7 to 46.5%. The bias arises because the algorithm predicts health care costs rather than illness, but unequal access to care means that we spend less money caring for Black patients than for White patients. Thus, despite health care cost appearing to be an effective proxy for health by some measures of predictive accuracy, large racial biases arise. We suggest that the choice of convenient, seemingly effective proxies for ground truth can be an important source of algorithmic bias in many contexts….(More)”.
Waze launches data-sharing integration for cities with Google Cloud
Ryan Johnston at StateScoop: “Thousands of cities across the world that rely on externally-sourced traffic data from Waze, the route-finding mobile app, will now have access to the data through the Google Cloud suite of analytics tools instead of a raw feed, making it easier for city transportation and planning officials to reach data-driven decisions.
Waze said Tuesday that the anonymized data is now available through Google Cloud, with the goal of making curbside management, roadway maintenance and transit investment easier for small to midsize cities that don’t have the resources to invest in enterprise data-analytics platforms of their own. Since 2014, Waze — which became a Google subsidiary in 2013 — has submitted traffic data to its partner cities through its “Waze for Cities” program, but those data sets arrived in raw feeds without any built-in analysis or insights.
While some cities have built their own analysis tools to understand the free data from the company, others have struggled to stay afloat in the sea of data, said Dani Simons, Waze’s head of public sector partnerships.
“[What] we’ve realized is providing the data itself isn’t enough for our city partners or for a lot of our city and state partners,” Simons said. “We have been asked over time for better ways to analyze and turn that raw data into something more actionable for our public partners, and that’s why we’re doing this.”
The data will now arrive automatically integrated with Google’s free data analysis tool, BigQuery, and a visualization tool, Data Studio. Cities can use the tools to analyze up to a terabyte of data and store up to 10 gigabytes a month for free, but they can also choose to continue to use in-house analysis tools, Simons said.
The integration was also designed with input from Waze’s top partner cities, including Los Angeles; Seattle; and San Jose, California. One of Waze’s private sector partners, Genesis Pulse, which designs software for emergency responders, reported that Waze users identified 40 percent of roadside accidents an average of 4.5 minutes before those incidents were reported to 911 or public safety.
The integration is Waze’s attempt at solving two of the biggest data problems that cities have today, Simons told StateScoop. For some cities in the U.S., Waze is one of the several private companies sharing transit data with them. Other cities are drowning in data from traffic sensors, city-owned fleets data or private mobility companies….(More)”.
GovTech: a new driver of citizen participation?
Digital Future Society: “At a time when public trust in institutions is low, governments worldwide are seeking new ways to involve citizens in policymaking. But does technology help or hinder when it comes to participation?
GovTech refers to an emerging public innovation ecosystem in which startups and SMEs provide tech-based products and services to public sector clients.
In this third Digital Future Society report, discover the challenges and opportunities of applying GovTech to transform government-citizen relationships.
The report features 4 in-depth case studies of tech-based participation tools that show how a thriving GovTech ecosystem can facilitate collective problem solving and drive citizen participation at all levels of government….(More)”.
Comparative Constitution Making
Book edited by Hanna Lerner and David Landau: “In a seminal article more than two decades ago, Jon Elster lamented that despite the large volume of scholarship in related fields, such as comparative constitutional law and constitutional design, there was a severe dearth of work on the process and context of constitution making. Happily, his point no longer holds. Recent years have witnessed a near-explosion of high-quality work on constitution-making processes, across a range of fields including law, political science, and history. This volume attempts to synthesize and expand upon this literature. It offers a number of different perspectives and methodologies aimed at understanding the contexts in which constitution making takes place, its motivations, the theories and processes that guide it, and its effects. The goal of the contributors is not simply to explain the existing state of the field, but also to provide new research on these key questions.
Our aims in this introduction are relatively modest. First, we seek to set up some of the major questions treated by recent research in order to explain how the chapters in this volume contribute to them. We do not aim to give a complete state of the field, but we do lay out what we see as several of the biggest challenges and questions posed by recent scholarship. …(More)”.
From Transactions Data to Economic Statistics: Constructing Real-Time, High-Frequency, Geographic Measures of Consumer Spending
Paper by Aditya Aladangady et al: “Access to timely information on consumer spending is important to economic policymakers. The Census Bureau’s monthly retail trade survey is a primary source for monitoring consumer spending nationally, but it is not well suited to study localized or short-lived economic shocks. Moreover, lags in the publication of the Census estimates and subsequent, sometimes large, revisions diminish its usefulness for real-time analysis. Expanding the Census survey to include higher frequencies and subnational detail would be costly and would add substantially to respondent burden. We take an alternative approach to fill these information gaps. Using anonymized transactions data from a large electronic payments technology company, we create daily estimates of retail spending at detailed geographies. Our daily estimates are available only a few days after the transactions occur, and the historical time series are available from 2010 to the present. When aggregated to the national leve l, the pattern of monthly growth rates is similar to the official Census statistics. We discuss two applications of these new data for economic analysis: First, we describe how our monthly spending estimates are useful for real-time monitoring of aggregate spending, especially during the government shutdown in 2019, when Census data were delayed and concerns about the economy spiked. Second, we show how the geographic detail allowed us quantify in real time the spending effects of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma in 2017….(More)”.
Addressing the Challenges of Drafting Contracts for Data Collaboration
Blog post by Andrew Young, Andrew J. Zahuranec, Stephen Burley Tubman, William Hoffman, and Stefaan Verhulst at Data & Society: “To deal with complex public challenges, organizations increasingly seek to leverage data across sectors in new and innovative ways — from establishing prize-backed challenges around the use of diverse datasets to creating cross-sector federated data systems. These and other forms of data collaboratives are part of a new paradigm in data-driven innovation in which participants from different sectors provide access to data for the creation of public value. It provides an essential new problem-solving approach for our increasingly datafied society. However, the operational challenges associated with creating such partnerships often prevent the transformative potential of data collaboration from being achieved.
One such operational challenge relates to developing data sharing agreements — through contracts and other legal documentation. The current practice suffers from large inefficiencies and transaction costs resulting from (i) the lack of a common understanding of what the core issues are with data exchange; (ii) lack of common language or models; (iii) large heterogeneity in agreements used; (iv) lack of familiarity among lawyers of the technologies involved and (v) a sense that every initiative needs to (re)invent the wheel. Removing these barriers may enable collaborators to partner more systematically and responsibly around the re-use of data assets. Contracts for Data Collaboration (C4DC) is a new initiative seeking to address these barriers to data collaboration…
In the longer term, participants focused on three major themes that, if addressed, could steer contracting for data collaboration toward greater effectiveness and legitimacy.
Data Stewardship and Responsibility: First, much of the discussion centered on the need to promote responsible data practices through data stewardship. Though part of this work involves creating teams and individuals empowered to share, it also means empowering them to operationalize ethical principles.
By developing international standards and moving beyond the bare minimum legal obligation, these actors can build trust between parties, a quality that has often been difficult to foster. Such relationships are key in engaging intermediaries or building complex contractual agreements between multiple organizations. It is also essential to come to an agreement about which practices are legitimate and illegitimate.
Incorporation of the Citizen Perspective: Trust is also needed between the actors in a data collaborative and the general public. In light of many recent stories about the misuse of data, many people are suspicious, if not outright hostile, to data partnerships. Many data subjects don’t understand why organizations want their data or how the information can be valuable in advancing public good.
In data-sharing arrangements, all actors need to explain intended uses and outcomes to data subjects. Attendees spoke about the need to explain the data’s utility in clear and accessible terms. They also noted data collaborative contracts are more legitimate if they incorporate citizen perspectives, especially those of marginalized groups. To take this work a step further, the public could be brought into the contract writing process by creating mechanisms capable of soliciting their views and concerns.
Improving Internal and External Collaboration: Lastly, participants discussed the need for actors across the data ecosystem to strengthen relationships inside and outside their organizations. Part of this work entails securing internal buy-in for data collaboration, ensuring that the different components of an organization understand what assets are being shared and why.
It also entails engaging with intermediaries to fill gaps. Each actor has limitations to their capacities and expertise and, by engaging with start-ups, funders, NGOs, and others, organizations can improve the odds of a successful collaboration. Together, organizations can create norms and shared languages that allow for more effective data flows.
One such operational challenge relates to developing data sharing agreements — through contracts and other legal documentation. The current practice suffers from large inefficiencies and transaction costs resulting from (i) the lack of a common understanding of what the core issues are with data exchange; (ii) lack of common language or models; (iii) large heterogeneity in agreements used; (iv) lack of familiarity among lawyers of the technologies involved and (v) a sense that every initiative needs to (re)invent the wheel. Removing these barriers may enable collaborators to partner more systematically and responsibly around the re-use of data assets. Contracts for Data Collaboration (C4DC) is a new initiative seeking to address these barriers to data collaboration…(More)”.
Toolkit to Help Community Leaders Drive Sustainable, Inclusive Growth
The Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth: “… is unveiling a groundbreaking suite of tools that will provide local leaders with timely data-driven insights on the current state of and potential for inclusive growth in their communities. The announcement comes as private and public sector leaders gather in Washington for the inaugural Global Inclusive Growth Summit.
For the first time the new Inclusive Growth Toolkit brings together a clear, simple view of social and economic growth in underserved communities across the U.S., at the census-tract level. This was created in response to growing demand from community leaders for more evidence-based insights, to help them steer impact investment dollars to locally-led economic development initiatives, unlock the potential of neighborhoods, and improve quality of life for all.
The initial design of the toolkit is focused on driving sustainable growth for the 37+ million people living in the 8700+ QOZs throughout the United States. This comprehensive picture reveals that neighborhoods can look very different and may require different types of interventions to achieve successful and sustainable growth.
The Inclusive Growth Toolkit includes:
- The Inclusive Growth Score – an interactive online map where users can view measures of inclusion and growth and then download a PDF Scorecard for any of the QOZs at census tract level.
A deep-dive analytics consultancy service that provides community leaders with customized insights to inform policy decisions, prospectus development, and impact investor discussions….(More)”.
Data Ownership: Exploring Implications for Data Privacy Rights and Data Valuation
Hearing by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs:”…As a result of an increasingly digital economy, more personal information is available to companies than ever before.
Private companies are collecting, processing, analyzing and sharing considerable data on individuals for all kinds of purposes.
There have been many questions about what personal data is being collected, how it is being collected, with whom it is being shared and how it is being used, including in ways that affect individuals’ financial lives.
Given the vast amount of personal information flowing through the economy, individuals need real control over their personal data. This Committee has held a series of data privacy hearings exploring possible
frameworks for facilitating privacy rights to consumers. Nearly all have included references to data as a new currency or commodity.
The next question, then, is who owns it? There has been much debate about the concept of data ownership, the monetary value of personal information and its potential role in data privacy…..The witnesses will be:
- Mr. Jeffrey Ritter Founding Chair, American Bar Association Committee on Cyberspace Law, External Lecturer
- Mr. Chad Marlow Senior Advocacy And Policy Counsel American Civil Liberties Union
- Mr. Will Rinehart Director Of Technology And Innovation Policy American Action Forum
- Ms. Michelle Dennedy Chief Executive Officer DrumWave Inc.
African countries are missing the data needed to drive development
David Pilling at the Financial Times: “When statisticians decided to track how well African countries were doing in moving towards their 2030 UN sustainable development goals, they discovered a curious thing: no one had the faintest idea. More accurately, on average, African governments keep statistics covering only about a third of the relevant data. To be fair, the goals, which range from eradicating poverty and hunger to creating sustainable cities and communities, are overly complicated and sometimes unquantifiable.
The millennium development goals that they superseded had eight goals with 21 indicators. The SDGs have 17, with 232 indicators. Yet statisticians for the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, which compiled the report, are on to something. African states don’t know enough about their people.
In this age of mass surveillance, that might seem counterintuitive. Surely governments, not to mention private companies, have too much information on their citizenry? In fact, in many African nations with weak states, big informal economies and undocumented communities, the problem is the reverse. How many people are there in Nigeria? What is the unemployment rate in Zimbabwe? How many people in Kibera, a huge informal settlement in Nairobi, have access to healthcare? The answers to such basic questions are: we don’t really know. Nigeria last conducted a census in 2006, when the population — a sensitive topic in which religion, regionalism and budget allocations are messily intertwined — came out at 140m. These days it could be 180m or 200m. Or perhaps more. Or less.
President Muhammadu Buhari recently complained that statistics quoted by international bodies, such as those alleging that Nigeria has more people living in absolute poverty than India, were “wild estimates” bearing “little relation to facts on the ground”. The riposte to that is simple. Work out what is happening and do something about it. Likewise, unemployment is hard to define, let alone quantify, in a broken economy such as Zimbabwe’s where cited jobless statistics range from 5 to 95 per cent. Is a struggling subsistence farmer or a street-side hawker jobless or gainfully employed?
For that matter what is the status of a government employee who receives her salary in a useless electronic currency? According to Seth Berkley, chief executive of the Vaccine Alliance, keeping tabs on unregistered people in the sprawling “slums” of Africa’s increasingly massive megacities, is harder than working out what is going on in isolated villages. If governments do not know whether a person exists it is all too easy to ignore their rights — to healthcare, to education or to the vote. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation found that only eight countries in Africa register more than 90 per cent of births. Tens of millions of people are literally invisible. Mr Ibrahim, a Sudanese billionaire, calls data “the missing SDG”….(More)”
Rethinking Encryption
Jim Baker at Lawfare: “…Public safety officials should continue to highlight instances where they find that encryption hinders their ability to effectively and efficiently protect society so that the public and lawmakers understand the trade-offs they are allowing. To do this, the Justice Department should, for example, file an annual public report describing, as best it can, the continuing nature and scope of the going dark problem. If necessary, it can also file a classified annual report with the appropriate congressional committees.
But, for the reasons discussed above, public safety officials should also become among the strongest supporters of widely available strong encryption.
I know full well that this approach will be a bitter pill for some in law enforcement and other public safety fields to swallow, and many people will reject it outright. It may make some of my former colleagues angry at me. I expect that some will say that I’m simply joining others who have left the government and switched sides on encryption to curry favor with the tech sector in order to get a job. That is wrong. My dim views about cybersecurity risks, China and Huawei are essentially the same as those that I held while in government. I also think that my overall approach on encryption today—as well as my frustration with Congress—is generally consistent with the approach I had while I was in government.
I have long said—as I do here—that encryption poses real challenges for public safety officials; that any proposed technical solution must properly balance all of the competing equities; and that (absent an unlikely definitive judicial ruling as a result of litigation) Congress must change the law to resolve the issue. What has changed is my acceptance of, or perhaps resignation to, the fact that Congress is unlikely to act, as well as my assessment that the relevant cybersecurity risks to society have grown disproportionately over the years when compared with other risks….(More)”.