Federated learning for children’s data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Roy Saurabh: “Across the world, governments are prioritizing the protection of citizens’ data – especially that of children. New laws, dedicated data protection authorities, and digital infrastructure initiatives reflect a growing recognition that data is not just an asset, but a foundation for public trust. 

Yet a major challenge remains: how can governments use sensitive data to improve outcomes – such as in education – without undermining the very privacy protections they are committed to uphold?

One promising answer lies in federated, governance-aware approaches to data use. But realizing this potential requires more than new technology; it demands robust data governance frameworks designed from the outset.

Data governance: The missing link

In many countries, ministries of education, health, and social protection each hold pieces of the puzzle that together could provide a more complete picture of children’s learning and well-being. For example, a child’s school attendance, nutritional status, and family circumstances all shape their ability to thrive, yet these records are kept in separate systems.

Efforts to combine such data often run into legal and technical barriers. Centralized data lakes raise concerns about consent, security, and compliance with privacy laws. In fact, many international standards stress the principle of data minimization – the idea that personal information should not be gathered or combined unnecessarily. 

“In many countries, ministries of education, health, and social protection each hold pieces of the puzzle that together could provide a more complete picture of children’s learning and well-being.”

This is where the right data governance frameworks become essential. Effective governance defines clear rules about how data can be accessed, shared, and used – specifying who has the authority, what purposes are permitted, and how rights are protected. These frameworks make it possible to collaborate with data responsibly, especially when it comes to children…(More)”

Addressing Digital Harms in Conflict

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Henriette Litta and Peter Bihr: “…takes stock and looks to the future: What does openness mean in the digital age? Is the concept still up to date? The study traces the development of Openness and analyses current challenges. It is based on interviews with experts and extensive literature research. The key insights at a glance are:

  • Give Openness a purpose.
  • Protect Openness by adding guard rails.
  • Open innovation and infrastructure need investments.
  • Openness is not neutral.
  • Market domination needs to be curtailed…(More)”.

How to Break Down Silos and Collaborate Across Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Jessica MacLeod: “…To help public sector leaders navigate these cultural barriers, I use a simple but powerful framework: Clarity, Care, and Challenge. It’s built from research, experience, and what I’ve seen actually shift how teams work. You can read more about the framework in my previous article on high-performing teams. Here’s how this framework relates to breaking down silos:

  • Clarity → How We Work:
    Clear priorities, aligned expectations, and a shared understanding of how individual work connects to the bigger picture.
  • Care → How We Relate:
    Trust, psychological safety, and strong collaboration.
  • Challenge → How We Achieve:
    Stretch goals, high standards, and a culture that encourages innovation and growth.

Silos thrive in ambiguity. If no one can see the work, understand the language, or map who owns what, collaboration dies on arrival.

When I work with public sector teams, one of the first things I look for is how visible the work is. Can people across departments explain where things stand on a project today? Or what the context is behind a project? Do they know who’s accountable? Can they locate the latest draft of the work without digging through three email chains?

Often, the answer is no, and it’s not because people aren’t trying. It’s because our systems are optimized for siloed visibility, not shared clarity.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

  • A particular acronym means one thing to IT, another to leadership, and something entirely different to community stakeholders.
  • “Launch” for one team means public announcement. For another, it means testing a feature with a pilot group.
  • Documents live in private folders, on individual desktops, or in tools that don’t talk to each other…(More)”.

Reimagining Data Governance for AI: Operationalizing Social Licensing for Data Reuse

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Stefaan Verhulst, Adam Zable, Andrew J. Zahuranec, and Peter Addo: “…introduces a practical, community-centered framework for governing data reuse in the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). As AI increasingly relies on data from LMICs, affected communities are often excluded from decision-making and see little benefit from how their data is used. This report,…reframes data governance through social licensing—a participatory model that empowers communities to collectively define, document, and enforce conditions for how their data is reused. It offers a step-by-step methodology and actionable tools, including a Social Licensing Questionnaire and adaptable contract clauses, alongisde real-world scenarios and recommendations for enforcement, policy integration, and future research. This report recasts data governance as a collective, continuous process – shifting the focus from individual consent to community decision-making…(More)”.

Humanitarian aid depends on good data: what’s wrong with the way it’s collected

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Vicki Squire: The defunding of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with reductions in aid from the UK and elsewhere, raises questions about the continued collection of data that helps inform humanitarian efforts.

Humanitarian response plans rely on accurate, accessible and up-to-date data. Aid organisations use this to review needs, monitor health and famine risks, and ensure security and access for humanitarian operations.

The reliance on data – and in particular large-scale digitalised data – has intensified in the humanitarian sector over the past few decades. Major donors all proclaim a commitment to evidence-based decision making. The International Organization for Migration’s Displacement Tracking Matrix and the REACH impact initiative are two examples designed to improve operational and strategic awareness of key needs and risks.

Humanitarian data streams have already been affected by USAID cuts. For example, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network was abruptly closed, while the Demographic and Health Surveys programme was “paused”. The latter informed global health policies in areas ranging from maternal health and domestic violence to anaemia and HIV prevalence.

The loss of reliable, accessible and up-to-date data threatens monitoring capacity and early warning systems, while reducing humanitarian access and rendering security failures more likely…(More)”.

The Technopolar Paradox

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ian Bremmer: “In February 2022, as Russian forces advanced on Kyiv, Ukraine’s government faced a critical vulnerability: with its Internet and communication networks under attack, its troops and leaders would soon be in the dark. Elon Musk—the de facto head of Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink—stepped in. Within days, SpaceX had deployed thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine and activated satellite Internet service at no cost. Having kept the country online, Musk was hailed as a hero.

But the centibillionaire’s personal intervention—and Kyiv’s reliance on it—came with risks. Months later, Ukraine asked SpaceX to extend Starlink’s coverage to Russian-occupied Crimea, to enable a submarine drone strike that Kyiv wanted to carry out against Russian naval assets. Musk refused—worried, he said, that this would cause a major escalation in the war. Even the Pentagon’s entreaties on behalf of Ukraine failed to convince him. An unelected, unaccountable private citizen had unilaterally thwarted a military operation in an active war zone while exposing the fact that governments had remarkably little control over crucial decisions affecting their citizens and national security.

This was “technopolarity” in action: a technology leader not only driving stock market returns but also controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs that have been traditionally the exclusive preserve of nation-states. Over the past decade, the rise of such individuals and the firms they control has transformed the global order, which had been defined by states since the Peace of Westphalia enshrined them as the building blocks of geopolitics nearly 400 years ago. For most of this time, the structure of that order could be described as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, depending on how power was distributed among countries. The world, however, has since entered a “technopolar moment,” a term I used in Foreign Affairs in 2021 to describe an emerging order in which “a handful of large technology companies rival [states] for geopolitical influence.” Major tech firms have become powerful geopolitical actors, exercising a form of sovereignty over digital space and, increasingly, the physical world that potentially rivals that of states…(More)”.

Global Citizens’ Assemblies: Pathways for the UN – Principles, Design, and Implementation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Democracy International & Democracy Without Borders: “This report encourages the use of GCAs by different actors and in different settings without making recommendations or expressing preferences on how this should be done. We envision that ultimately there will be a dynamic ecosystem making use of this deliberative format. However, the report particularly discusses the potential for GCAs to be set up by and benefit the UN. As a tool to be used by the UN, this paper recommends that the UN General Assembly (UNGA) applies Article 22 of the UN Charter to establish a dedicated permanent framework to codify procedures and operations, increase efficiency and create synergies. The report recommends that this UN framework should enable UN bodies and entities to set up and operate different ad hoc GCAs as needed.

GCAs are positioned as complementary to other initiatives in the field, such as creating a UN Parliamentary Assembly or a UN World Citizens’ Initiative. They offer a specific pathway for global public deliberation and participation and bridging the gap between citizens and global decision-makers.

While GCAs face practical limitations due to the world’s diversity and scale, they offer a valuable opportunity to foster trust in multilateral institutions and empower citizens to have a voice in global policy-making. By enhancing inclusive deliberation and putting forward actionable outcomes, GCAs have the potential to improve the democratic character of global governance and promote more responsive, citizen-centered approaches to solving planetary challenges…(More)”.

How we think about protecting data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Peter Dizikes: “How should personal data be protected? What are the best uses of it? In our networked world, questions about data privacy are ubiquitous and matter for companies, policymakers, and the public.

A new study by MIT researchers adds depth to the subject by suggesting that people’s views about privacy are not firmly fixed and can shift significantly, based on different circumstances and different uses of data.

“There is no absolute value in privacy,” says Fabio Duarte, principal research scientist in MIT’s Senseable City Lab and co-author of a new paper outlining the results. “Depending on the application, people might feel use of their data is more or less invasive.”

The study is based on an experiment the researchers conducted in multiple countries using a newly developed game that elicits public valuations of data privacy relating to different topics and domains of life.

“We show that values attributed to data are combinatorial, situational, transactional, and contextual,” the researchers write.

The open-access paper, “Data Slots: tradeoffs between privacy concerns and benefits of data-driven solutions,” is published today in Nature: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. The authors are Martina Mazzarello, a postdoc in the Senseable City Lab; Duarte; Simone Mora, a research scientist at Senseable City Lab; Cate Heine PhD ’24 of University College London; and Carlo Ratti, director of the Senseable City Lab.

The study is based around a card game with poker-type chips the researchers created to study the issue, called Data Slots. In it, players hold hands of cards with 12 types of data — such as a personal profile, health data, vehicle location information, and more — that relate to three types of domains where data are collected: home life, work, and public spaces. After exchanging cards, the players generate ideas for data uses, then assess and invest in some of those concepts. The game has been played in-person in 18 different countries, with people from another 74 countries playing it online; over 2,000 individual player-rounds were included in the study…(More)”.

Bus Stops Here: Shanghai Lets Riders Design Their Own Routes

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Chen Yiru: From early-morning school drop-offs to seniors booking rides to the hospital, from suburban commuters seeking a faster link to the metro to families visiting ancestral graves, Shanghai is rolling out a new kind of public bus — one that’s designed by commuters, and launched only when enough riders request it.

Branded “DZ” for dingzhi, or “customized,” the system invites residents to submit proposed routes through a city-run platform. Others with similar travel needs can opt in or vote, and if demand meets the threshold — typically 15 to 20 passengers per trip — the route goes live.

More than 220 DZ routes have already launched across all 16 city districts. Through an online platform opened May 8, users enter start and end points, preferred times, and trip frequency. If approved, routes can begin running in as little as three days…(More)”.

“R&D” Means Something Different on Capitol Hill

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sheril Kirshenbaum: “My first morning as a scientist-turned-Senate-staffer began with a misunderstanding that would become a metaphor for my impending immersion into the complex world of policymaking. When my new colleagues mentioned “R&D,” I naively assumed they were discussing critical topics related to research and development. After 10 or so confused minutes, I realized they were referring to Republicans and Democrats—my first lesson in the distinctive language and unique dynamics of congressional work. The “R&D” at the center of their world was vastly different than that of mine.In the 20 years since, I’ve moved between academic science positions and working on science policy in the Senate, under both Republican and Democratic majorities. My goal during these two decades has remained the same—to promote evidence-based policymaking that advances science and serves the public, regardless of the political landscape. But the transition from scientist to staffer has transformed my understanding of why so many efforts by scientists to influence policy falter. Despite generations of scholarly research to understand how information informs political decisions, scientists and other academics consistently overlook a crucial part of the process: the role of congressional staffers.

The staff hierarchy shapes how scientific information flows to elected officials. Chiefs of staff manage office operations and serve as the member’s closest advisors. Legislative directors oversee all policy matters, while legislative assistants (LAs) handle specific issue portfolios. One or two LAs may be designated as the office “science people,” although they often lack formal scientific training. Committee staffers provide deeper expertise and institutional knowledge on topics within their jurisdiction. In this ecosystem, few dedicated science positions exist, and science-related topics are distributed among staff already juggling multiple responsibilities…(More)”