international

Open & Shut

Curated on August 15, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Harsha Devulapalli: “Welcome to Open & Shut — a new blog dedicated to exploring the opportunities and challenges of working with open data in closed societies around the world. Although we’ll be exploring questions relevant to open data practitioners worldwide, we’re particularly interested in seeing how civil society groups and actors in the Global South are using open data to push for greater government transparency, and tackle daunting social and economic challenges facing their societies….Throughout this series we’ll be profiling and interviewing organisations working with open data worldwide, and providing do-it-yourself data tutorials that will be useful for beginners as well as data experts. …

What do we mean by the terms ‘open data’ and ‘closed societies’?

It’s important to be clear about what we’re dealing with, here. So let’s establish some key terms. When we talk about ‘open data’, we mean data that anyone can access, use and share freely. And when we say ‘closed societies’, we’re referring to states or regions in which the political and social environment is actively hostile to notions of openness and public scrutiny, and which hold principles of freedom of information in low esteem. In closed societies, data is either not published at all by the government, or else is only published in inaccessible formats, is missing data, is hard to find or else is just not digitised at all.

Iran is one such state that we would characterise as a ‘closed society’. At Small Media, we’ve had to confront the challenges of poor data practice, secrecy, and government opaqueness while undertaking work to support freedom of information and freedom of expression in the country. Based on these experiences, we’ve been working to build Iran Open Data — a civil society-led open data portal for Iran, in an effort to make Iranian government data more accessible and easier for researchers, journalists, and civil society actors to work with.

Iran Open Data — an open data portal for Iran, created by Small Media

..Open & Shut will shine a light on the exciting new ways that different groups are using data to question dominant narratives, transform public opinion, and bring about tangible change in closed societies. At the same time, it’ll demonstrate the challenges faced by open data advocates in opening up this valuable data. We intend to get the community talking about the need to build cross-border alliances in order to empower the open data movement, and to exchange knowledge and best practices despite the different needs and circumstances we all face….(More)“

Data Responsibility: Social Responsibility for a Data Age

Curated on August 10, 2017May 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

TED-X Talk by Stefaan Verhulst: “In April 2015, the Gorkha earthquake hit Nepal—the worst in more than 80 years. Hundreds of thousands of people were rendered homeless and entire villages were flattened. The earthquake also triggered massive avalanches on Mount Everest, and ultimately killed nearly 9,000 people across the country.

Yet for all the destruction, the toll could have been far greater. Without mitigating or in any way denying the horrible disaster that hit Nepal that day, the responsible use of data helped avoid a worse calamity and may offer lessons for other disasters around the world.

Following the earthquake, government and civil society organizations rushed in to address the humanitarian crisis. Notably, so did the private sector. Nepal’s largest mobile operator, Ncell, for example, decided to share its mobile data—in an aggregated, de-identified way—with the the nonprofit Swedish organization Flowminder. Flowminder then used this data to map population movements around the country; these real-time maps allowed the government and humanitarian organizations to better target aid and relief to affected communities, thus maximizing the impact of their efforts.

The initiative has been widely lauded as a model for cross-sector collaboration. But what is perhaps most striking about the initiative is the way it used data—in particular, how it repurposed data originally collected for private purposes for public ends. This use of corporate data for wider social impact reflects the emerging concept of “data responsibility.” …

The Three Pillars of Data Responsibility

1. Share. This is perhaps the most evident: Data holders have a duty to share private data when a clear case exists that it serves the public good. There now exists manifold evidence that data—with appropriate oversight—can help improve lives, as we saw in Nepal.

2. Protect. The consequences of failing to protect data are well documented. The most obvious problems occur when data is not properly anonymized or when de-anonymized data leaks into the public domain. But there are also more subtle cases, when ostensibly anonymized data is itself susceptible to de-anonymization, and information released for the public good ends up causing or potentially causing harm.

3. Act. For the data to really serve the public good, officials and others must create policies and interventions based on the insights they gain from it. Without action, the potential remains just that—mere potential, never translated into concrete results….(Watch TEDx Video).

Elsevier Is Becoming a Data Company. Should Universities Be Wary?

Curated on August 9, 2017August 20, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Paul Basken at The Chronicle of Higher Education: “As universities have slowly pushed their scientists to embrace open-access journals, publishers will need new profit centers. Elsevier appears well ahead of the pack in creating a network of products that scientists can use to record, share, store, and measure the value to others of the surging amounts of data they produce.

“Maybe all publishers are going, or wish they were” going, in the direction of becoming data companies, said Vincent Larivière, an associate professor of information science at the University of Montreal. “But Elsevier is the only one that is there.”

A Suite of Services

Universities also recognize the future of data. Their scientists are already seeing that widely and efficiently sharing data in fields such as cancer research has enabled accomplishments that have demonstrably saved lives.

In their eagerness to embrace that future, however, universities may not be paying enough attention to what their choices of systems may eventually cost them, warned Roger C. Schonfeld, a program director at Ithaka S+R. With its comprehensive data-services network, Mr. Schonfeld wrote earlier this year, Elsevier appears ready “to lock in scientists to a research workflow no less powerful than the strength of the lock-in libraries have felt to ‘big deal’ bundles.”….

Some open-access advocates say the situation points to an urgent need to create more robust nonprofit alternatives to Elsevier’s product line of data-compiling and sharing tools. But so far financial backing for the developmental work is thin. One of the best known attempts is the Open Science Framework, a web-based data interface built by the Center for Open Science, which has an annual budget of about $6 million, provided largely by foundations and other private donors.

In general, U.S. research universities — a $70 billion scientific enterprise — have not made major contributions to such projects. The Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have, however, formed a team that’s begun studying the future of data sharing. So far, that effort has been focused on more basic steps such as establishing data-storage facilities, linking them together, and simply persuading scientists to take seriously the need to share data.…(More)”

Digital Decisions Tool

Curated on August 8, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT): “Two years ago, CDT embarked on a project to explore what we call “digital decisions” – the use of algorithms, machine learning, big data, and automation to make decisions that impact individuals and shape society. Industry and government are applying algorithms and automation to problems big and small, from reminding us to leave for the airport to determining eligibility for social services and even detecting deadly diseases. This new era of digital decision-making has created a new challenge: ensuring that decisions made by computers reflect values like equality, democracy, and justice. We want to ensure that big data and automation are used in ways that create better outcomes for everyone, and not in ways that disadvantage minority groups.

The engineers and product managers who design these systems are the first line of defense against unfair, discriminatory, and harmful outcomes. To help mitigate harm at the design level, we have launched the first public version of our digital decisions tool. We created the tool to help developers understand and mitigate unintended bias and ethical pitfalls as they design automated decision-making systems.

About the digital decisions tool

This interactive tool translates principles for fair and ethical automated decision-making into a series of questions that can be addressed during the process of designing and deploying an algorithm. The questions address developers’ choices, such as what data to use to train an algorithm, what factors or features in the data to consider, and how to test the algorithm. They also ask about the systems and checks in place to assess risk and ensure fairness. These questions should provoke thoughtful consideration of the subjective choices that go into building an automated decision-making system and how those choices could result in disparate outcomes and unintended harms.

The tool is informed by extensive research by CDT and others about how algorithms and machine learning work, how they’re used, the potential risks of using them to make important decisions, and the principles that civil society has developed to ensure that digital decisions are fair, ethical, and respect civil rights. Some of this research is summarized on CDT’s Digital Decisions webpage….(More)”.

Building Digital Government Strategies

Curated on August 8, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Rodrigo Sandoval-Almazan et al: “This book provides key strategic principles and best practices to guide the design and implementation of digital government strategies. It provides a series of recommendations and findings to think about IT applications in government as a platform for information, services and collaboration, and strategies to avoid identified pitfalls. Digital government research suggests that information technologies have the potential to generate immense public value and transform the relationships between governments, citizens, businesses and other stakeholders. However, developing innovative and high impact solutions for citizens hinges on the development of strategic institutional, organizational and technical capabilities.

Thus far, particular characteristics and problems of the public sector organization promote the development of poorly integrated and difficult to maintain applications. For example, governments maintain separate applications for open data, transparency, and public services, leading to duplication of efforts and a waste of resources. The costs associated with maintaining such sets of poorly integrated systems may limit the use of resources to future projects and innovation.

This book provides best practices and recommendations based on extensive research in both Mexico and the United States on how governments can develop a digital government strategy for creating public value, how to finance digital innovation in the public sector, how to building successful collaboration networks and foster citizen engagement, and how to correctly implement open government projects and open data. It will be of interest to researchers, practitioners, students, and public sector IT professionals that work in the design and implementation of technology-based projects and programs….(More)”.

Opportunities and risks in emerging technologies

Curated on August 4, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

White Paper Series at the WebFoundation: “To achieve our vision of digital equality, we need to understand how new technologies are shaping society; where they present opportunities to make people’s lives better, and indeed where they threaten to create harm. To this end, we have commissioned a series of white papers examining three key digital trends: artificial intelligence, algorithms and control of personal data. The papers focus on low and middle-income countries, which are all too often overlooked in debates around the impacts of emerging technologies.

The series addresses each of these three digital issues, looking at how they are impacting people’s lives and identifying steps that governments, companies and civil society organisations can take to limit the harms, and maximise benefits, for citizens.

Download the white papers

Artificial Intelligence: The road ahead in low and middle-income countries
Algorithmic Accountability: Applying the concept to different country contexts
Personal data: An overview of low and middle-income countries

We will use these white papers to refine our thinking and set our work agenda on digital equality in the years ahead. We are sharing them openly with the hope they benefit others working towards our goals and to amplify the limited research currently available on digital issues in low and middle-income countries. We intend the papers to foster discussion about the steps we can take together to ensure emerging digital technologies are used in ways that benefit people’s lives, whether they are in Los Angeles or Lagos….(More)”.

The hidden costs of open data

Curated on August 2, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Sara Friedman at GCN: “As more local governments open their data for public use, the emphasis is often on “free” — using open source tools to freely share already-created government datasets, often with pro bono help from outside groups. But according to a new report, there are unforeseen costs when it comes pushing government datasets out of public-facing platforms — especially when geospatial data is involved.

The research, led by University of Waterloo professor Peter A. Johnson and McGill University professor Renee Sieber, was based on work as part of Geothink.ca partnership research grant and exploration of the direct and indirect costs of open data.

Costs related to data collection, publishing, data sharing, maintenance and updates are increasingly driving governments to third-party providers to help with hosting, standardization and analytical tools for data inspection, the researchers found. GIS implementation also has associated costs to train staff, develop standards, create valuations for geospatial data, connect data to various user communities and get feedback on challenges.

Due to these direct costs, some governments are more likely to avoid opening datasets that need complex assessment or anonymization techniques for GIS concerns. Johnson and Sieber identified four areas where the benefits of open geospatial data can generate unexpected costs.

First, open data can create “smoke and mirrors” situation where insufficient resources are put toward deploying open data for government use. Users then experience “transaction costs” when it comes to working in specialist data formats that need additional skills, training and software to use.

Second, the level of investment and quality of open data can lead to “material benefits and social privilege” for communities that devote resources to providing more comprehensive platforms.

While there are some open source data platforms, the majority of solutions are proprietary and charged on a pro-rata basis, which can present a challenge for cities with larger, poor populations compared to smaller, wealthier cities. Issues also arise when governments try to combine their data sets, leading to increased costs to reconcile problems.

The third problem revolves around the private sector pushing for the release of data sets that can benefit their business objectives. Companies could push for the release high-value sets, such as a real-time transit data, to help with their product development goals. This can divert attention from low-value sets, such as those detailing municipal services or installations, that could have a bigger impact on residents “from a civil society perspective.”

If communities decide to release the low-value sets first, Johnson and Sieber think the focus can then be shifted to high-value sets that can help recoup the costs of developing the platforms.

Lastly, the report finds inadvertent consequences could result from tying open data resources to private-sector companies. Public-private open data partnerships could lead to infrastructure problems that prevent data from being widely shared, and help private companies in developing their bids for public services….

Johnson and Sieber encourage communities to ask the following questions before investing in open data:

Who are the intended constituents for this open data?
What is the purpose behind the structure for providing this data set?
Does this data enable the intended users to meet their goals?
How are privacy concerns addressed?
Who sets the priorities for release and updates?…(More)”

Read the full report here.

Active Citizenship in Europe: Practices and Demands in the EU, Italy, Turkey and the UK

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

Book by Cristiano Bee: “…provides an overview of key issues in the debate concerning the emergence of active citizenship in Europe.

The specific focus of enquiry is the promotion of patterns of civic and political engagement and civic and political participation by the EU and the relative responses drawn by organizations of the civil society operating at the supranational level and in Italy, Turkey and the UK. More specifically, it addresses key debates on the engagement and participation of organized civil society across the permanent state of euro-crisis, considering the production of policy discourses along the continuum that characterized three subsequent and interrelated emergency situations (democratic, financial and migration crises) that have hit Europe since 2005. …(More)”.

Democracy Promotion: An Objective of U.S. Foreign Assistance

Curated on July 16, 2017May 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

New Report by Congressional Research Service: “Promoting democratic institutions, processes, and values has long been a U.S. foreign policy objective, though the priority given to this objective has been inconsistent. World events, competing priorities, and political change within the United States all shape the attention and resources provided to democracy promotion efforts and influence whether such efforts focus on supporting fair elections abroad, strengthening civil society, promoting rule of law and human rights, or other aspects of democracy promotion.

Proponents of democracy promotion often assert that such efforts are essential to global development and U.S. security because stable democracies tend to have better economic growth and stronger protection of human rights, and are less likely to go to war with one another. Critics contend that U.S. relations with foreign countries should focus exclusively on U.S. interests and stability in the world order. U.S. interest in global stability, regardless of the democratic nature of national political systems, could discourage U.S. support for democratic transitions—the implementation of which is uncertain and may lead to more, rather than less, instability.

Funding for democracy promotion assistance is deeply integrated into U.S. foreign policy institutions. More than $2 billion annually has been allocated from foreign assistance funds over the past decade for democracy promotion activities managed by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy, and other entities. Programs promoting good governance (characterized by participation, transparency, accountability, effectiveness, and equity), rule of law, and promotion of human rights have typically received the largest share of this funding in contrast to lower funding to promote electoral processes and political competition. In recent years, increasing restrictions imposed by some foreign governments on civil society organizations have resulted in an increased emphasis in democracy promotion assistance for strengthening civil society.

Despite bipartisan support for the general concept of democracy promotion, policy debates in the 115th Congress continue to question the consistency, effectiveness, and appropriateness of such foreign assistance. With the Trump Administration indicating that democracy and human rights might not be a top foreign policy priority, advocates in Congress may be challenged to find common ground with the Administration on this issue.

As part of its budget and oversight responsibilities, the 115th Congress may consider the impact of the Trump Administration’s requested FY2018 foreign assistance spending cuts on U.S. democracy promotion assistance, review the effectiveness of democracy promotion activities, evaluate the various channels available for democracy promotion, and consider where democracy promotion ranks among a wide range of foreign policy and budget priorities….(More)”.