Collection

Doing good data science

Curated on July 29, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Mike Loukides, Hilary Mason and DJ Patil at O’Reilly: “(This post is the first in a series on data ethics) The hard thing about being an ethical data scientist isn’t understanding ethics. It’s the junction between ethical ideas and practice. It’s doing good data science.

There has been a lot of healthy discussion about data ethics lately. We want to be clear: that discussion is good, and necessary. But it’s also not the biggest problem we face. We already have good standards for data ethics. The ACM’s code of ethics, which dates back to 1993, is clear, concise, and surprisingly forward-thinking; 25 years later, it’s a great start for anyone thinking about ethics. The American Statistical Association has a good set of ethical guidelines for working with data. So, we’re not working in a vacuum.

And, while there are always exceptions, we believe that most people want to be fair. Data scientists and software developers don’t want to harm the people using their products. There are exceptions, of course; we call them criminals and con artists. Defining “fairness” is difficult, and perhaps impossible, given the many crosscutting layers of “fairness” that we might be concerned with. But we don’t have to solve that problem in advance, and it’s not going to be solved in a simple statement of ethical principles, anyway.

The problem we face is different: how do we put ethical principles into practice? We’re not talking about an abstract commitment to being fair. Ethical principles are worse than useless if we don’t allow them to change our practice, if they don’t have any effect on what we do day-to-day. For data scientists, whether you’re doing classical data analysis or leading-edge AI, that’s a big challenge. We need to understand how to build the software systems that implement fairness. That’s what we mean by doing good data science.

Any code of data ethics will tell you that you shouldn’t collect data from experimental subjects without informed consent. But that code won’t tell you how to implement “informed consent.” Informed consent is easy when you’re interviewing a few dozen people in person for a psychology experiment. Informed consent means something different when someone clicks on an item in an online catalog (hello, Amazon), and ads for that item start following them around ad infinitum. Do you use a pop-up to ask for permission to use their choice in targeted advertising? How many customers would you lose? Informed consent means something yet again when you’re asking someone to fill out a profile for a social site, and you might (or might not) use that data for any number of experimental purposes. Do you pop up a consent form in impenetrable legalese that basically says “we will use your data, but we don’t know for what”? Do you phrase this agreement as an opt-out, and hide it somewhere on the site where nobody will find it?…

To put ethical principles into practice, we need space to be ethical. We need the ability to have conversations about what ethics means, what it will cost, and what solutions to implement. As technologists, we frequently share best practices at conferences, write blog posts, and develop open source technologies—but we rarely discuss problems such as how to obtain informed consent.

There are several facets to this space that we need to think about.

First, we need corporate cultures in which discussions about fairness, about the proper use of data, and about the harm that can be done by inappropriate use of data can be considered. In turn, this means that we can’t rush products out the door without thinking about how they’re used. We can’t allow “internet time” to mean ignoring the consequences. Indeed, computer security has shown us the consequences of ignoring the consequences: many companies that have never taken the time to implement good security practices and safeguards are now paying with damage to their reputations and their finances. We need to do the same when thinking about issues like fairness, accountability, and unintended consequences….(More)”.

Democracy Is a Habit: Practice It

Curated on July 26, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Melvin Rogers at the Boston Review: “After decades of triumph,” The Economist recently concluded, “democracy is losing ground.” But not, apparently, in the West, whose “mature democracies . . . are not yet in serious danger.” On this view, reports of the death of American democracy have been greatly exaggerated. “Donald Trump may scorn liberal norms,” the reasoning goes, “but America’s checks and balances are strong, and will outlast him.” The truly endangered societies are those where “institutions are weaker and democratic habits less ingrained.”

It has become a common refrain, even among those critical of Trump’s administration. “Our democracy is hard to kill,” Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky said in an interview about his new book with Daniel Zeblatt, How Democracies Die. “We do still have very strong democratic institutions. We’re not Turkey, we’re not Hungary, we’re not Venezuela. We can behave quite recklessly and irresponsibly and probably still muddle through that.”

Is democracy in the United States really so robust? At the outset of World War II, American philosopher John Dewey cautioned against so easy a conclusion—and the simplistic picture of democratic society that it presumes. In Freedom and Culture (1939), he worried that democracy might succumb to the illusion of stability and endurance in the face of threats to liberty and norms of decency. According to Dewey, we must not believe

that democratic conditions automatically maintain themselves, or that they can be identified with fulfillment of prescriptions laid down in a constitution. Beliefs of this sort merely divert attention from what is going on, just as the patter of the prestidigitator enables him to do things that are not noticed by those whom he is engaged in fooling. For what is actually going on may be the formation of conditions that are hostile to any kind of democratic liberties.

Dewey’s was a warning to be wary not just of bad governance but of a more fundamental deformation of society. “This would be too trite to repeat,” he admits, “were it not that so many persons in the high places of business talk as if they believed or could get others to believe that the observance of formulae that have become ritualistic are effective safeguards of our democratic heritage.”…

Dewey may seem like an odd resource to recall in our current political climate. For if we stand in what Hannah Arendt once called “dark times,” Dewey’s optimistic faith in democracy—his unflinching belief in the reflective capacity of human beings to secure the good and avert the bad, and in the progressive character of American democracy—may look ill-equipped to address our current crisis.

Yet this faith was always shaped by an important insight regarding democracy that many seem to have ignored. For Dewey, democracy’s survival depends on a set of habits and dispositions—in short, a culture—to sustain it. …

“The democratic road is the hard one to take,” Dewey concluded in Freedom and Culture. “It is the road which places the greatest burden of responsibility on the greatest number of human beings.” Precisely for this reason, Dewey believed the culture of democracy—the habits and sensibilities of the citizenry—in greater need of scrutiny than its constitution and procedures. For what are constitutions and procedures once you have deformed the ground upon which their proper functioning depends?…(More)”.

How to be a public entrepreneur

Curated on July 25, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Rowan Conway at the RSA: “Political theorist Elinor Ostrom was the first to coin the phrase “public entrepreneur” in her 1965 UCLA PhD thesis where she proposed that government actors should be the makers of purpose-driven businesses. She later went on to surprise the world of economics by winning a Nobel prize.

To the economic establishment Ostrom was a social scientist and her theories of common goods and public purpose enterprise ran counter to the economic orthodoxy. 44 years later, at the same time that she was taking the stage as the first (and only) woman to win a Nobel prize for economics, another California-based thinker was positing his own vision for entrepreneurship… “Move fast and break things” was famously Mark Zuckerberg’s credo for Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. “Unless you are breaking stuff,” he said in 2009, “you are not moving fast enough.” This phrase came to epitomise the “fail fast” start-up culture that has seeped into our consciousness and redefined modern life in the last decade.

Public vs Private entrepreneurs

So which of these two types of entrepreneurship should prevail? I’d say that they’re not playing on the same field and barely even playing the same game. While the Silicon Valley model glorifies the frat boys who dreamt up tech start-ups in their dorm rooms and took the “self-made” financial gains when big tech took off, public entrepreneurs are not cast from this mold. They are the government actors taking on the system to solve social and environmental problems and the idea of “breaking things” won’t appeal to them. “Moving fast”, however, speaks to their ambitions for an agile government that wants to make change in a digital world.

Public entrepreneurs are socially minded — but they differ from social entrepreneurs in that they carry out a public or state role. In a Centre for Public Impact briefing paper entitled “Enter the Public Entrepreneur” the difference is clear:

“While “social entrepreneurs” are people outside government, public entrepreneurs act within government and, at their heart, are a blend of two different roles: that of a public servant, and that of an entrepreneur. The underlying premise is that these roles are usually distinct but the skill sets they require need not be. Indeed, the future public servant will increasingly need to think and act like an entrepreneur — building new relationships, leveraging resources, working across sector lines and acting, and sometimes failing, fast.”

Today we publish a RSA Lab report entitled “Move Fast and Fix Things” in partnership with Innovate UK. The report examines the role of Public Entrepreneurs who want to find ways to move fast without leaving a trail of destruction. It builds on the literature that makes the case for public missionsand entrepreneurship in government and acts as a kind of “how to guide” for those in the public sector who want to think and act like entrepreneurs, but sometimes feel like they are pushing up against an immovable bureaucratic system.

Acting entrepreneurially with procurement

A useful distinction of types of government innovation by the European Commission describes “innovation in government” as transforming public administration, such as the shift to digital service provision and “innovation through government” as initiatives that “foster innovation elsewhere in society, such as the public procurement of innovation”. Our report looks at public procurement — specifically the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) — as a route for innovation through government.

Governments have catalytic spending power. The UK public sector alone spends over £251.5 billion annually procuring goods and services which accounts for 33% of public sector spend and 13.7% of GDP. A profound shift in practice is required if government is to proactively use this power to stimulate innovation in the way that Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State calls for. As Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose she advocates for “mission-oriented innovation” which can enable speed as it has “not only a rate, but also a direction” — purposefully using government’s purchasing power to stimulate innovation for good.

But getting procurement professionals to understand how to be entrepreneurial with public funds is no mean feat….(More)”.

Making a 21st Century Constitution: Playing Fair in Modern Democracies

Curated on July 25, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Frank Vibert: “Democratic constitutions are increasingly unfit for purpose with governments facing increased pressures from populists and distrust from citizens. The only way to truly solve these problems is through reform. Within this important book, Frank Vibert sets out the key challenges to reform, the ways in which constitutions should be revitalised and provides the standards against which reform should be measured…

Democratic governments are increasingly under pressure from populists, and distrust of governmental authority is on the rise. Economic causes are often blamed. Making a 21st Century Constitution proposes instead that constitutions no longer provide the kind of support that democracies need in today’s conditions, and outlines ways in which reformers can rectify this.

Frank Vibert addresses key sources of constitutional obsolescence, identifies the main challenges for constitutional updating and sets out the ways in which constitutions may be made suitable for the the 21st century. The book highlights the need for reformers to address the deep diversity of values in today’s urbanized societies, the blind spots and content-lite nature of democratic politics, and the dispersion of authority among new chains of intermediaries.

This book will be invaluable for students of political science, public administration and policy, law and constitutional economics. Its analysis of how constitutions can be made fit for purpose again will appeal to all concerned with governance, practitioners and reformers alike…(More)”.

‘Mayor for a Day’ – Is Gamified Urban Management the Way Forward?

Curated on July 25, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Gianluca Sgueo: “…aims at describing the use, exploring the potential – but also at understanding the limits – of the use of ‘gamification’ strategies into urban management. Commonly defined as the introduction of game-design elements into non-game contexts, with the former aimed at making the latter more fun, gamification is recognised among the technological paradigms that are shaping the evolution of public administrations.

The paper is divided in three sections.

SECTION I discusses the definition (and appropriateness of) gamification in urban management, and locates it conceptually at the crossroads between nudging, democratic innovations, and crowdsourcing.

SECTION II analyses the potentials of gamified urban management. Four benefits are assessed: first, gamified urban management seems to encourage adaptation of policy-making to structural/societal changes; second, it offers a chance to local administrators to (re-)gain trust from citizens, and thus be perceived as legitimate; third, it adapts policy-making to budgetary challenges; fourth, it helps to efficiently tackle complex regulatory issues.

SECTION III of this paper turns to consider the risks related with the use of gamification in urban management. The first consists of the obstacles faced by participatory rights within gamified policies; the second risk is defined ‘paradox of incentives’; the third is related with privacy issues. In the concluding section, this paper advances some proposals (or, alternatively, highlight valuable theoretical and empirical research efforts) aimed at solving some of the most pressing threats posed by gamified urban management.

The main features of the case studies described in SECTIONS II and III are summarised in a table at the end of the paper….(More)”.

On the Bumpy Road Towards Open Government: The Not-Invented-Here Syndrome as a Major Pothole

Curated on July 25, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Lisa Schmidthuber, David Antons and Dennis Hilgers: “This paper investigates the role of public employees in absorbing external knowledge. Triggered by open government initiatives and open calls for participation, external actors are invited to integrate ideas, solutions, or experience into public organizations. Such exploitation of valuable external knowledge across organizational interfaces might, however, be hindered by negative attitudes of public employees towards external input. The rejection of outside knowledge by internal actors is known as the Not-Invented-Here syndrome. This paper sheds light on NIH attitudes in public organizations. After reviewing the state of the art of research on NIH, it emphasizes rethinking NIH in the public sector. The in-depth discussion of previous work thus serves to derive an extensive agenda for future research….(More)”

Cloud Communities: The Dawn of Global Citizenship?

Curated on July 25, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper by Liav Orgad and Rainer Baubock: “New digital technologies are rapidly changing the global economy and have connected billions of people in deterritoralised social network. Will they also create new opportunities for global citizenship and alternatives to state-based political communities?

In his kick-off essay, Liav Orgad takes an optimistic view. Blockchain technology permits to give every human being a unique legal persona and allows individuals to associate in ‘cloud communities’ that may take on several functions of territorial states. 14 commentators discuss this vision.

Sceptics assume that states or business corporations have always found ways to capture and use new technologies for their purposes. They emphasise that the political functions of states, including their task to protect human rights, require territorial monopolies of legitimate coercion that cannot be provided by cloud communities.

Others point out that individuals would sort themselves out into cloud communities that are internally homogenous which risks to deepen political cleavages within territorial societies.

Finally, some authors are concerned that digital political communities will enhance global social inequalities through excluding from access those who are already worse off in the birthright lottery of territorial citizenship.

Optimists see instead the great potential of blockchain technology to overcome exclusion and marginalisation based on statelessness or sheer lack of civil registries; they regard it as a tool for enhancing individual freedom, since people are self-sovereign in controlling their personal data; and they emphasise the possibilities for emancipatory movements to mobilise for global justice across territorial borders or to create their own internally democratic political utopias.

In the boldest vision, the deficits of cloud communities as voluntary political associations with limited scope of power could be overcome in a global cryptodemocracy that lets all individuals participate on a one-person-one-vote basis in global political decisions….(More)”.

The ‘Datasphere’, Data Flows Beyond Control, and the Challenges for Law and Governance

Curated on July 25, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Stephane Grumbach and Vincenzo Zeno-Zencovich: “The flows of people, goods and capital, which have considerably increased in recent history, are leading to crises (e.g., migrants, tax evasion, food safety) which reveal the failure to control them. Much less visible, and not yet included in economic measurements, data flows have increased exponentially in the last two decades, with the digitisation of social and economic activities. A new space – Datasphere – is emerging, mostly supported by digital platforms which provide essential services reaching half of the world’s population directly. Their control over data flows raises new challenges to governance, and increasingly conflicts with public administration.

In this paper, we consider the need and the difficulty of regulating this emerging space and the different approaches followed on both sides of the Atlantic. We distinguish between three situations. We first consider data at rest, which is from the point of view of the location where data are physically stored. We then consider data in motion, and the issues related to their combination. Finally, we investigate data in action, that is data as vectors of command of legal or illegal activities over territories, with impacts on economy and society as well as security, and raise governance challenges.

The notion of ‘Datasphere’ proposes a holistic comprehension of all the ‘information’ existing on earth, originating both in natural and socio-economic systems, which can be captured in digital form, flows through networks, and is stored, processed and transformed by machines. It differs from the ‘Cyberspace’, which is mostly concerned with the networks, the technical instruments (from software and protocols to cables and data centers) together with the social activities it allows, and to what extent they could/should be allowed.

The paper suggests one – out of the many possible – approach to this new world. Clearly it would be impossible to delve in depth into all its facets, which are as many as those of the physical world. Rather, it attempts to present how traditional legal notions could be usefully managed to put order in a highly complex environment, avoiding a piecemeal approach that looks only at details….(More)”.

Algorithms are taking over – and woe betide anyone they class as a ‘deadbeat’

Curated on July 25, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Zoe Williams at The Guardian: “The radical geographer and equality evangelist Danny Dorling tried to explain to me once why an algorithm could be bad for social justice.

Imagine if email inboxes became intelligent: your messages would be prioritised on arrival, so if the recipient knew you and often replied to you, you’d go to the top; I said that was fine. That’s how it works already. If they knew you and never replied, you’d go to the bottom, he continued. I said that was fair – it would teach me to stop annoying that person.

If you were a stranger, but typically other people replied to you very quickly – let’s say you were Barack Obama – you’d sail right to the top. That seemed reasonable. And if you were a stranger who others usually ignored, you’d fall off the face of the earth.

“Well, maybe they should get an allotment and stop emailing people,” I said.

“Imagine how angry those people would be,” Dorling said. “They already feel invisible and they [would] become invisible by design.”…

All our debates about the use of big data have centred on privacy, and all seem a bit distant: I care, in principle, whether or not Ocado knows what I bought on Amazon. But in my truest heart, I don’t really care whether or not my Frube vendor knows that I also like dystopian fiction of the 1970s.

I do, however, care that a program exists that will determine my eligibility for a loan by how often I call my mother. I care if landlords are using tools to rank their tenants by compliant behaviour, to create a giant, shared platform of desirable tenants, who never complain about black mould and greet each rent increase with a basket of muffins. I care if the police in Durham are using Experian credit scores to influence their custodial decisions, an example – as you may have guessed by its specificity – that is already real. I care that the same credit-rating company has devised a Mosaic score, which splits households into comically bigoted stereotypes: if your name is Liam and you are an “avid texter”, that puts you in “disconnected youth”, while if you’re Asha you’re in “crowded kaleidoscope”. It’s not a privacy issue so much as a profiling one, although, as anyone who has ever been the repeated victim of police stop-and-search could have told me years ago, these are frequently the same thing.

Privacy isn’t the right to keep secrets: it’s the right to be an individual, not a type; the right to make a choice that’s entirely your own; the right to be private….(More)”.

The Magic of “Multisolving”

Curated on July 24, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Elizabeth Sawin at Stanford Social Innovation Review: “In Japan, manufacturing facilities use “green curtains”—living panels of climbing plants—to clean the air, provide vegetables for company cafeterias, and reduce energy use for cooling. A walk-to-school program in the United Kingdom fights a decline in childhood physical activity while reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. A food-gleaning program staffed by young volunteers and families facing food insecurity in Spain addresses food waste, hunger, and a desire for sustainability.

Each of these is a real-life example of what I call “multisolving”—where people pool expertise, funding, and political will to solve multiple problems with a single investment of time and money. It’s an approach with great relevance in this era of complex, interlinked, social and environmental challenges. But what’s the best formula for implementing projects that tackle many problems at once?

Climate Interactive, which uses systems analysis to help people address climate change, recently completed a year-long study of multisolving for climate and health. We learned there is no one-size-fits-all recipe, but we did identify three operating principles and three practices that showed up again and again in the projects we studied. What’s more, anyone wanting to access the power of cross-sectoral partnership can adopt them….(More)”.