Collection

The Transparency Fix: Secrets, Leaks, and Uncontrollable Government Information

Curated on May 27, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Mark Fenster: Is the government too secret or not secret enough? Why is there simultaneously too much government secrecy and a seemingly endless procession of government leaks? The Transparency Fix asserts that we incorrectly assume that government information can be controlled. The same impulse that drives transparency movements also drives secrecy advocates. They all hold the mistaken belief that government information can either be released or kept secure on command.

The Transparency Fix argues for a reformation in our assumptions about secrecy and transparency. The world did not end because Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Edward Snowden released classified information. But nor was there a significant political change. “Transparency” has become a buzzword, while secrecy is anathema. Using a variety of real-life examples to examine how government information actually flows, Mark Fenster describes how the legal regime’s tenuous control over state information belies both the promise and peril of transparency. He challenges us to confront the implausibility of controlling government information and shows us how the contemporary obsession surrounding transparency and secrecy cannot radically change a state that is defined by so much more than information….(More)”.

Designing for More Effective Protests

Curated on May 26, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Linda Poon at CityLab: “…It’s also safe to assume there will be more protests to come, and that they may be smaller and more dispersed around cities. That’s the argument made by a handful of design and architecture organizations in an open letter in January to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio suggesting ways the city could make its streets more protest friendly. The Van Alen Institute, one of the signatories, recently followed that up with a related question: How can New Yorkers themselves design for better protests, to make them more inclusive and accessible to the city’s diverse population?

That’s the central question behind the institute’s one-day design contest, “To the Streets,” which asked activists, designers, and people of all backgrounds and disciplines to come up with imaginative—but also realistic—strategies that community members can use to plan effective protests.

One of the key challenges, as outlined in the letter and in the competition rules, is that future protests may not be as big as the Women’s March, nor will they always be held in the most popular protest sites. In a city as diverse as New York, the protests might be more decentralized. Instead of one large protest, smaller ones may happen simultaneously in spaces nestled inside the immigrant communities most affected by the Trump administration’s policies.

The competition asked designers to find ways to link these protest sites together so that their messages resonate throughout the city and so that they stand out. If protests do become more frequent, it’s important that they don’t become normalized, says John Schettino, a fellow at the Design Trust for Public Space and one of the contest judges.

The city might be able to make these protest sites bigger and safer, and it could have the authority to pedestrianize streets like 5th Avenue, where Trump Tower is located. “The physical design of the space tends to be a top-down process that comes from the city government,” Schettino says. But then there’s the “soft infrastructure of activist design,” or how interventions and activism can temporarily reclaim public spaces.

The winning proposal, chosen out of five finalists, came from urban designers James Khamsi and Despo Thoma, who came up with the idea of using flatbed trucks as mobile platforms that act as a central point for protests. Hovering above each truck would be giant balloons whose colorful appearance would draw attention from people miles away, and whose monitors can display the protestors’ messages….(More)”.

Data Collaboratives: exchanging data to create public value across Latin America and the Caribbean

Curated on May 26, 2017July 19, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Stefaan Verhulst, Andrew Young and Prianka Srinivasan at IADB’s Abierto al Publico: “Data is playing an ever-increasing role in bolstering businesses across Latin America – and the rest of the word. In Brazil, Mexico and Colombia alone, the revenue from Big Data is calculated at more than US$603.7 million, a market that is only set to increase as more companies across Latin America and the Caribbean embrace data-driven strategies to enhance their bottom-line. Brazilian banking giant Itau plans to create six data centers across the country, and already uses data collected from consumers online to improve cross-selling techniques and streamline their investments. Data from web-clicks, social media profiles, and telecommunication services is fueling a new generation of entrepreneurs keen to make big dollars from big data.

What if this same data could be used not just to improve business, but to improve the collective well-being of our communities, public spaces, and cities? Analysis of social media data can offer powerful insights to city officials into public trends and movements to better plan infrastructure and policies. Public health officials and humanitarian workers can use mobile phone data to, for instance, map human mobility and better target their interventions. By repurposing the data collected by companies for their business interests, governments, international organizations and NGOs can leverage big data insights for the greater public good.

Key question is thus: How to unlock useful data collected by corporations in a responsible manner and ensure its vast potential does not go to waste?

“Data Collaboratives” are emerging as a possible answer. Data collaboratives are a new type of public-private partnerships aimed at creating public value by exchanging data across sectors.

Research conducted by the GovLab finds that Data Collaboratives offer several potential benefits across a number of sectors, including humanitarian and anti-poverty efforts, urban planning, natural resource stewardship, health, and disaster management. As a greater number of companies in Latin America look to data to spur business interests, our research suggests that some companies are also sharing and collaborating around data to confront some of society’s most pressing problems.

Consider the following Data Collaboratives that seek to enhance…(More)”

Digital platforms and democracy

Curated on May 24, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Ricard Espelt and Monica Garriga at Open Democracy: “The impact of digital platforms in recent years affects all areas and all sorts of organizations: from production to consumption, from political parties to social movements, from business to public administration, trade unions, universities or the mass media. The disruption they generate is cross-section and intergenerational. Undoubtedly, their outstanding assets – at least from a discursive point of view –, are self-management and disintermediation. Today, through technology, people can participate actively in processes related to any particular activity. This is why we often talk about digital platforms as tools for democratizing participation, overcoming as they do the traditional tyranny of space and time. If we analyze them in detail, however, and look at the organizations that promote them, we realize that the improvement in citizen involvement tends to vary, sometimes considerably, as does the logic behind their approach…..

La Teixidora, a democratic digital platform

Being aware now of the risks of partial evaluation of the impact of technology and the key elements to be considered in analyzing it, let us return to our starting point: democratizing participation. Given the importance of local assessment of global digital tools, let us now see the case of the multimedia platform La Teixidora, which allows us to synthesize the aspects which, in our opinion, shape democratic participation.

Platform cooperativism or open cooperativism, whether it focuses on the social strength of cooperative values or on the need to reappropriate common goods, calls for a detailed critical review of the local activity of its digital platforms.

This initiative, launched in 2016 in Barcelona, organizes in real time a collaborative structure with the aim of mapping distributed knowledge generated in different parts of the city during conferences, meetings, workshops and other offline meeting formats related to technopolitics and the commons. To do this, it appropriates several open source tools (collaborative editor, wiki, content storage spaces) and uses a Creative Commons license which, while recognizing authorship, allows anyone to adapt the contents and even use them commercially. Two significant apps illustrate the value of its functionalities in relation to democratizing participation:

In March 2016 La Teixidora covered, with a team of some twenty people, a debate on Collaborative Economy (Economies Col·laboratives Procomuns). The classified data were then transferred to the Decidim Barcelona platform, which has helped to define, through a broad participatory process, the Municipal Action Plan of the Barcelona City Council.
At the same time, the tool has been used to monitor the fifteen teams which have been following the economic development program La Comunificadora, whose aim is the promotion of social transformation projects and the advancement of entrepreneurship. Through La Teixidora, the participants have been able to establish a space for exchanging knowledge among them, with the mentors, with the city service managers and with citizens in general. All its contents are open and reusable.

In short, through this platform, both processes have been able not only to contribute proposals, but also to form an open learning space. And by mapping participation, which makes these processes – both of which are promoted by the Public Administration – transparent and accountable, thus improving their democratic quality. At the same time, the information and the learning from their use are helping to redesign the technological platform itself and adapt it to the needs of the communities involved….(More)”.

Conducting Mobile Surveys Responsibly

Curated on May 24, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

A Field Book for World Food Program Staff: “The field book outlines the main risks for staff engaged in mobile data collection and helps promote responsible data collection/storage/sharing in the very complex environment in which WFP operates…(Conducting Mobile Surveys Responsibly: A Field Book for WFP Staff, May 2017)

Twitter as a data source: An overview of tools for journalists

Curated on May 24, 2017July 19, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Wasim Ahmed at Data Driven Journalism: “Journalists may wish to use data from social media platforms in order to provide greater insight and context to a news story. For example, journalists may wish to examine the contagion of hashtags and whether they are capable of achieving political or social change. Moreover, newsrooms may also wish to tap into social media posts during unfolding crisis events. For example, to find out who tweeted about a crisis event first, and to empirically examine the impact of social media.

Furthermore, Twitter users and accounts such as WikiLeaks may operate outside the constraints of traditional journalism, and therefore it becomes important to have tools and mechanisms in place in order to examine these kinds of influential users. For example, it was found that those who were backing Marine Le Pen on Twitter could have been users who had an affinity to Donald Trump.

There remains a number of different methods for analysing social media data. Take text analytics, for example, which can include using sentiment analysis to place bulk social media posts into categories of a particular feeling, such as positive, negative, or neutral. Or machine learning, which can automatically assign social media posts to a number of different topics.

There are other methods such as social network analysis, which examines online communities and the relationships between them. A number of qualitative methodologies also exist, such as content analysis and thematic analysis, which can be used to manually label social media posts. From a journalistic perspective, network analysis may be of importance initially via tools such as NodeXL. This is because it can quickly provide an overview of influential Twitter users alongside a topic overview.

From an industry standpoint, there has been much focus on gaining insight into users’ personalities, through services such as IBM Watson’s Personality Insights service. This uses linguistic analytics to derive intrinsic personality insights, such as emotions like anxiety, self-consciousness, and depression. This information can then be used by marketers to target certain products; for example, anti-anxiety medication to users who are more anxious…(An overview of tools for 2017).”

Eliminating the Human

Curated on May 24, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

David Byrne: I have a theory that much recent tech development and innovation over the last decade or so has had an unspoken overarching agenda—it has been about facilitating the need for LESS human interaction. It’s not a bug—it’s a feature. We might think Amazon was about selling us books we couldn’t find locally—and it was and what a brilliant idea—but maybe it was also just as much about eliminating human interaction. I see a pattern emerging in the innovative technology that has gotten the most attention, gets the bucks and often, no surprise, ends up getting developed and implemented. What much of this technology seems to have in common is that it removes the need to deal with humans directly. The tech doesn’t claim or acknowledge this as its primary goal, but it seems to often be the consequence. I’m sort of thinking maybe it is the primary goal. There are so many ways imagination can be manifested in the technical sphere. Many are wonderful and seem like social goods, but allow me a little conspiracy mongering here—an awful lot of them have the consequence of lessening human interaction.

I suspect that we almost don’t notice this pattern because it’s hard to imagine what an alternative focus of tech development might be. Most of the news we get barraged with is about algorithms, AI, robots and self driving cars, all of which fit this pattern, though there are indeed many technological innovations underway that have nothing to do with eliminating human interaction from our lives. CRISPR-cas9 in genetics, new films that can efficiently and cheaply cool houses and quantum computing to name a few, but what we read about most and what touches us daily is the trajectory towards less human involvement. Note: I don’t consider chat rooms and product reviews as “human interaction”; they’re mediated and filtered by a screen.

I am not saying these developments are not efficient and convenient; this is not a judgement regarding the services and technology. I am simply noticing a pattern and wondering if that pattern means there are other possible roads we could be going down, and that the way we’re going is not in fact inevitable, but is (possibly unconsciously) chosen.

Here are some examples of tech that allows for less human interaction…

Lastly, “Social” media- social “interaction” that isn’t really social.

While the appearance on social networks is one of connection—as Facebook and others frequently claim—the fact is a lot of social media is a simulation of real social connection. As has been in evidence recently, social media actually increases divisions amongst us by amplifying echo effects and allowing us to live in cognitive bubbles. We are fed what we already like or what our similarly inclined friends like… or more likely now what someone has payed for us to see in an ad that mimics content. In this way, we actually become less connected except to those in our group…..

Many transformative movements in the past succeed based on leaders, agreed upon principles and organization. Although social media is a great tool for rallying people and bypassing government channels, it does not guarantee eventual success.

Social media is not really social—ticking boxes and having followers and getting feeds is NOT being social—it’s a screen simulation of human interaction. Human interaction is much more nuanced and complicated than what happens online. Engineers like things that are quantifiable. Smells, gestures, expression, tone of voice, etc. etc.—in short, all the various ways we communicate are VERY hard to quantify, and those are often how we tell if someone likes us or not….

To repeat what I wrote above—humans are capricious, erratic, emotional, irrational and biased in what sometimes seem like counterproductive ways. I’d argue that though those might seem like liabilities, many of those attributes actually work in our favor. Many of our emotional responses have evolved over millennia, and they are based on the probability that our responses, often prodded by an emotion, will more likely than not offer the best way to deal with a situation….

Our random accidents and odd behaviors are fun—they make life enjoyable. I’m wondering what we’re left with when there are fewer and fewer human interactions. Remove humans from the equation and we are less complete as people or as a society. “We” do not exist as isolated individuals—we as individuals are inhabitants of networks, we are relationships. That is how we prosper and thrive….(More)”.

Open Data Barometer 2016

Curated on May 23, 2017October 10, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Open Data Barometer: “Produced by the World Wide Web Foundation as a collaborative work of the Open Data for Development (OD4D) network and with the support of the Omidyar Network, the Open Data Barometer (ODB) aims to uncover the true prevalence and impact of open data initiatives around the world. It analyses global trends, and provides comparative data on countries and regions using an in-depth methodology that combines contextual data, technical assessments and secondary indicators.

Covering 115 jurisdictions in the fourth edition, the Barometer ranks governments on:

Readiness for open data initiatives.
Implementation of open data programmes.
Impact that open data is having on business, politics and civil society.

After three successful editions, the fourth marks another step towards becoming a global policymaking tool with a participatory and inclusive process and a strong regional focus. This year’s Barometer includes an assessment of government performance in fulfilling the Open Data Charter principles.

The Barometer is a truly global and collaborative effort, with input from more than 100 researchers and government representatives. It takes over six months and more than 10,000 hours of research work to compile. During this process, we address more than 20,000 questions and respond to more than 5,000 comments and suggestions.

The ODB global report is a summary of some of the most striking findings. The full data and methodology is available, and is intended to support secondary research and inform better decisions for the progression of open data policies and practices across the world…(More)”.

A DARPA Perspective on Artificial Intelligence

Curated on May 22, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

DARPA: “What’s the ground truth on artificial intelligence (AI)? In this video, John Launchbury, the Director of DARPA’s Information Innovation Office (I2O), attempts to demystify AI–what it can do, what it can’t do, and where it is headed. Through a discussion of the “three waves of AI” and the capabilities required for AI to reach its full potential, John provides analytical context to help understand the roles AI already has played, does play now, and could play in the future. (Slides can be downloaded here)….”