Governments and Citizens in the Digital Age


European Commission: “In 2009, the Ministerial Declaration on eGovernment was adopted in Malmö, Sweden, uniting EU member states around a comprehensive programme for administrative reform and digital government. Now, as the government of Estonia prepares to take over the presidency of the Council of the European Union, EU Member States look again at the renewed prospects for restoring public trust in the digital age and unleashing the power of the Internet towards better public services and easier citizen/state interaction.

At the High-Level Roundtable on the European Union Ministerial Declaration on Digital Government, delegations from 13 member states met to discuss a “concept paper” prepared by the Lisbon Council.

It spelled out three areas for highlight:

  1. the “once-only” principle
  2. open government
  3. eIdentity and security

Delegations promised to take up the discussion in the Council of the European Union, but they want to hear from you, too. If you haven’t already, please visit www.ideas4digitalgov.eu, where you will find a commentable version of The 2017 Ministerial Declaration on Digital Government: Key Principles and Guidelines, the “thought paper” launched at the high-level roundtable.

Let us know what you think. The consultation is open and the results, if successful, will contribute to a new Ministerial Declaration on Digital Government to be adopted at the Council of the European Union informal meeting in Autumn, 2017. (More information)”

Facebook Disaster Maps


Molly Jackman et al at Facebook: “After a natural disaster, humanitarian organizations need to know where affected people are located, what resources are needed, and who is safe. This information is extremely difficult and often impossible to capture through conventional data collection methods in a timely manner. As more people connect and share on Facebook, our data is able to provide insights in near-real time to help humanitarian organizations coordinate their work and fill crucial gaps in information during disasters. This morning we announced a Facebook disaster map initiative to help organizations address the critical gap in information they often face when responding to natural disasters.

Facebook disaster maps provide information about where populations are located, how they are moving, and where they are checking in safe during a natural disaster. All data is de-identified and aggregated to a 360 square meter tile or local administrative boundaries (e.g. census boundaries). [1]

This blog describes the disaster maps datasets, how insights are calculated, and the steps taken to ensure that we’re preserving privacy….(More)”.

Applying Public Opinion in Governance


Book by Scott Edward Bennett: “…explores how public opinion is used to design, monitor and evaluate government programmes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Using information collected from the media and from international practitioners in the public opinion field, as well as interviews in each of the 4 countries, the author describes how views of public opinion and governance differ significantly between elites and the general public. Bennett argues that elites generally risk more by allowing the creation of new data, fearing that its analysis may become public and create communications and political problems of various kinds. The book finds evidence that recent conservative governments in several countries are changing their perspective on the use of public opinion, and that conventional public opinion studies are facing challenges from the availability of other kinds of information and new technologies….(More)”

Design and Implementation of Behavioral Informatics Interventions


Chapter by Liliana Laranjo, Annie Lau and Enrico Coiera in Cognitive Informatics in Health and Biomedicine: “The growing burden of chronic disease is drawing unprecedented attention to the importance of optimizing lifestyle behaviors. Interventions to promote behavior change seem promising, but their full potential can be missed when they are not easily disseminated or accessible to a larger audience. The ability of technology to address these issues, as well as to facilitate the tailoring of interventions, has led to the growing popularity of the field of behavioral informatics (BI).

Behavioral informatics interventions are designed to support patients and healthy consumers in modifying behaviors to improve health, with the help of computers, the Internet, mobile phones, wireless devices, or social media, among other technologies. To date, BI interventions have been applied in several health domains, from the promotion of healthy lifestyle behaviors to mental health and chronic disease self-management.

The effectiveness and impact of BI interventions are largely dependent on their meaningful design, development, evaluation, and implementation. Key elements for success include: performing a comprehensive observation and framing of the particular behavioral challenge within context; recognizing the relevant behavior change theories, models and techniques; having a deep understanding of user characteristics and needs; involving users throughout design and development; and refining the design through user-centred evaluation.

Due to the rapid pace of technology development, the evaluation of interventions and translation of research to practice are met with particular challenges. Innovative methodologies and implementation strategies are increasingly required to bring to fruition the potential of BI interventions in delivering cost-effective, personalized interventions, with broad scalability….(More)”.

Facebook Features Connect Lawmakers With Constituents


Griffin Connolly at RollCall: “Facebook users now have the option to pin “constituent badges” to their profiles, letting friends — and members of Congress — know which district they live in. And users can now search for articles, links, and posts that other residents in their districts engage with most frequently.

“When we think about civic engagement, we think about building communities of people,” said Erin Egan, Facebook’s vice president of U.S. public policy. “And this is about making sure that people engage with government.”

The new features can also help identify the issues that voters care about most. That could be a valuable tool for lawmakers — and their opponents — during election season.

“I’ve always been fascinated by how the internet helps citizens have a voice like never before,” Samidh Chakrabarti, Facebook’s head of civic engagement, told reporters and congressional staffers at the unveiling Wednesday. “But at the same time, it makes it more complicated for decision-makers to actually make sense of it all.”

Facebook’s new technology can help, he said.

The constituent badge unlocks a number of possibilities for lawmakers looking to engage voters more directly.

They can now choose to make their posts available exclusively to voters in their district, which Facebook calls “district targeting.” In the past, policymakers could only post publicly from their pages….

The badge tool also enables lawmakers to host virtual town halls with an exclusive audience of their own constituents via the Facebook Live streaming medium and to tailor their messages to a narrower band of local media sources and citizens.

One unintended consequence of these more private Facebook Live sessions is that reporters who don’t live in a lawmaker’s district may not be able to view it. Facebook users can only provide one address, and that determines their constituent badge. …

A number of tech-savvy lawmakers have led the charge in leveraging new social media features and platforms to promote their image and policies.

In March, two Texas House members, Democrat Beto O’Rourke and Republican Will Hurd, struck out on a multiday “bipartisan road trip” from the Lone Star State back to Washington, using Facebook Live and the livestreaming app Periscope to update viewers and answer questions on policy.

Democrat Rick Nolan and Republican Jason Lewis copied that approach in April when the two Minnesota congressmen traveled back to their home state.

Louisiana Republican Rep. Garret Graves, who spoke at the Facebook unveiling on Wednesday, has gone full bore with his use of Facebook Live, hosting town halls every Friday around lunchtime and periodically on evenings throughout the week….(More)”

The Citizen Marketer


Book by Joel Penney: “From hashtag activism to the flood of political memes on social media, the landscape of political communication is being transformed by the grassroots circulation of opinion on digital platforms and beyond. By exploring how everyday people assist in the promotion of political media messages to persuade their peers and shape the public mind, Joel Penney offers a new framework for understanding the phenomenon of viral political communication: the citizen marketer. Like the citizen consumer, the citizen marketer is guided by the logics of marketing practice, but, rather than being passive, actively circulates persuasive media to advance political interests. Such practices include using protest symbols in social media profile pictures, strategically tweeting links to news articles to raise awareness about select issues, sharing politically-charged internet memes and viral videos, and displaying mass-produced T-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers that promote a favored electoral candidate or cause. Citizens view their participation in such activities not only in terms of how it may shape or influence outcomes, but as a statement of their own identity. As the book argues, these practices signal an important shift in how political participation is conceptualized and performed in advanced capitalist democratic societies, as they casually inject political ideas into the everyday spaces and places of popular culture.

While marketing is considered a dirty word in certain critical circles — particularly among segments of the left that have identified neoliberal market logics and consumer capitalist structures as a major focus of political struggle — some of these very critics have determined that the most effective way to push back against the forces of neoliberal capitalism is to co-opt its own marketing and advertising techniques to spread counter-hegemonic ideas to the public. Accordingly, this book argues that the citizen marketer approach to political action is much broader than any one ideological constituency or bloc. Rather, it is a means of promoting a wide range of political ideas, including those that are broadly critical of elite uses of marketing in consumer capitalist societies. The book includes an extensive historical treatment of citizen-level political promotion in modern democratic societies, connecting contemporary digital practices to both the 19th century tradition of mass political spectacle as well as more informal, culturally-situated forms of political expression that emerge from postwar countercultures. By investigating the logics and motivations behind the citizen marketer approach, as well as how it has developed in response to key social, cultural, and technological changes, Penney charts the evolution of activism in an age of mediatized politics, promotional culture, and viral circulation….(More)”.

What drives legitimacy in government?


Discussion paper by the Centre for Public Impact (CPI):  “…What are the sources of legitimacy, and how can legitimacy be strengthened? By legitimacy we mean the reservoir of support that that allows governments to deliver positive outcomes for people, what we at the CPI call public impact. We are interested in exploring how governments can build constructive relationships with their citizens for the benefit of each of us and society as a whole. This might be at a wholeof-government level or the level of an individual service or policy. We will explore how legitimacy flows between these levels, and how legitimacy can be built both from the top down and from the bottom up.

Occasionally legitimacy is discussed as a black or white concept – with governments labelled as either “legitimate” (meaning rightfully in power) or “illegitimate” (meaning not rightfully in power). We will try to avoid getting mired down in such discussions. The concept of legitimacy is also often used as shorthand for other concepts such as “a democratic mandate”, “fitness to serve” or “honesty”. Our project aims to determine what legitimacy means in reality to people and governments in different parts of the world, providing some shades of grey as well greater rigour and clarity. There will be no easy answers. Building legitimacy requires action in many parts of a complex system, involving multiple institutions and actors. And the sources of legitimacy in one country or in one policy area may not be easily translatable to other countries or other policy areas….(More)”.

The law and big data


Article by Felin, Teppo, Devins, Caryn, Kauffman, Stuart and Koppl, Roger: “In this article we critically examine the use of Big Data in the legal system. Big Data is driving a trend towards behavioral optimization and “personalized law,” in which legal decisions and rules are optimized for best outcomes and where law is tailored to individual consumers based on analysis of past data. Big Data, however, has serious limitations and dangers when applied in the legal context. Advocates of Big Data make theoretically problematic assumptions about the objectivity of data and scientific observation. Law is always theory-laden. Although Big Data strives to be objective, law and data have multiple possible meanings and uses and thus require theory and interpretation in order to be applied. Further, the meanings and uses of law and data are indefinite and continually evolving in ways that cannot be captured or predicted by Big Data.

Due to these limitations, the use of Big Data will likely generate unintended consequences in the legal system. Large-scale use of Big Data will create distortions that adversely influence legal decision-making, causing irrational herding behaviors in the law. The centralized nature of the collection and application of Big Data also poses serious threats to legal evolution and democratic accountability. Furthermore, its focus on behavioral optimization necessarily restricts and even eliminates the local variation and heterogeneity that makes the legal system adaptive. In all, though Big Data has legitimate uses, this article cautions against using Big Data to replace independent legal judgment….(More)”

Smart Cities: The Internet of Things, People and Systems


Book by Schahram Dustdar, Stefan Nastić and Ognjen Šćekić: “This book presents a coherent, novel vision of Smart Cities, built around a value-driven architecture. It describes the limitations of the contemporary notion of the Smart City and argues that the next developmental step must actively include not only the physical infrastructure, but information technology and human infrastructure as well, requiring the intensive integration of technical solutions from the Internet of Things (IoT) and social computing.
The book is divided into five major parts, the first of which provides both a general introduction and a coherent vision that ties together all the components that are required to realize the vision for Smart Cities. Part II then discusses the provisioning and governance of Smart City systems and infrastructures. In turn, Part III addresses the core technologies and technological enablers for managing the social component of the Smart City platform. Both parts combine state-of-the-art research with cutting-edge industrial efforts in the respective fields. Lastly, Part IV details a road map to achieving Cyber-Human Smart Cities. Rounding out the coverage, it discusses the concrete technological advances needed to move beyond contemporary Smart Cities and toward the Smart Cities of the future.
Overall, the book provides an essential overview of the latest developments in the areas of IoT and social computing research, and outlines a research roadmap for a closer integration of the two areas in the context of the Smart City. As such, it offers a valuable resource for researchers and graduate students alike….(More)”.

We use big data to sentence criminals. But can the algorithms really tell us what we need to know?


 at the Conversation: “In 2013, a man named Eric L. Loomis was sentenced for eluding police and driving a car without the owner’s consent.

When the judge weighed Loomis’ sentence, he considered an array of evidence, including the results of an automated risk assessment tool called COMPAS. Loomis’ COMPAS score indicated he was at a “high risk” of committing new crimes. Considering this prediction, the judge sentenced him to seven years.

Loomis challenged his sentence, arguing it was unfair to use the data-driven score against him. The U.S. Supreme Court now must consider whether to hear his case – and perhaps settle a nationwide debate over whether it’s appropriate for any court to use these tools when sentencing criminals.

Today, judges across the U.S. use risk assessment tools like COMPAS in sentencing decisions. In at least 10 states, these tools are a formal part of the sentencing process. Elsewhere, judges informally refer to them for guidance.

I have studied the legal and scientific bases for risk assessments. The more I investigate the tools, the more my caution about them grows.

The scientific reality is that these risk assessment tools cannot do what advocates claim. The algorithms cannot actually make predictions about future risk for the individual defendants being sentenced….

Algorithms such as COMPAS cannot make predictions about individual defendants, because data-driven risk tools are based on group statistics. This creates an issue that academics sometimes call the “group-to-individual” or G2i problem.

Scientists study groups. But the law sentences the individual. Consider the disconnect between science and the law here.

The algorithms in risk assessment tools commonly assign specific points to different factors. The points are totaled. The total is then often translated to a risk bin, such as low or high risk. Typically, more points means a higher risk of recidivism.

Say a score of 6 points out of 10 on a certain tool is considered “high risk.” In the historical groups studied, perhaps 50 percent of people with a score of 6 points did reoffend.

Thus, one might be inclined to think that a new offender who also scores 6 points is at a 50 percent risk of reoffending. But that would be incorrect.

It may be the case that half of those with a score of 6 in the historical groups studied would later reoffend. However, the tool is unable to select which of the offenders with 6 points will reoffend and which will go on to lead productive lives.

The studies of factors associated with reoffending are not causation studies. They can tell only which factors are correlated with new crimes. Individuals retain some measure of free will to decide to break the law again, or not.

These issues may explain why risk tools often have significant false positive rates. The predictions made by the most popular risk tools for violence and sex offending have been shown to get it wrong for some groups over 50 percent of the time.

A ProPublica investigation found that COMPAS, the tool used in Loomis’ case, is burdened by large error rates. For example, COMPAS failed to predict reoffending in one study at a 37 percent rate. The company that makes COMPAS has disputed the study’s methodology….

There are also a host of thorny issues with risk assessment tools incorporating, either directly or indirectly, sociodemographic variables, such as gender, race and social class. Law professor Anupam Chander has named it the problem of the “racist algorithm.”

Big data may have its allure. But, data-driven tools cannot make the individual predictions that sentencing decisions require. The Supreme Court might helpfully opine on these legal and scientific issues by deciding to hear the Loomis case…(More)”.