The Sensitive Politics Of Information For Digital States

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Federica Carugati, Cyanne E. Loyle and Jessica Steinberg: “In 2020, Vice revealed that the U.S. military had signed a contract with Babel Street, a Virginia-based company that created a product called Locate X, which collects location data from users across a variety of digital applications. Some of these apps are seemingly innocuous: one for following storms, a Muslim dating app and a level for DIY home repair. Less innocuously, these reports indicate that the U.S. government is outsourcing some of its counterterrorism and counterinsurgency information-gathering activities to a private company.

While states have always collected information about citizens and their activities, advances in digital technologies — including new kinds of data and infrastructure — have fundamentally altered their ability to access, gather and analyze information. Bargaining with and relying on non-state actors like private companies creates tradeoffs between a state’s effectiveness and legitimacy. Those tradeoffs might be unacceptable to citizens, undermining our very understanding of what states do and how we should interact with them …(More)”

Machine Learning as a Tool for Hypothesis Generation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan: “While hypothesis testing is a highly formalized activity, hypothesis generation remains largely informal. We propose a systematic procedure to generate novel hypotheses about human behavior, which uses the capacity of machine learning algorithms to notice patterns people might not. We illustrate the procedure with a concrete application: judge decisions about who to jail. We begin with a striking fact: The defendant’s face alone matters greatly for the judge’s jailing decision. In fact, an algorithm given only the pixels in the defendant’s mugshot accounts for up to half of the predictable variation. We develop a procedure that allows human subjects to interact with this black-box algorithm to produce hypotheses about what in the face influences judge decisions. The procedure generates hypotheses that are both interpretable and novel: They are not explained by demographics (e.g. race) or existing psychology research; nor are they already known (even if tacitly) to people or even experts. Though these results are specific, our procedure is general. It provides a way to produce novel, interpretable hypotheses from any high-dimensional dataset (e.g. cell phones, satellites, online behavior, news headlines, corporate filings, and high-frequency time series). A central tenet of our paper is that hypothesis generation is in and of itself a valuable activity, and hope this encourages future work in this largely “pre-scientific” stage of science…(More)”.

Whole of government innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Geoff Mulgan: ‘Whole of government’ approaches – that aim to mobilise and align many ministries and agencies around a common challenge – have a long history. There have been notable examples during major wars, and around attempts to digitize societies, to cut energy use and to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper has been prepared as part of a European Commission programme which I’m chairing looking at ‘whole of government innovation’ and working with national governments to help them better align their actions.

My paper – linked below – looks at the lessons of history. It outlines the many tools governments can use to achieve cross-cutting goals, linking R&D to law, regulation and procurement, and collaborating with business, universities and civil society. It argues that it is unwise to rely only on committees and boards. It shows how these choices link to innovation strategy and funding, including the relevance of half a century of experiment with moon-shots and missions.

The paper describes how the organisational challenges vary depending on the nature of the task; why governments need to avoid common technology or ‘STI trap’, of focusing only on hardware and not on social arrangements or business models; why constellations and flotillas of coordination are usually more realistic than true ‘whole of government approaches; the importance of mobilising hearts and minds as well as money and command.

Finally, it addresses the relevance of different approaches to current tasks such as the achievement of a net zero economy and society. The paper is shared as a working document – I’m keen to find new examples and approaches…(More)”.

Collaborative Advantage: Creating Global Commons for Science, Technology, and Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Leonard Lynn and Hal Salzman: “…We argue that abandoning this techno-nationalist approach and instead investing in systems of global innovation commons, modeled on successful past experiences, and developing new principles and policies for collaborative STI could bring substantially greater benefits—not only for the world, but specifically for the United States. Key to this effort will be creating systems of governance that enable nations to contribute to the commons and to benefit from its innovations, while also allowing each country substantial freedom of action…

The competitive and insular tone of contemporary discourse about STI stands in contrast to our era’s most urgent challenges, which are global in scale: the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and governance of complex emerging technologies such as gene editing and artificial intelligence. These global challenges, we believe, require resources, scientific understanding, and know-how that can best be developed through common resource pools to enable both global scale and rapid dissemination. Moreover, aside from moral or ethical considerations about sharing such innovations, the reality of current globalization means that solutions—such as pandemic vaccines—must spread beyond national borders to fully benefit the world. Consequently, each separate national interest will be better served by collaboratively building up the global stocks of STI as public goods. Global scientific commons could be vital in addressing these challenges, but will require new frameworks for governance that are fair and attractive to many nations while also enabling them to act individually.

A valuable perspective on the governance of common pool resources (CPR) can be found in the work that Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom did with her colleagues beginning in the 1950s. Ostrom, a political scientist, studied how communities that must share common resources—water, fisheries, or grazing land—use trust, cooperation, and collective deliberation to manage those resources over the long term. Before Ostrom’s work, many economists believed that shared resource systems were inherently unsustainable because individuals acting in their own self-interest would ultimately undermine the good of the group, often described as “the tragedy of the commons.” Instead, Ostrom demonstrated that communities can create durable “practical algorithms” for sharing pooled resources, whether that be irrigation in Nepal or lobster fishing in Maine…(More)”.

The Statistics That Come Out of Nowhere

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ray Fisman, Andrew Gelman, and Matthew C. Stephenson: “This winter, the university where one of us works sent out an email urging employees to wear a hat on particularly cold days because “most body heat is lost through the top of the head.” Many people we know have childhood memories of a specific figure—perhaps 50 percent or, by some accounts, 80 percent of the heat you lose is through your head. But neither figure is scientific: One is flawed, and the other is patently wrong. A 2004 New York Times column debunking the claim traced its origin to a U.S. military study from the 1950s in which people dressed in neck-high Arctic-survival suits were sent out into the cold. Participants lost about half of their heat through the only part of their body that was exposed to the elements. Exaggeration by generations of parents got us up to 80 percent. (According to a hypothermia expert cited by the Times, a more accurate figure is 10 percent.)

This rather trivial piece of medical folklore is an example of a more serious problem: Through endless repetition, numbers of dubious origin take on the veneer of scientific fact, in many cases in the context of vital public-policy debates. Unreliable numbers are always just an internet search away, and serious people and institutions depend on and repeat seemingly precise quantitative measurements that turn out to have no reliable support…(More)”.

The big idea: should governments run more experiments?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stian Westlake: “…Conceived in haste in the early days of the pandemic, Recovery (which stands for Randomised Evaluation of Covid-19 Therapy) sought to find drugs to help treat people seriously ill with the novel disease. It brought together epidemiologists, statisticians and health workers to test a range of promising existing drugs at massive scale across the NHS.

The secret of Recovery’s success is that it was a series of large, fast, randomised experiments, designed to be as easy as possible for doctors and nurses to administer in the midst of a medical emergency. And it worked wonders: within three months, it had demonstrated that dexamethasone, a cheap and widely available steroid, reduced Covid deaths by a fifth to a third. In the months that followed, Recovery identified four more effective drugs, and along the way showed that various popular treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, President Trump’s tonic of choice, were useless. All in all, it is thought that Recovery saved a million lives around the world, and it’s still going.

But Recovery’s incredible success should prompt us to ask a more challenging question: why don’t we do this more often? The question of which drugs to use was far from the only unknown we had to navigate in the early days of the pandemic. Consider the decision to delay second doses of the vaccine, when to close schools, or the right regime for Covid testing. In each case, the UK took a calculated risk and hoped for the best. But as the Royal Statistical Society pointed out at the time, it would have been cheap and quick to undertake trials so we could know for sure what the right choice was, and then double down on it.

There is a growing movement to apply randomised trials not just in healthcare but in other things government does. ..(More)”.

Citizen Z: Strengthening the participation of young citizens in democratic and civic life

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog of the European Commission: “Contemporary political attitudes are characterized by significant political indifference, disengagement from public life, and a decline in political participation, especially among young people, whose level of interest in politics is steadily declining in almost all EU countries. The ‘Citizen Z’ project, which started in November 2022, applies deliberative methods, to both stimulate interest in civic and political life among young people aged 15 to 25 and to involve them in the decision-making process. Special attention is devoted to the intersectionality principle and those groups that are often affected by low levels of participation: migrants, disadvantaged communities, girls and women.

The ‘Citizen Z’ project aims to respond to the European Commission priorities outlined in the European Democracy Action Plan and the EU Citizenship Report 2020 by enhancing civic engagement and democratic participation of EU citizens, particularly youth aged 15 to 25.

The project is also in line with the position supported by the European Committee of the Regions, which in 2019 encouraged a ‘cultural change’ towards experimenting with deliberative democracy tools as developed at the local level (European Committee of the Regions, Putting citizens at the Centre of the EU agenda), as the most authentic democratic participation originates in the context closest to the citizen…(More)”.

Haste: The Slow Politics of Climate Urgency

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Håvard Haarstad, Jakob Grandin, Kristin Kjærås, and Eleanor Johnson: “It’s understandable that we tend to present climate change as something urgently requiring action. Every day we fail to act, the potential for catastrophe grows. But is that framing itself a problem?  When we hurry, we make more mistakes. We overlook things. We get tunnel vision.

  In Haste, a group of distinguished contributors makes the case for a slow politics of urgency. Rather than rushing and speeding up, he argues, the sustainable future is better served by our challenging of the dominant framings through which we understand time and change in society. While recognizing the need for certain types of urgency in climate politics, Haste directs attention to the different and alternative temporalities at play in climate and sustainability politics. Divided into short and accessible chapters, written by both established and emerging scholars from different disciplines, Haste tackles a major problem in contemporary climate change research and offers creative perspectives on pathways out of the climate emergency…(More)”

An iterative regulatory process for robot governance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Hadassah Drukarch, Carlos Calleja and Eduard Fosch-Villaronga: “There is an increasing gap between the policy cycle’s speed and that of technological and social change. This gap is becoming broader and more prominent in robotics, that is, movable machines that perform tasks either automatically or with a degree of autonomy. This is because current legislation was unprepared for machine learning and autonomous agents. As a result, the law often lags behind and does not adequately frame robot technologies. This state of affairs inevitably increases legal uncertainty. It is unclear what regulatory frameworks developers have to follow to comply, often resulting in technology that does not perform well in the wild, is unsafe, and can exacerbate biases and lead to discrimination. This paper explores these issues and considers the background, key findings, and lessons learned of the LIAISON project, which stands for “Liaising robot development and policymaking,” and aims to ideate an alignment model for robots’ legal appraisal channeling robot policy development from a hybrid top-down/bottom-up perspective to solve this mismatch. As such, LIAISON seeks to uncover to what extent compliance tools could be used as data generators for robot policy purposes to unravel an optimal regulatory framing for existing and emerging robot technologies…(More)”.

Authoritarian Privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Mark Jia: “Privacy laws are traditionally associated with democracy. Yet autocracies increasingly have them. Why do governments that repress their citizens also protect their privacy? This Article answers this question through a study of China. China is a leading autocracy and the architect of a massive surveillance state. But China is also a major player in data protection, having enacted and enforced a number of laws on information privacy. To explain how this came to be, the Article first turns to several top-down objectives often said to motivate China’s privacy laws: advancing its digital economy, expanding its global influence, and protecting its national security. Although each has been a factor in China’s turn to privacy law, even together they tell only a partial story.

More fundamental to China’s privacy turn is the party-state’s use of privacy law to shore up its legitimacy against a backdrop of digital abuse. China’s whiplashed transition into the digital age has given rise to significant vulnerabilities and dependencies for ordinary citizens. Through privacy law, China’s leaders have sought to interpose themselves as benevolent guardians of privacy rights against other intrusive actors—individuals, firms, even state agencies and local governments. So framed, privacy law can enhance perceptions of state performance and potentially soften criticism of the center’s own intrusions. China did not enact privacy law in spite of its surveillance state; it embraced privacy law in order to maintain it. The Article adds to our understanding of privacy law, complicates the conceptual relationship between privacy and democracy, and points towards a general theory of authoritarian privacy..(More)”.