Seeing and Being Seen

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Russell C. Bogue in The Hedgehog Review: “On May 20, 2013, a pale, nervous American landed in Hong Kong and made his way to the Mira Hotel. Once there, he met with reporters from The Guardian and the Washington Post and turned over thousands of documents his high-level security clearance had enabled him to acquire while working as a contractor for the National Security Agency. Soon after this exchange, the world learned about PRISM, a top-secret NSA program that granted (court-ordered) direct access to Facebook, Apple, Google, and other US Internet giants, including users’ search histories, e-mails, file transfers, and live chats.1 Additionally, Verizon had been providing information to the NSA on an “ongoing, daily basis” about customers’ telephone calls, including location data and call duration (although not the content of conversations).2 Everyone, in short, was being monitored. Glenn Greenwald, one of the first journalists to meet with Edward Snowden, and one of his most vocal supporters, wrote later that “the NSA is collecting all forms of electronic communications between Americans…and thereby attempting by definition to destroy any remnants of privacy both in the US and globally.”3

According to a 2014 Pew Research Center poll, fully 91 percent of Americans believe they have lost control over their personal information.4 What is such a public to do? Anxious computer owners have taken to covering their devices’ built-in cameras with bits of tape.5Messaging services tout their end-to-end encryption.6 Researchers from Harvard Business School have started investigating the effectiveness of those creepy online ads that seem to know a little too much about your preferences.7

For some, this pushback has come far too late to be of any use. In a recent article in The Atlantic depressingly titled “Welcome to the Age of Privacy Nihilism,” Ian Bogost observes that we have already become unduly reliant on services that ask us to relinquish personal data in exchange for convenience. To reassert control over one’s privacy, one would have to abstain from credit card activity and use the Internet only sparingly. The worst part? We don’t get the simple pleasure of blaming this state of affairs on Big Government or the tech giants. Instead, our enemy is, as Bogost intones, “a hazy murk, a chilling, Lovecraftian murmur that can’t be seen, let alone touched, let alone vanquished.”8

The enemy may be a bit closer to home, however. While we fear being surveilled, recorded, and watched, especially when we are unaware, we also compulsively expose ourselves to others….(More)”.

The role of information and communications technology in the transformation of government and citizen trust

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Mohamed Mahmood et al in the International Review of Administrative Sciences: “We present an empirically tested conceptual model based on exit–voice theory to study the influence of information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government on citizen trust in government. We conceptualize and address the key factors affecting the influence of transformation of government on citizen trust, including government performance and transparency. Based on 313 survey responses from citizens in Bahrain, the top-ranked country in information and communications technology adoption in the Gulf Cooperation Council region, we test government performance and transparency as mediators between transformation of government and citizen trust. The resulting preliminary insights on the measurement and manifestation of citizen trust in the context of information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government have multiple policy implications and extend our understanding of how information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government can improve the government–citizen relationship and digital services adoption….(More)”.

The trouble with informed consent in smart cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog Post by Emilie Scott: “…Lilian Edwards, a U.K.-based academic in internet law, points out that public spaces like smart cities further dilutes the level of consent in the IoT: “While consumers may at least have theoretically had a chance to read the privacy policy of their Nest thermostat before signing the contract, they will have no such opportunity in any real sense when their data is collected by the smart road or smart tram they go to work on, or as they pass the smart dustbin.”

If citizens have expectations that their interactions in smart cities will resemble the technological interactions they have become familiar with, they will likely be sadly misinformed about the level of control they will have over what personal information they end up sharing.

The typical citizen understands that “choosing convenience” when you engage with technology can correspond to a decrease in their level of personal privacy. On at least some level, this is intended to be a choice. Most users may not choose to carefully read a privacy policy on a smartphone application or a website; however, if that policy is well-written and compliant, the user can exercise a right to decide whether they consent to the terms and wish to engage with the company.

The right to choose what personal information you exchange for services is lost in the smart city.

Theoretically, the smart city can bypass this right because municipal government services are subject to provincial public-sector privacy legislation, which can ultimately entail informing citizens their personal information is being collected by way of a notice.

However, the assumption that smart city projects are solely controlled by the public sector is questionable and verges on problematic. Most smart-city projects in Canada are run via public-private partnerships as municipal governments lack both the budget and the expertise to implement the technology system. Private companies can have leading roles in designing, building, financing, operating and maintaining smart-city projects. In the process, they can also have a large degree of control over the data that is created and used.

In some countries, these partnerships can even result in an unprecedented level of privatization. For example, Cisco Systems debatably has a larger claim over Songdo’s development than the South Korean government. Smart-city public-private partnership can have complex implications for data control even when both partners are highly engaged. Trapeze, a private-sector company in transportation software, cautions the public sector on the unintended transfer of data control when electing private providers to operate data systems in a partnership….

When the typical citizen enters a smart city, they will not know 1.) what personal information is being collected, nor will they know 2.) who is collecting it. The former is an established requirement of informed consent, and the later has debatably never been an issue until the development of smart cities.

While similar privacy issues are playing out in smart cities all around the world, Canada must take steps to determine how its own specific privacy legal structure is going to play a role in responding to these privacy issues in our own emerging smart-city projects….(More)”.

Africa Data Revolution Report 2018

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Jean-Paul Van Belle et al: ” The Africa Data Revolution Report 2018 delves into the recent evolution and current state of open data – with an emphasis on Open Government Data – in the African data communities. It explores key countries across the continent, researches a wide range of open data initiatives, and benefits from global thematic expertise. This second edition improves on process, methodology and collaborative partnerships from the first edition.

It draws from country reports, existing global and continental initiatives, and key experts’ input, in order to provide a deep analysis of the
actual impact of open data in the African context. In particular, this report features a dedicated Open Data Barometer survey as well as a special 2018
Africa Open Data Index regional edition surveying the status and impact of open data and dataset availability in 30 African countries. The research is complemented with six in-depth qualitative case studies featuring the impact of open data in Kenya, South Africa (Cape Town), Ghana, Rwanda, Burkina Faso and Morocco. The report was critically reviewed by an eminent panel of experts.

Findings: In some governments, there is a slow iterative cycle between innovation, adoption, resistance and re-alignment before finally resulting in Open Government Data (OGD) institutionalization and eventual maturity. There is huge diversity between African governments in embracing open data, and each country presents a complex and unique picture. In several African countries, there appears to be genuine political will to open up government based datasets, not only for increased transparency but also to achieve economic impacts, social equity and stimulate innovation.

The role of open data intermediaries is crucial and has been insufficiently recognized in the African context. Open data in Africa needs a vibrant, dynamic, open and multi-tier data ecosystem if the datasets are to make a real impact. Citizens are rarely likely to access open data themselves. But the democratization of information and communication platforms has opened up opportunities among a large and diverse set of intermediaries to explore and combine relevant data sources, sometimes with private or leaked data. The news media, NGOs and advocacy groups, and to a much lesser extent academics and social or profit-driven entrepreneurs have shown that OGD can create real impact on the achievement of the SDGs…

The report encourages national policy makers and international funding or development agencies to consider the status, impact and future of open
data in Africa on the basis of this research. Other stakeholders working with or for open data can hopefully  also learn from what is happening on the continent. It is hoped that the findings and recommendations contained in the report will form the basis of a robust, informed and dynamic debate around open government data in Africa….(More)”.

Is Ethical A.I. Even Possible?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Cade Metz at The New York Times: ” When a news article revealed that Clarifaiwas working with the Pentagon and some employees questioned the ethics of building artificial intelligence that analyzed video captured by drones, the company said the project would save the lives of civilians and soldiers.

“Clarifai’s mission is to accelerate the progress of humanity with continually improving A.I.,” read a blog post from Matt Zeiler, the company’s founder and chief executive, and a prominent A.I. researcher. Later, in a news media interview, Mr. Zeiler announced a new management position that would ensure all company projects were ethically sound.

As activists, researchers, and journalists voice concerns over the rise of artificial intelligence, warning against biased, deceptive and malicious applications, the companies building this technology are responding. From tech giants like Google and Microsoft to scrappy A.I. start-ups, many are creating corporate principles meant to ensure their systems are designed and deployed in an ethical way. Some set up ethics officers or review boards to oversee these principles.

But tensions continue to rise as some question whether these promises will ultimately be kept. Companies can change course. Idealism can bow to financial pressure. Some activists — and even some companies — are beginning to argue that the only way to ensure ethical practices is through government regulation....

As companies and governments deploy these A.I. technologies, researchers are also realizing that some systems are woefully biased. Facial recognition services, for instance, can be significantly less accurate when trying to identify women or someone with darker skin. Other systems may include security holes unlike any seen in the past. Researchers have shown that driverless cars can be fooled into seeing things that are not really there.

All this means that building ethical artificial intelligence is an enormously complex task. It gets even harder when stakeholders realize that ethics are in the eye of the beholder.

As some Microsoft employees protest the company’s military contracts, Mr. Smith said that American tech companies had long supported the military and that they must continue to do so. “The U.S. military is charged with protecting the freedoms of this country,” he told the conference. “We have to stand by the people who are risking their lives.”

Though some Clarifai employees draw an ethical line at autonomous weapons, others do not. Mr. Zeiler argued that autonomous weapons will ultimately save lives because they would be more accurate than weapons controlled by human operators. “A.I. is an essential tool in helping weapons become more accurate, reducing collateral damage, minimizing civilian casualties and friendly fire incidents,” he said in a statement.

Google worked on the same Pentagon project as Clarifai, and after a protest from company employees, the tech giant ultimately ended its involvement. But like Clarifai, as many as 20 other companies have worked on the project without bowing to ethical concerns.

After the controversy over its Pentagon work, Google laid down a set of “A.I. principles” meant as a guide for future projects. But even with the corporate rules in place, some employees left the company in protest. The new principles are open to interpretation. And they are overseen by executives who must also protect the company’s financial interests….

In their open letter, the Clarifai employees said they were unsure whether regulation was the answer to the many ethical questions swirling around A.I. technology, arguing that the immediate responsibility rested with the company itself….(More)”.

EU Data Protection Rules and U.S. Implications

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

In Focus by the Congressional Research Service: “U.S. and European citizens are increasingly concerned about ensuring the protection of personal data, especially online. A string of high-profile data breaches at companies such as Facebook and Google have contributed to heightened public awareness. The European Union’s (EU) new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—which took effect on May 25, 2018—has drawn the attention of U.S. businesses and other stakeholders, prompting debate on U.S. data privacy and protection policies.

Both the United States and the 28-member EU assert that they are committed to upholding individual privacy rights and ensuring the protection of personal data, including electronic data. However, data privacy and protection issues have long been sticking points in U.S.-EU economic and security relations, in part because of differences in U.S. and EU legal regimes and approaches to data privacy.

The GDPR highlights some of those differences and poses challenges for U.S. companies doing business in the EU. The United States does not broadly restrict cross-border data flows and has traditionally regulated privacy at a sectoral level to cover certain types of data. The EU considers the privacy of communications and the protection of personal data to be fundamental rights, which are codified in EU law. Europe’s history with fascist and totalitarian regimes informs the EU’s views on data protection and contributes to the demand for strict data privacy controls. The EU regards current U.S. data protection safeguards as inadequate; this has complicated the conclusion of U.S.-EU information-sharing agreements and raised concerns about U.S.-EU data flows….(More).

The tools of citizen science: An evaluation of map-based crowdsourcing platforms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Zachary Lamoureux and Victoria Fast: “There seems to be a persistent yet inaccurate sentiment that collecting vast amounts of data via citizen science is virtually free, especially compared to the cost of privatized scientific endeavors (Bonney et al., 2009; Cooper, Hochachka & Dhondt, 2011). However, performing scientific procedures with the assistance of the public is often far more complex than traditional scientific enquiry (Bonter & Cooper, 2012).

Citizen science promotes the participation of the public in scientific endeavors (Hecker et al., 2018). While citizen science is not synonymous with volunteered geographic information (VGI)— broadly defined as the creation of geographic information by citizens (Goodchild, 2007)—it often produces geographic information. Similar to VGI, citizen science projects tend to follow specific protocols to ensure the crowdsourced geographic data serves as an input for (scientific) research (Haklay, 2013). Also similar to VGI, citizen science projects often require software applications and specialized training to facilitate citizen data collection. Notably, citizen science projects are increasingly requiring a webbased participatory mapping platform—i.e., Geoweb (Leszczynski & Wilson, 2013)—to coordinate the proliferation of citizen contributions. ...

In this research, we investigate publicly available commercial and opensource map-based tools that enable citizen science projects. Building on a comprehensive comparative framework, we conduct a systematic evaluation and overview of five map-based crowdsourcing platforms: Ushahidi, Maptionnaire, Survey123 (ArcGIS Online), Open Data Kit, and GIS Cloud. These tools have additional uses that extend beyond the field of citizen science; however, the scope of the investigation was narrowed to focus on aspects most suitable for citizen science endeavors, such as the collection, management, visualization and dissemination of crowdsourced data. It is our intention to provide information on how these publicly available crowdsourcing platforms suit generic geographic citizen science crowdsourcing needs….(More)”.

Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Caroline Criado Perez: “Imagine a world where your phone is too big for your hand, where your doctor prescribes a drug that is wrong for your body, where in a car accident you are 47% more likely to be seriously injured, where every week the countless hours of work you do are not recognised or valued. If any of this sounds familiar, chances are that you’re a woman.

Invisible Women shows us how, in a world largely built for and by men, we are systematically ignoring half the population. It exposes the gender data gap – a gap in our knowledge that is at the root of perpetual, systemic discrimination against women, and that has created a pervasive but invisible bias with a profound effect on women’s lives.

Award-winning campaigner and writer Caroline Criado Perez brings together for the first time an impressive range of case studies, stories and new research from across the world that illustrate the hidden ways in which women are forgotten, and the impact this has on their health and well-being. From government policy and medical research, to technology, workplaces, urban planning and the media, Invisible Womenreveals the biased data that excludes women. In making the case for change, this powerful and provocative book will make you see the world anew….(More)”

Data Trusts: Ethics, Architecture and Governance for Trustworthy Data Stewardship

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Web Science Institute Paper by Kieron O’Hara: “In their report on the development of the UK AI industry, Wendy Hall and Jérôme Pesenti
recommend the establishment of data trusts, “proven and trusted frameworks and agreements” that will “ensure exchanges [of data] are secure and mutually beneficial” by promoting trust in the use of data for AI. Hall and Pesenti leave the structure of data trusts open, and the purpose of this paper is to explore the questions of (a) what existing structures can data trusts exploit, and (b) what relationship do data trusts have to
trusts as they are understood in law?

The paper defends the following thesis: A data trust works within the law to provide ethical, architectural and governance support for trustworthy data processing

Data trusts are therefore both constraining and liberating. They constrain: they respect current law, so they cannot render currently illegal actions legal. They are intended to increase trust, and so they will typically act as
further constraints on data processors, adding the constraints of trustworthiness to those of law. Yet they also liberate: if data processors
are perceived as trustworthy, they will get improved access to data.

Most work on data trusts has up to now focused on gaining and supporting the trust of data subjects in data processing. However, all actors involved in AI – data consumers, data providers and data subjects – have trust issues which data trusts need to address.

Furthermore, it is not only personal data that creates trust issues; the same may be true of any dataset whose release might involve an organisation risking competitive advantage. The paper addresses four areas….(More)”.

Harnessing the Power of Open Data for Children and Families

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kathryn L.S. Pettit and Rob Pitingolo: “Child advocacy organizations, such as members of the KIDS COUNT network, have proven the value of using data to advocate for policies and programs to improve the lives of children and families. These organizations use data to educate policymakers and the public about how children are faring in their communities. They understand the importance of high-quality information for policy and decisionmaking. And in the past decade, many state governments have embraced the open data movement. Their data portals promote government transparency and increase data access for a wide range of users inside and outside government.

At the request of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which funds the KIDS COUNT network, the authors conducted research to explore how these state data efforts could bring greater benefits to local communities. Interviews with child advocates and open data providers confirmed the opportunity for child advocacy organizations and state governments to leverage open data to improve the lives of children and families. But accomplishing this goal will require new practices on both sides.

This brief first describes the current state of practice for child advocates using data and for state governments publishing open data. It then provides suggestions for what it would take from both sides to increase the use of open data to improve the lives of children and families. Child and family advocates will find five action steps in section 2. These steps encourage them to assess their data needs, build relationships with state data managers, and advocate for new data and preservation of existing data.
State agency staff will find five action steps in section 3. These steps describe how staff can engage diverse stakeholders, including agency staff beyond typical “data people” and data users outside government. Although this brief focuses on state-level institutions, local advocates an governments will find these lessons relevant. In fact, many of the lessons and best practices are based on pioneering efforts at the local level….(More)”.