Manipulation As Theft

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Cass Sunstein: “Should there be a right not to be manipulated? What kind of right? On Kantian grounds, manipulation, lies, and paternalistic coercion are moral wrongs, and for similar reasons; they deprive people of agency, insult their dignity, and fail to respect personal autonomy. On welfarist grounds, manipulation, lies, and paternalistic coercion share a different characteristic; they displace the choices of those whose lives are directly at stake, and who are likely to have epistemic advantages, with the choices of outsiders, who are likely to lack critical information. Kantians and welfarists should be prepared to endorse a (moral) right not to be manipulated, though on very different grounds.

The moral prohibition on manipulation, like the moral prohibition on lies, should run against officials and regulators, not only against private institutions. At the same time, the creation of a legal right not to be manipulated raises hard questions, in part because of definitional challenges; there is a serious risk of vagueness and a serious risk of overbreadth. (Lies, as such, are not against the law, and the same is true of unkindness, inconsiderateness, and even cruelty.) With welfarist considerations in mind, it is probably best to start by prohibiting particular practices, while emphasizing that they are forms of manipulation and may not count as fraud. The basic goal should be to build on the claim that in certain cases, manipulation is a form of theft; the law should forbid theft, whether it occurs through force, lies, or manipulation. Some manipulators are thieves….(More)”

On regulation for data trusts

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Aline Blankertz and Louisa Specht: “Data trusts are a promising concept for enabling data use while maintaining data privacy. Data trusts can pursue many goals, such as increasing the participation of consumers or other data subjects, putting data protection into practice more effectively, or strengthening data sharing along the value chain. They have the potential to become an alternative model to the large platforms, which are accused of accumulating data power and using it primarily for their own purposes rather than for the benefit of their users. To fulfill these hopes, data trusts must be trustworthy so that their users understand and trust that data is being used in their interest.

It is an important step that policymakers have recognized the potential of data trusts. This should be followed by measures that address specific risks and thus promote trust in the services. Currently, the political approach is to subject all forms of data trusts to the same rules through “one size fits all” regulation. This is the case, for example, with the Data Governance Act (DGA), which gives data trusts little leeway to evolve in the marketplace.

To encourage the development of data trusts, it makes sense to broadly define them as all organizations that manage data on behalf of others while adhering to a legal framework (including competition, trade secrets, and privacy). Which additional rules are necessary to ensure trustworthiness should be decided depending on the use case. The risk of a use case should be considered as well as the need for incentives to act as a data trust.

Risk factors can be identified across sectors; in particular, centralized or decentralized data storage and voluntary or mandatory use of data trusts are among them. The business model is not a main risk factor. Although many regulatory proposals call for strict neutrality, several data trusts without strict neutrality appear trustworthy in terms of monetization or vertical integration. At the same time, it is unclear what incentives exist for developing strictly neutral data trusts. Neutrality requirements that go beyond what is necessary make it less likely that desired alternative models will develop and take hold….(More)”.

The uncounted: politics of data in global health

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Sara L M Davis: “Data is seductive in global health politics. It seduces donors with the promise of cost-effectiveness in making the right investments in people’s health and of ensuring they get results and performance from the state projects they fund. It seduces advocates of gender equality with its power to make gender differences in health outcomes and burdens visible. The seduction of data is that of the quick or technocratic fix to complex social and political problems. Are women disproportionately impacted by COVID-19? Get better data to find out the extent of the problem. Do you want to save as many lives as possible?…(More)”.

Lessons learned from telco data informing COVID-19 responses: toward an early warning system for future pandemics?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction to a special issue of Data and Policy (Open Access) by Richard Benjamins, Jeanine Vos, and Stefaan Verhulst: “More than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the damage is still unfolding. While some countries have recently managed to gain an element of control through aggressive vaccine campaigns, much of the developing world — South and Southeast Asia in particular — remain in a state of crisis. Given what we now know about the global nature of this disease and the potential for mutant versions to develop and spread, a crisis anywhere is cause for concern everywhere. The world remains very much in the grip of this public health crisis.

From the beginning, there has been hope that data and technology could offer solutions to help inform the government’s response strategy and decision-making. Many of the expectations have been focused on mobile data analytics in particular, whereby mobile network operators create mobility insights and decision-support tools generated from anonymized and aggregated telco data. This stems both from a growing group of mobile network operators having significantly invested in systems and capabilities to develop such products and services for public and private sector customers. As well as their value having been demonstrated in addressing different global challenges, ranging from models to better understand the spread of Zika in Brazil to interactive dashboards to aid emergency services during earthquakes and floods in Japan. Yet despite these experiences, many governments across the world still have limited awareness, capabilities and resources to leverage these tools, in their efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 using non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), both from a medical and economic point of view.

Today, we release the first batch of papers of a special collection of Data & Policy that examines both the potential of mobile data, as well as the challenges faced in delivering these tools to inform government decision-making. Consisting of 5 papers from 33 researchers and experts from academia, industry and government, the articles cover a wide range of geographies, including Europe, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Austria, Belgium, and Spain. Responding to our call for case studies to illustrate the opportunities (and challenges) offered by mobile big data in the fight against COVID-19, the authors of these papers describe a number of examples of how mobile and mobile-related data have been used to address the medical, economic, socio-cultural and political aspects of the pandemic….(More)”.

Solving Public Problems

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Beth Simone Noveck (The GovLab): “The challenges societies face today, from inequality to climate change to systemic racism, cannot be solved with yesterday’s toolkit. Solving Public Problems shows how readers can take advantage of digital technology, data, and the collective wisdom of our communities to design and deliver powerful solutions to contemporary problems.  
 
Offering a radical rethinking of the role of the public servant and the skills of the public workforce, this book is about the vast gap between failing public institutions and the huge number of public entrepreneurs doing extraordinary things—and how to close that gap.  
 
Drawing on lessons learned from decades of advising global leaders and from original interviews and surveys of thousands of public problem solvers, Beth Simone Noveck provides a practical guide for public servants, community leaders, students, and activists to become more effective, equitable, and inclusive leaders and repair our troubled, twenty-first-century world….(More)”

Take the free online course presented by The GovLab at the NYU Tandon School of Engineering.

Using big data for insights into the gender digital divide for girls: A discussion paper

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
Using big data for insights into the gender digital divide for girls: A discussion paper

UNICEF paper: “This discussion paper describes the findings of a study that used big data as an alternative data source to understand the gender digital divide for under-18s. It describes 6 key insights gained from analysing big data from Facebook and Instagram platforms, and discusses how big data can be further used to contribute to the body of evidence for the gender digital divide for adolescent girls….(More)”

Citizen participation in budgeting and beyond: Deliberative Practices and their Impact in Contemporary Cases

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Open Access book by Joanna Podgórska-Rykała and Jacek Sroka: “…The basic questions which the theory and practice of public policy try to answer is the question about desires in democratic conditions and at the same time an effective formula for balancing centralization and decentralization in decision-making processes. […]

Participatory budgeting, as one of possible variants of deliberation, is one of those phenomena of public life, the quality of which depends on the relations of the parties involved. The shape of these relationships only to a limited extent depends on the ways of their current practice, because these methods are causally conditioned, and the causes lie in cultural constructions. That is why these relations are not easy to study; it is difficult to reach that deep, because it is difficult to both model the conceptualization of the problem and the methodological approach to such research. These are one of the most difficult and, at the same time, the most promising research areas of public policy. We hope that this book will contribute to their partial exploration…(More)”.

ASEAN Data Management Framework

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

ASEAN Framework: “Due to the growing interactions between data, connected things and people, trust in data has become the pre-condition for fully realising the gains of digital transformation. SMEs are threading a fine line between balancing digital initiatives and concurrently managing data protection and customer privacy safeguards to ensure that these do not impede innovation. Therefore, there is a motivation to focus on digital data governance as it is critical to boost economic integration and technology adoption across all sectors in the ten ASEAN Member States (AMS).
To ensure that their data is appropriately managed and protected, organisations need to know what levels of technical, procedural and physical controls they need to put in place. The categorisation of datasets help organisations manage their data assets and put in place the right level of controls. This is applicable for both data at rest as well as data in transit. The establishment of an ASEAN Data Management Framework will promote sound data governance practices by helping organisations to discover the datasets they have, assign it with the appropriate categories, manage the data, protect it accordingly and all these while continuing to comply with relevant regulations. Improved governance and protection will instil trust in data sharing both between organisations and between countries, which will then promote the growth of trade and the flow of data among AMS and their partners in the digital economy….(More)”

Here Be Dragons – Maintaining Trust in the Technologized Public Sector

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Balázs Bodó and Heleen Janssen: “Emerging technologies, such as AI systems, distributed ledgers, but also private e-commerce and telecommunication platforms have permeated every aspect of our social, economic, political relations. Various bodies of the state, from education, via law enforcement to healthcare also increasingly rely on technical components to provide cheap, efficient public services, and supposedly fair, transparent, disinterested, accountable public administration. Most of these technical components are provided by private parties who designed, developed, trained, and maintain the technical components of public infrastructures.
The rapid, and often unplanned, and uncontrolled technologization of public services (as happened, for example in the rapid adoption of distance learning and teleconferencing systems during the COVID lockdowns) inseparably link the perception of the quality, trustworthiness, effectiveness of public services and the public bodies which provision them to the successes and failures of their private, technological components: if the government’s welfare fraud AI system fails, it is the confidence in the governments which is ultimately hit.


In this contribution we explore how the use of potentially untrustworthy private technological systems in the public sector may affect the trust in government. We argue that citizens’ and business’ trust in government is a valuable asset, which came under assault from many dimensions. The increasing reliance on private technical components in government is in part a response to protect this trust, but in many cases, it opens up new forms of threats and vulnerabilities, because the trustworthiness of many of these private technical systems is, at best, questionable, particularly where it is deployed in the context of public sector trust contexts. We consider a number of policy options to protect the trust in government even if some of their technological components are fundamentally untrustworthy….(More)”.

Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The WHO guidance…”on Ethics & Governance of Artificial Intelligence for Health is the product of eighteen months of deliberation amongst leading experts in ethics, digital technology, law, human rights, as well as experts from Ministries of Health.  While new technologies that use artificial intelligence hold great promise to improve diagnosis, treatment, health research and drug development and to support governments carrying out public health functions, including surveillance and outbreak response, such technologies, according to the report, must put ethics and human rights at the heart of its design, deployment, and use.

The report identifies the ethical challenges and risks with the use of artificial intelligence of health, six consensus principles to ensure AI works to the public benefit of all countries. It also contains a set of recommendations that can ensure the governance of artificial intelligence for health maximizes the promise of the technology and holds all stakeholders – in the public and private sector – accountable and responsive to the healthcare workers who will rely on these technologies and the communities and individuals whose health will be affected by its use…(More)”