Curated findings and actionable knowledge at the intersection of technology, innovation, and governance
Gideon Rachman at the Financial Times: “The 19th-century popularised the idea of the “
It is an idea that is gaining ground in states as diverse as China, India, Russia, Turkey and, even, the US. The notion of the
One reason that the idea of the
What is more surprising is that rightwing thinkers in the US are also retreating from the idea of “universal values” — in
First Volume of Circular City, A Research Journal by New Lab edited by André Corrêa d’Almeida: “…Circular City Data is the topic being explored in the first iteration of New Lab’s The Circular City program, which looks at data and knowledge as the energy, flow, and medium of collaboration. Circular data refers to the collection, production, and exchange of data, and business insights, between a series of collaborators around a shared set of inquiries. In some scenarios, data may be produced by start-ups and of high value to the city; in other cases, data may be produced by the city and of potential value to the public, start-ups, or enterprise companies. The conditions that need to be in place to safely, ethically, and efficiently extrapolate the highest potential value from data are what this program aims to uncover.
Similar to living systems, urban systems can be enhanced if the total pool of data available, i.e., energy, can be democratized and decentralized and data analytics used widely to positively impact quality of life. The abundance of data available, the vast differences in capacity across organizations to handle it, and the growing complexity of urban challenges provides an opportunity to test how principles of circular city data can help establish new forms of public and private partnerships that make cities more economically prosperous, livable, and resilient. Though we talk of an overabundance of data, it is often still not visible or tactically wielded at the local level in a way that benefits people.
Circular City Data is an effort to build a safe environment whereby start-ups, city agencies, and larger firms can collect, produce, access and exchange data, as well as business insights, through transaction mechanisms that do not necessarily require currency, i.e., through reciprocity. Circular data is data that travels across a number of stakeholders, helping to deliver insights and make clearer the opportunities where such stakeholders can work together to improve outcomes. It includes cases where a set of “circular” relationships need to be in place in order to produce such data and business insights. For example, if an AI company lacks access to raw data from the city, they won’t be able to provide valuable insights to the city. Or, Numina required an established relationship with the DBP in order to access infrastructure necessary for them to install their product and begin generating data that could be shared back with them. ***
Next, the case study documents and explains how The Circular City program was conceived, designed, and implemented, with the goal of offering lessons for scalability at New Lab and replicability in other cities around the world. The three papers that follow investigate and methodologically test the value of circular data applied to three different, but related, urban challenges: economic growth, mobility, and resilience.
Contents
Introduction by Julian Corner to Special Issue of Alliance: “This special feature explores a growing aspiration in philanthropy to achieve system-level change. It looks at the potential and pitfalls by profiling a number of approaches adopted by different foundations
While the fortunes of systems thinking have ebbed and flowed over the decades, it has mainly occurred on the margins of
I detect at least four broad approaches or attitudes to systems in foundations’ work, all of which have been at play in Lankelly Chase’s work at different points:
1.The system as a unit of intervention
Many foundations are trying to take in a broader canvas, recognising that both problems and solutions are generated by the interplay of multiple variables. They hope to find leverage points among these variables, so that their investment can unlock so-called system-level change. Some of their strategies include: working for policy changes, scaling disruptive innovations, supporting advocacy for people’s rights, and improving the evidence base used by system actors. These approaches seem to work best when there is common agreement on an identifiable system, such as the criminal justice system, which can be mapped and acted on.
2.Messy contested systems
Some foundations find they are drawn deeper into complexity. They unearth conflicting perspectives on the nature of the problem, especially when there is a power inequality between those defining it and those experiencing it. As greater interconnection emerges, the frame put around the canvas is shown to be arbitrary and the hope of identifying leverage points begins to look reductive. One person’s solution turns out to be another’s problem. Unable to predict how change might occur, foundations shift towards more exploratory and inquiring approaches. Rather than funding programmes or institutions, they seek to influence the conditions of change, focusing on collaborations, place-based approaches, collective impact, amplifying lesser heard voices, building skills and capacities, and reframing the narratives people hold.
3.Seeing yourself in the system
As appreciation of interconnection deepens, the way foundations earn money, how they make decisions, the people they choose to include in (and exclude from) their work, how they specify success, all come into play as parts of the system that need to change. These foundations realise that they aren’t just looking at a canvas, they are part of it. At Lankelly Chase, we now view our position as fundamentally paradoxical, given that we are seeking to tackle inequality by holding accumulated wealth. We have sought to model the behaviours of healthier systems, including delegated decision-making, mutual accountability, trust-based relationships, promoting equality of voice. By aiming for congruence between means and ends, we and our peers contend that effective practice and ethical practice become the same.
4.Beyond systems
There comes a point when the idea of systems itself can feel reductive. Different values are invoked, those of kindness and solidarity. The basis on which humans relate to each other becomes the core concern. Inspiration is sought in other histories and forms of spiritualty, as suppressed narratives are surfaced. The frame of philanthropy itself is no longer a given, with mutuality and even reparation becoming the basis of an alternative paradigm.
….Foundations can be viewed as both ‘of’ and ‘outside’ any system. This is a tension that isn’t resolvable, but if handled with sufficient self-awareness could make foundations powerful systems practitioners
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)”.
Mohamed Mahmood et al in the International Review of Administrative Sciences: “We present an empirically tested conceptual model based on
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
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
Findings: In some governments, there is a slow iterative cycle between innovation, adoption, resistance
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
The report encourages national
data in Africa on the basis of this research. Other stakeholders working with or for open data can
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
“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
In Focus by the Congressional Research Service: “
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).
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
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
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)”.