Collection

Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) framework

Curated on April 10, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by AINow Institute: “Automated decision systems are currently being used by public agencies, reshaping how criminal justice systems work via risk assessment algorithms1 and predictive policing, optimizing energy use in critical infrastructure through AI-driven resource allocation, and changing our employment4 and educational systems through automated evaluation tools and matching algorithms.Researchers, advocates, and policymakers are debating when and where automated decision systems are appropriate, including whether they are appropriate at all in particularly sensitive domains.

Questions are being raised about how to fully assess the short and long term impacts of these systems, whose interests they serve, and if they are sufficiently sophisticated to contend with complex social and historical contexts. These questions are essential, and developing strong answers has been hampered in part by a lack of information and access to the systems under deliberation. Many such systems operate as “black boxes” – opaque software tools working outside the scope of meaningful scrutiny and accountability.8 This is concerning, since an informed policy debate is impossible without the ability to understand which existing systems are being used, how they are employed, and whether these systems cause unintended consequences. The Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) framework proposed in this report is designed to support affected communities and stakeholders as they seek to assess the claims made about these systems, and to determine where – or if – their use is acceptable….

KEY ELEMENTS OF A PUBLIC AGENCY ALGORITHMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1. Agencies should conduct a self-assessment of existing and proposed automated decision systems, evaluating potential impacts on fairness, justice, bias, or other concerns across affected communities;

2. Agencies should develop meaningful external researcher review processes to discover, measure, or track impacts over time;

3. Agencies should provide notice to the public disclosing their definition of “automated decision system,” existing and proposed systems, and any related self-assessments and researcher review processes before the system has been acquired;

4. Agencies should solicit public comments to clarify concerns and answer outstanding questions; and

5. Governments should provide enhanced due process mechanisms for affected individuals or communities to challenge inadequate assessments or unfair, biased, or otherwise harmful system uses that agencies have failed to mitigate or correct….(More)”.

Digital Identity: On the Threshold of a Digital Identity Revolution

Curated on April 9, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

White Paper by the World Economic Forum: “For individuals, legal entities and devices alike, a verifiable and trusted identity is necessary to interact and transact with others.

The concept of identity isn’t new – for much of human history, we have used evolving credentials, from beads and wax seals to passports, ID cards and birth certificates, to prove who we are. The issues associated with identity proofing – fraud, stolen credentials and social exclusion – have challenged individuals throughout history. But, as the spheres in which we live and transact have grown, first geographically and now into the digital economy, the ways in which humans, devices and other entities interact are quickly evolving – and how we manage identity will have to change accordingly.

As we move into the Fourth Industrial Revolution and more transactions are conducted digitally, a digital representation of one’s identity has become increasingly important; this applies to humans, devices, legal entities and beyond. For humans, this proof of identity is a fundamental prerequisite to access critical services and participate in modern economic, social and political systems. For devices, their digital identity is critical in conducting transactions, especially as the devices will be able to transact relatively independent of humans in the near future. For legal entities, the current state of identity management consists of inefficient manual processes that could benefit from new technologies and architecture to support digital growth.

As the number of digital services, transactions and entities grows, it will be increasingly important to ensure the transactions take place in a secure and trusted network where each entity can be identified and authenticated. Identity is the first step of every transaction between two or more parties.

Over the ages, the majority of transactions between two identities has been mostly viewed in relation to the validation of a credential (“Is this genuine information?”), verification (“Does the information match the identity?”) and authentication of an identity (“Does this human/thing match the identity? Are you really who you claim to be?”). These questions have not changed over time, only the methods have change. This paper explores the challenges with current identity systems and the trends that will have significant impact on identity in the future….(More)”.

A New Model for Industry-Academic Partnerships

Curated on April 9, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Working Paper by Gary King and Nathaniel Persily: “The mission of the academic social sciences is to understand and ameliorate society’s greatest challenges. The data held by private companies holds vast potential to further this mission. Yet, because of its interaction with highly politicized issues, customer privacy, proprietary content, and differing goals of firms and academics, these data are often inaccessible to university researchers.

We propose here a new model for industry-academic partnerships that addresses these problems via a novel organizational structure: Respected scholars form a commission which, as a trusted third party, receives access to all relevant firm information and systems, and then recruits independent academics to do research in specific areas following standard peer review protocols organized and funded by nonprofit foundations.

We also report on a partnership we helped forge under this model to make data available about the extremely visible and highly politicized issues surrounding the impact of social media on elections and democracy. In our partnership, Facebook will provide privacy-preserving data and access; seven major politically and substantively diverse nonprofit foundations will fund the research; and the Social Science Research Council will oversee the peer review process for funding and data access….(More)”.

Managing Public Trust

Curated on April 7, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Barbara Kożuch, Sławomir J. Magala and Joanna Paliszkiewicz: “This book brings together the theory and practice of managing public trust. It examines the current state of public trust, including a comprehensive global overview of both the research and practical applications of managing public trust by presenting research from seven countries (Brazil, Finland, Poland, Hungary, Portugal, Taiwan, Turkey) from three continents. The book is divided into five parts, covering the meaning of trust, types, dimension and the role of trust in management; the organizational challenges in relation to public trust; the impact of social media on the development of public trust; the dynamics of public trust in business; and public trust in different cultural contexts….(More)”.

Coproducing Urban Governance

Curated on April 7, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Liz Richardson & Catherine Durose & Beth Perry in Politics and Governance: “There are many critiques of existing forms of urban governance as not fit for purpose. However, what alternatives might look like is equally contested. Coproduction is proposed as a response to address complex wicked issues. Achieving coproduction is a highly complex and daunting task. Bottom up approaches to the initiation of coproduced governance are seen as fruitful, including exemplification of utopian alternatives though local practices. New ways of seeing the role of conflict in participation are needed, including ways to institutionalise agonistic participatory practices. Coproduction in governance drives demands for forms of knowledge production that are themselves coproductive. New urban governing spaces need to be coproduced through participative transformation requiring experimentation and innovation in re-designing urban knowledge architectures. Future research in this field is proposed which is nuanced, grounded in explicit weightings of different democratic values, and which mediates between recognition of contingency and the ability to undertake comparative analysis….(More)”.

The Power Of The Wikimedia Movement Beyond Wikimedia

Curated on April 7, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Michael Bernick at Forbes: “In January 2017, we the constituents of Wikimedia, started an ambitious discussion about our collective future. We reflected on our past sixteen years together and imagined the impact we could have in the world in the next decades. Our aim was to identify a common strategic direction that would unite and inspire people across our movement on our way to 2030, and help us make decisions.”…

The final documents included a strategic direction and a research report: “Wikimedia 2030: Wikimedia’s Role in Shaping the Future of the Information Commons”: an expansive look at Wikimedia, knowledge, technologies, and communications in the next decade. It includes thoughtful sections on Demographics (global population trends, and Wikimedia’s opportunities for growth) Emerging Platforms (how Wikimedia platforms will be accessed), Misinformation (how content creators and technologists can work toward a product that is trustworthy), Literacy (changing forms of learning that can benefit from the Wikimedia movement) and the core Wikimedia issues of Open Knowledge and knowledge as a service.

Among its goals, the document calls for greater outreach to areas outside of Europe and North America (which now account for 63% of Wikimedia’s total traffic), and widening the knowledge and experiential bases of contributors. It urges greater access through mobile devices and other emerging hardware; and expanding partnerships with libraries, museums, galleries and archives.

The document captures not only the idealism of the enterprise, and but also why Wikimedia can be described as a movement not only an enterprise. It calls into question conventional wisdoms of how our political and business structures should operate.

Consider the Wikimedia editing process that seeks to reach common ground on contentious issues. Lisa Gruwell, the Chief Advancement Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, notes that in the development of an article, often editors with diverging claims and views will weigh in. Rather than escalating divisions, the process of editing has been found to reduce these divisions. Gruwell explains,

Through the collaborative editing process, the editors have critical discussions about what reliable sources say about a topic. They have to engage and defend their own perspectives about how an article should be represented, and ultimately find some form of common ground with other editors.

A number of researchers at Harvard Business School led by Shane Greenstein, Yuan Gu and Feng Zhu actually set out to study this phenomenon. Their findings, published in 2017 as a Harvard Business School working paper found that editors with different political viewpoints tended to dialogue with each other, and over time reduce rather than increase partisanship….(More)”.

Social media and Government

Curated on April 7, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction to Special Issue of First Monday by Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan and Andrea L. Kavanaugh: “The use of social media by public administration has been growing steadily, and fostering important transformations in organization, costs, citizen interaction and efficiency. Citizens are increasingly more informed about government activities, performance, and claims solutions. Citiizens and non-profit organizations are in greater communication with each other about government planning and response to complex and collective problems. Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and WhatsApp, as well as related tools, such as commenting, liking, tagging and rating, change the distribution of information, power and resources. The growing maturity of public officials in the use of these tools not only creates new opportunities, but also engenders problems. Many politicians, public officials and public servants are seeking ways to adapt their daily operations and practices to make effective use of social media for interaction with non-governmental organizations and with citizens and to provide information and services more efficiently. The papers in this special issue on social media and government capture the current state of some of these opportunities and problems…

Engaging a community through social media-based topics and interactions by Andrea L. Kavanaugh, Ziqian Song

Public employees in social media communities: Exploring factors for internal collaboration using social network analysis by J. Ignacio Criado, Julián Villodre

Citizens’ use of microblogging and government communication during emergencies: A case study on water contamination in Shanghai by Qianli Yuan, Mila Gascó

Hacktivism and distributed hashtag spoiling on Twitter: Tales of the #IranTalks by Mahdi M. Najafabadi, Robert J. Domanski

Information strategies and affective reactions: How citizens interact with government social media content by Nic DePaula, Ersin Dincelli

Towards an understanding of Twitter networks: The case of the state of Mexico by Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazán, David Valle-Cruz”

From Crowdsourcing to Extreme Citizen Science: Participatory Research for Environmental Health

Curated on April 7, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

P.B. English, M.J. Richardson, and C. Garzón-Galvis in the Annual Review of Public Health: “Environmental health issues are becoming more challenging, and addressing them requires new approaches to research design and decision-making processes. Participatory research approaches, in which researchers and communities are involved in all aspects of a research study, can improve study outcomes and foster greater data accessibility and utility as well as increase public transparency. Here we review varied concepts of participatory research, describe how it complements and overlaps with community engagement and environmental justice, examine its intersection with emerging environmental sensor technologies, and discuss the strengths and limitations of participatory research. Although participatory research includes methodological challenges, such as biases in data collection and data quality, it has been found to increase the relevance of research questions, result in better knowledge production, and impact health policies. Improved research partnerships among government agencies, academia, and communities can increase scientific rigor, build community capacity, and produce sustainable outcomes….(More)”

Practical approaches to big data privacy over time

Curated on April 6, 2018August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Micah Altman, Alexandra Wood, David R O’Brien and Urs Gasser in International Data Privacy Law: “

Governments and businesses are increasingly collecting, analysing, and sharing detailed information about individuals over long periods of time.
Vast quantities of data from new sources and novel methods for large-scale data analysis promise to yield deeper understanding of human characteristics, behaviour, and relationships and advance the state of science, public policy, and innovation.
The collection and use of fine-grained personal data over time, at the same time, is associated with significant risks to individuals, groups, and society at large.
This article examines a range of long-term research studies in order to identify the characteristics that drive their unique sets of risks and benefits and the practices established to protect research data subjects from long-term privacy risks.
We find that many big data activities in government and industry settings have characteristics and risks similar to those of long-term research studies, but are subject to less oversight and control.
We argue that the risks posed by big data over time can best be understood as a function of temporal factors comprising age, period, and frequency and non-temporal factors such as population diversity, sample size, dimensionality, and intended analytic use.
Increasing complexity in any of these factors, individually or in combination, creates heightened risks that are not readily addressable through traditional de-identification and process controls.
We provide practical recommendations for big data privacy controls based on the risk factors present in a specific case and informed by recent insights from the state of the art and practice….(More)”.