How the government will operate in 2030

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Darrell West at the Hill: “Imagine it is 2030 and you are a U.S. government employee working from home. With the assistance of the latest technology, you participate in video calls with clients and colleagues, augment your job activities through artificial intelligence and a personal digital assistant, work through collaboration software, and regularly get rated on a one-to-five scale by clients regarding your helpfulness, follow-through, and task completion.

How did you — and the government — get here? The sharing economy that unfolded in 2018 has revolutionized the public-sector workforce. The days when federal employees were subject to a centrally directed Office of Personnel and Management that oversaw permanent, full-time workers sitting in downtown office buildings are long gone. In their place is a remote workforce staffed by a mix of short- and long-term employees. This has dramatically improved worker productivity and satisfaction.

In the new digital world that has emerged, the goal is to use technology to make employees accountable. Gone are 20- or 30-year careers in the federal bureaucracy. Political leaders have always preached the virtue of running government like a business, and the success of Uber, Airbnb, and WeWork has persuaded them to focus on accountability and performance.

Companies such as Facebook demonstrated they could run large and complex organizations with less than 20,000 employees, and the federal government followed suit in the late 2020s. Now, workers deploy the latest tools of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, data analytics, robots, driverless cars, and digital assistants to improve the government. Unlike the widespread mistrust and cynicism that had poisoned attitudes in the decades before, the general public now sees government as a force for achieving positive results.

Many parts of the federal government are decentralized and mid-level employees are given greater authority to make decisions — but are subject to digital ratings that keep them accountable for their performance. The U.S. government borrowed this technique from China, where airport authorities in 2018 installed digital devices that allowed visitors to rate the performance of individual passport officers after every encounter. The reams of data have enabled Chinese authorities to fire poor performers and make sure foreign visitors see a friendly and competent face at the Beijing International Airport.

Alexa-like devices are given to all federal employees. The devices are used to keep track of leave time, file reimbursement requests, request time off, and complete a range of routine tasks that used to take employees hours. Through voice-activated commands, they navigate these mundane tasks quickly and efficiently. No one can believe the mountains of paperwork required just a decade ago….(More)”.

A Clever Smartphone Attachment Will Show if Water Is Contaminated

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Victor Tangermann in Futurism: “…astronomers from the University of Leiden in the Netherlands… are developing a simple smartphone attachment that makes it ridiculously, comically easy to measure the quality of water by pointing the tool at it, nothing more.

The tool’s primary purpose isn’t just so that you can whet your whistle in any lake, river, or creek you deem tasty-looking — quick and precise measurements of water pollution can be hugely beneficial for science. This kind of data can steer environmental policies on a national level. Citizens can tell if their drinking water is contaminated. Fishermen are able to determine the quality of their catch, and how pollution could affect local fish populations. Polluted water can even determine human migration patterns by forcing fishermen to move or give up their trade altogether….

There’s a precedent that have researchers hopeful. In 2013, the same team of astronomers and toxicologists developed the iSPEX (Spectropolarimeter for Planetary EXploration) — a smartphone attachment that can measure air pollution. Dutch citizens, along with people in cities from Athens to London, took thousands of measurements of the particulates in the air. The result: a detailed map of dust particles over the Netherlands and beyond.

The technology behind the smartphone attachment actually is a spin-off of sophisticated astronomy technology that can tell if oxygen is present on planets around other stars. This also foregoes the need to take local samples and send them back to the lab — a relatively expensive process that can take a lot longer….(More)”.

The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Yascha Mounk: “The world is in turmoil. From India to Turkey and from Poland to the United States, authoritarian populists have seized power. As a result, Yascha Mounk shows, democracy itself may now be at risk.

Two core components of liberal democracy—individual rights and the popular will—are increasingly at war with each other. As the role of money in politics soared and important issues were taken out of public contestation, a system of “rights without democracy” took hold. Populists who rail against this say they want to return power to the people. But in practice they create something just as bad: a system of “democracy without rights.”

The consequence, Mounk shows in The People vs. Democracy, is that trust in politics is dwindling. Citizens are falling out of love with their political system. Democracy is wilting away. Drawing on vivid stories and original research, Mounk identifies three key drivers of voters’ discontent: stagnating living standards, fears of multiethnic democracy, and the rise of social media. To reverse the trend, politicians need to enact radical reforms that benefit the many, not the few.

The People vs. Democracy is the first book to go beyond a mere description of the rise of populism. In plain language, it describes both how we got here and where we need to go. For those unwilling to give up on either individual rights or the popular will, Mounk shows, there is little time to waste: this may be our last chance to save democracy….(More)”

Can we solve wicked problems?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Gianluca Elia and Alessandro Margherita describing “A conceptual framework and a collective intelligence system to support problem analysis and solution design for complex social issues…Wicked problems are complex and multifaceted issues that have no single solution, and are perceived by different stakeholders through contrasting views. Examples in the social context include climate change, poverty, energy production, sanitation, sustainable cities, pollution and homeland security.

Extant research has been addressed to support open discussion and collaborative decision making in wicked scenarios, but complexities derive from the difficulty to leverage multiple contributions, coming from both experts and non-experts, through a structured approach.

In such view, we present a conceptual framework for the study of wicked problem solving as a complex and multi-stakeholder process. Afterwards, we describe an integrated system of tools and associated operational guidelines aimed to support collective problem analysis and solution design. The main value of the article is to highlight the relevance of collective approaches in the endeavor of wicked problem resolution, and to provide an integrated framework of activities, actors and purposeful tools….(More)”.

 

The Help-Yourself City: Legitimacy and Inequality in DIY Urbanism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Gordon C.C. Douglas: “When local governments neglect public services or community priorities, how do concerned citizens respond? In The Help-Yourself City, Gordon Douglas looks closely at people who take urban planning into their own hands with homemade signs and benches, guerrilla bike lanes and more. Douglas explores the frustration, creativity, and technical expertise behind these interventions, but also the position of privilege from which they often come. Presenting a needed analysis of this growing trend from vacant lots to city planning offices, The Help-Yourself City tells a street-level story of people’s relationships to their urban surroundings and the individualization of democratic responsibility…(More)”.

Data for Development: What’s next? Concepts, trends and recommendations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the WebFoundation: “The exponential growth of data provides powerful new ways for governments and companies to understand and respond to challenges and opportunities. This report, Data for Development: What’s next, investigates how organisations working in international development can leverage the growing quantity and variety of data to improve their investments and projects so that they better meet people’s needs.

Investigating the state of data for development and identifying emerging data trends, the study provides recommendations to support German development cooperation actors seeking to integrate data strategies and investments in their work. These insights can guide any organisation seeking to use data to enhance their development work.

The research considers four types of data: (1) big data, (2) open data, (3) citizen-generated data and (4) real-time data, and examines how they are currently being used in development-related policy-making and how they might lead to better development outcomes….(More)”.

Can Social Media Help Build Communities?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Eric Forbush and  Nicol Turner-Lee: “In June 2017, Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed a new mission for Facebook, which was to “[g]ive people the power to build community and bring the world closer together” during the company’s first Community Summit. Yet, his declaration comes in the backdrop of a politically polarized America. While research has indicated that ideological polarization (the alignment and divergence of ideologies) has remained relatively unchanged, affective polarization (the degree to which Democrats and Republicans dislike each other) has skyrocketed (Gentzkow, 2016; Lelkes, 2016). This dislike for members of the opposite party may be amplified on social media platforms.
Social media have been accused of making our social networks increasingly insular, resulting in “echo chambers,” wherein individuals select information and friends who support their already held beliefs (Quattrociocchi, Scala, and Sunstein, 2016; Williams, McMurray, Kurz, and Lambert, 2015). However, the implicit message in Zuckerberg’s comments, and other leaders in this space, is that social media can provide users with a means for brokering relationships with other users that hold different values and beliefs from them. However, little is known on the extent to which social media platforms enable these opportunities.

Theories of prejudice reduction (Paluck and Green, 2009) partially explain an idealistic outcome of improved online relationships. In his seminal contact theory, Gordon Allport (1954) argued that under certain optimal conditions, all that is needed to reduce prejudice is for members of different groups to spend more time interacting with each other. However, contemporary social media platforms may not be doing enough to increase intergroup engagements, especially between politically polarized communities on issues of importance.

In this paper, we use Twitter data collected over a 20-day period, following the Day of Action for Net Neutrality on July 12, 2017. In support of a highly polarized regulatory issue, the Day of Action was organized by advocacy groups and corporations in support of an open internet, which does not discriminate against online users when accessing their preferred content. Analyzing 81,316 tweets about #netneutrality from 40,502 distinct users, we use social network analysis to develop network visualizations and conduct discrete content analysis of central tweets. Our research also divides the content by those in support and those opposed to any type of repeal of net neutrality rules by the FCC.

Our analysis of this particular issue reveals that social media is merely replicating, and potentially strengthening polarization on issues by party affiliations and online associations. Consequently, the appearance of mediators who are able to bridge online conversations or beliefs on charged issues appear to be nonexistent on both sides of the issue. Consequently, our findings suggest that social media companies may not be doing enough to bring communities together through meaningful conversations on their platforms….(More)”.

Lessons from Cambridge Analytica: one way to protect your data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Julia Apostle in the Financial Times: “The unsettling revelations about how data firm Cambridge Analytica surreptitiously exploited the personal information of Facebook users is yet another demoralising reminder of how much data has been amassed about us, and of how little control we have over it.

Unfortunately, the General Data Protection Regulation privacy laws that are coming into force across Europe — with more demanding consent, transparency and accountability requirements, backed by huge fines — may improve practices, but they will not change the governing paradigm: the law labels those who gather our data as “controllers”. We are merely “subjects”.

But if the past 20 years have taught us anything, it is that when business and legislators have been too slow to adapt to public demand — for goods and services that we did not even know we needed, such as Amazon, Uber and bitcoin — computer scientists have stepped in to fill the void. And so it appears that the realms of data privacy and security are deserving of some disruption. This might come in the form of “self-sovereign identity” systems.

The theory behind self-sovereign identity is that individuals should control the data elements that form the basis of their digital identities, and not centralised authorities such as governments and private companies. In the current online environment, we all have multiple log-ins, usernames, customer IDs and personal data spread across countless platforms and stored in myriad repositories.

Instead of this scattered approach, we should each possess the digital equivalent of a wallet that contains verified pieces of our identities. We can then choose which identification to share, with whom, and when. Self-sovereign identity systems are currently being developed.

They involve the creation of a unique and persistent identifier attributed to an individual (called a decentralised identity), which cannot be taken away. The systems use public/private key cryptography, which enables a user with a private key (a string of numbers) to share information with unlimited recipients who can access the encrypted data if they possess a corresponding public key.

The systems also rely on decentralised ledger applications like blockchain. While key cryptography has been around for a long time, it is the development of decentralised ledger technology, which also supports the trading of cryptocurrencies without the involvement of intermediaries, that will allow self-sovereign identity systems to take off. The potential uses for decentralised identity are legion and small-scale implementation is already happening. The Swiss municipality of Zug started using a decentralised identity system called uPort last year, to allow residents access to certain government services. The municipality announced it will also use the system for voting this spring….

Decentralised identity is more difficult to access and therefore there is less financial incentive for hackers to try. Self-sovereign identity systems could eliminate many of our data privacy concerns while empowering individuals in the online world and turning the established data order on its head. But the success of the technology depends on its widespread adoption….(More)“

Psychographics: the behavioural analysis that helped Cambridge Analytica know voters’ minds

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Michael Wade at The Conversation: “Much of the discussion has been on how Cambridge Analytica was able to obtain data on more than 50m Facebook users – and how it allegedly failed to delete this data when told to do so. But there is also the matter of what Cambridge Analytica actually did with the data. In fact the data crunching company’s approach represents a step change in how analytics can today be used as a tool to generate insights – and to exert influence.

For example, pollsters have long used segmentation to target particular groups of voters, such as through categorising audiences by gender, age, income, education and family size. Segments can also be created around political affiliation or purchase preferences. The data analytics machine that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used in her 2016 campaign – named Ada after the 19th-century mathematician and early computing pioneer – used state-of-the-art segmentation techniques to target groups of eligible voters in the same way that Barack Obama had done four years previously.

Cambridge Analytica was contracted to the Trump campaign and provided an entirely new weapon for the election machine. While it also used demographic segments to identify groups of voters, as Clinton’s campaign had, Cambridge Analytica also segmented using psychographics. As definitions of class, education, employment, age and so on, demographics are informational. Psychographics are behavioural – a means to segment by personality.

This makes a lot of sense. It’s obvious that two people with the same demographic profile (for example, white, middle-aged, employed, married men) can have markedly different personalities and opinions. We also know that adapting a message to a person’s personality – whether they are open, introverted, argumentative, and so on – goes a long way to help getting that message across….

There have traditionally been two routes to ascertaining someone’s personality. You can either get to know them really well – usually over an extended time. Or you can get them to take a personality test and ask them to share it with you. Neither of these methods is realistically open to pollsters. Cambridge Analytica found a third way, with the assistance of two University of Cambridge academics.

The first, Aleksandr Kogan, sold them access to 270,000 personality tests completed by Facebook users through an online app he had created for research purposes. Providing the data to Cambridge Analytica was, it seems, against Facebook’s internal code of conduct, but only now in March 2018 has Kogan been banned by Facebook from the platform. In addition, Kogan’s data also came with a bonus: he had reportedly collected Facebook data from the test-takers’ friends – and, at an average of 200 friends per person, that added up to some 50m people.

However, these 50m people had not all taken personality tests. This is where the second Cambridge academic, Michal Kosinski, came in. Kosinski – who is said to believe that micro-targeting based on online data could strengthen democracy – had figured out a way to reverse engineer a personality profile from Facebook activity such as likes. Whether you choose to like pictures of sunsets, puppies or people apparently says a lot about your personality. So much, in fact, that on the basis of 300 likes, Kosinski’s model is able to predict someone’s personality profile with the same accuracy as a spouse….(More)”

Cambridge Analytica scandal: legitimate researchers using Facebook data could be collateral damage

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 at The Conversation: “The scandal that has erupted around Cambridge Analytica’s alleged harvesting of 50m Facebook profiles assembled from data provided by a UK-based academic and his company is a worrying development for legitimate researchers.

Political data analytics company Cambridge Analytica – which is affiliated with Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) – reportedly used Facebook data, after it was handed over by Aleksandr Kogan, a lecturer at the University of Cambridge’s department of psychology.

Kogan, through his company Global Science Research (GSR) – separate from his university work – gleaned the data from a personality test app named “thisisyourdigitallife”. Roughly 270,000 US-based Facebook users voluntarily responded to the test in 2014. But the app also collected data on those participants’ Facebook friends without their consent.

This was possible due to Facebook rules at the time that allowed third-party apps to collect data about a Facebook user’s friends. The Mark Zuckerberg-run company has since changed its policy to prevent such access to developers….

Social media data is a rich source of information for many areas of research in psychology, technology, business and humanities. Some recent examples include using Facebook to predict riots, comparing the use of Facebook with body image concern in adolescent girls and investigating whether Facebook can lower levels of stress responses, with research suggesting that it may enhance and undermine psycho-social constructs related to well-being.

It is right to believe that researchers and their employers value research integrity. But instances where trust has been betrayed by an academic – even if it’s the case that data used for university research purposes wasn’t caught in the crossfire – will have a negative impact on whether participants will continue to trust researchers. It also has implications for research governance and for companies to share data with researchers in the first place.

Universities, research organisations and funders govern the integrity of research with clear and strict ethics proceduresdesigned to protect participants in studies, such as where social media data is used. The harvesting of data without permission from users is considered an unethical activity under commonly understood research standards.

The fallout from the Cambridge Analytica controversy is potentially huge for researchers who rely on social networks for their studies, where data is routinely shared with them for research purposes. Tech companies could become more reluctant to share data with researchers. Facebook is already extremely protective of its data – the worry is that it could become doubly difficult for researchers to legitimately access this information in light of what has happened with Cambridge Analytica….(More)”.