How Canada Needs to Respond to the US Data Crisis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Danielle Goldfarb: “The United States is cutting and undermining official US data across a wide range of domains, eroding the foundations of evidence-based policy making. This is happening mostly under the radar here in Canada, buried by news about US President Donald Trump’s barrage of tariffs and many other alarming actions. Doing nothing in response means Canada accepts blind spots in critical areas. Instead, this country should respond by investing in essential data and building the next generation of trusted public intelligence.

The United States has cut or altered more than 2,000 official data sets across the science, health, climate and development sectors, according to the National Security Archive. Deep staff cuts across all program areas effectively cancel or deeply erode many other statistical programs….

Even before this data purge, official US data methods were becoming less relevant and reliable. Traditional government surveys lag by weeks or months and face declining participation. This lag proved particularly problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic and also now, when economic data with a one- or two-month lag is largely irrelevant for tracking the real-time impact of constantly shifting Trump tariffs….

With deep ties to the United States, Canada needs to take action to reduce these critical blind spots. This challenge brings a major strength into the picture: Canada’s statistical agencies have strong reputations as trusted, transparent information sources.

First, Canada should strengthen its data infrastructure. Official Canadian data suffers from similar delays and declining response rates as in the United States. Statistics Canada needs a renewed mandate and stable resources to produce policy-relevant indicators, especially in a timelier way, and in areas where US data has been cut or compromised.

Second, Canada could also act as a trusted place to store vulnerable indicators — inventorying missing data sets, archiving those at risk and coordinating global efforts to reconstruct essential metrics.

Third, Canada has an opportunity to lead in shaping the next generation of trusted and better public-interest intelligence…(More)”.

Making the case for collaborative digital infrastructure to scale regenerative food supply networks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Briefing paper from the Food Data Collaboration: “…a call to action to collaborate and invest in data infrastructure that will enable shorter, relational, regenerative food supply networks to scale.

These food supply networks play a vital role in achieving a truly sustainable and resilient food system. By embracing data technology that fosters commons ownership models, collaboration and interdependence we can build a more inclusive and dynamic food ecosystem in which collaborative efforts, as opposed to competitive businesses operating in silos, can achieve transformative scale.

Since 2022, the Food Data Collaboration has been exploring the potential for open data standards to enable shorter, relational, regenerative food supply networks to scale and pave the way towards a healthier, more equitable, and more resilient food future. This paper explores the high level rationale for our approach and is essential reading for anyone keen to know more about the project’s aims, achievements and future development…(More)”.

Who Is Government?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Michael Lewis: “The government is a vast, complex system that Americans pay for, rebel against, rely upon, dismiss, and celebrate. It’s also our shared resource for addressing the biggest problems of society. And it’s made up of people, mostly unrecognized and uncelebrated, doing work that can be deeply consequential and beneficial to everyone.

Michael Lewis invited his favorite writers, including Casey Cep, Dave Eggers, John Lanchester, Geraldine Brooks, Sarah Vowell, and W. Kamau Bell, to join him in finding someone doing an interesting job for the government and writing about them. The stories they found are unexpected, riveting, and inspiring, including a former coal miner devoted to making mine roofs less likely to collapse, saving thousands of lives; an IRS agent straight out of a crime thriller; and the manager who made the National Cemetery Administration the best-run organization, public or private, in the entire country. Each essay shines a spotlight on the essential behind-the-scenes work of exemplary federal employees.

Whether they’re digitizing archives, chasing down cybercriminals, or discovering new planets, these public servants are committed to their work and universally reluctant to take credit. Expanding on the Washington Post series, the vivid profiles in Who Is Government? blow up the stereotype of the irrelevant bureaucrat. They show how the essential business of government makes our lives possible, and how much it matters…(More)”.

Computer Science and the Law

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Steven M. Bellovin: “There were three U.S. technical/legal developments occurring in approximately 1993 that had a profound effect on the technology industry and on many technologists. More such developments are occurring with increasing frequency.

The three developments were, in fact, technically unrelated. One was a bill before the U.S. Congress for a standardized wiretap interface in phone switches, a concept that spread around the world under the generic name of “lawful intercept.” The second was an update to the copyright statute to adapt to the digital age. While there were some useful changes—caching proxies and ISPs transmitting copyrighted material were no longer to be held liable for making illegal copies of protected content—it also provided an easy way for careless or unscrupulous actors—including bots—to request takedown of perfectly legal material. The third was the infamous Clipper chip, an encryption device that provided a backdoor for the U.S.—and only the U.S.—government.

All three of these developments could be and were debated on purely legal or policy grounds. But there were also technical issues. Thus, one could argue on legal grounds that the Clipper chip granted the government unprecedented powers, powers arguably in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That, of course, is a U.S. issue—but technologists, including me, pointed out the technical risks of deploying a complex cryptographic protocol, anywhere in the world (and many other countries have since expressed similar desires). Sure enough, Matt Blaze showed how to abuse the Clipper chip to let it do backdoor-free encryption, and at least two other mechanisms for adding backdoors to encryption protocols were shown to have flaws that allowed malefactors to read data that others had encrypted.

These posed a problem: debating some issues intelligently required not just a knowledge of law or of technology, but of both. That is, some problems cannot be discussed purely on technical grounds or purely on legal grounds; the crux of the matter lies in the intersection.

Consider, for example, the difference between content and metadata in a communication. Metadata alone is extremely powerful; indeed, Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the NSA, once said, “We kill people based on metadata.” The combination of content and metadata is of course even more powerful. However, under U.S. law (and the legal reasoning is complex and controversial), the content of a phone call is much more strongly protected than the metadata: who called whom, when, and for how long they spoke. But how does this doctrine apply to the Internet, a network that provides far more powerful abilities to the endpoints in a conversation? (Metadata analysis is not an Internet-specific phenomenon. The militaries of the world have likely been using it for more than a century.) You cannot begin to answer that question without knowing not just how the Internet actually works, but also the legal reasoning behind the difference. It took more than 100 pages for some colleagues and I, three computer scientists and a former Federal prosecutor, to show how the line between content and metadata can be drawn in some cases (and that the Department of Justice’s manuals and some Federal judges got the line wrong), but that in other cases, there is no possible line1 

Newer technologies pose the same sorts of risks…(More)”.

When data disappear: public health pays as US policy strays

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Thomas McAndrew, Andrew A Lover, Garrik Hoyt, and Maimuna S Majumder: “Presidential actions on Jan 20, 2025, by President Donald Trump, including executive orders, have delayed access to or led to the removal of crucial public health data sources in the USA. The continuous collection and maintenance of health data support public health, safety, and security associated with diseases such as seasonal influenza. To show how public health data surveillance enhances public health practice, we analysed data from seven US Government-maintained sources associated with seasonal influenza. We fit two models that forecast the number of national incident influenza hospitalisations in the USA: (1) a data-rich model incorporating data from all seven Government data sources; and (2) a data-poor model built using a single Government hospitalisation data source, representing the minimal required information to produce a forecast of influenza hospitalisations. The data-rich model generated reliable forecasts useful for public health decision making, whereas the predictions using the data-poor model were highly uncertain, rendering them impractical. Thus, health data can serve as a transparent and standardised foundation to improve domestic and global health. Therefore, a plan should be developed to safeguard public health data as a public good…(More)”.

How Media Ownership Matters

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Rodney Benson, Mattias Hessérus, Timothy Neff, and Julie Sedel: “Does it matter who owns and funds the media? As journalists and management consultants set off in search of new business models, there’s a pressing need to understand anew the economic underpinnings of journalism and its role in democratic societies.

How Media Ownership Matters provides a fresh approach to understanding news media power, moving beyond the typical emphasis on market concentration or media moguls. Through a comparative analysis of the US, Sweden, and France, as well as interviews of news executives and editors and an original collection of industry data, this book maps and analyzes four ownership models: market, private, civil society, and public. Highlighting the effects of organizational logics, funding, and target audiences on the content of news, the authors identify both the strengths and weaknesses various forms of ownership have in facilitating journalism that meets the democratic ideals of reasoned, critical, and inclusive public debate. Ultimately, How Media Ownership Matters provides a roadmap to understanding how variable forms of ownership are shaping the future of journalism and democracy…(More)”.

Accounting for State Capacity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Kevin Hawickhorst: “The debates over the Department of Government Efficiency have revealed, if nothing else, that the federal budget is obscure even to the political combatants ostensibly responsible for developing and overseeing it. In the executive branch, Elon Musk highlights that billions of dollars of payments are processed by the Treasury without even a memo line. Meanwhile, in Congress, Republican politicians highlight the incompleteness of the bureaucracy’s spending records, while Democrats bemoan the Trump administration’s dissimulation in ceasing to share budgetary guidance documents. The camp followers of these obscure programs are thousands of federal contractors, pursuing vague goals with indefinite timelines. As soon as the ink on a bill is dry, it seems, Congress loses sight of its initiatives until their eventual success or their all-too-frequent failure.

Contrast this with the 1930s, when the Roosevelt administration provided Congress with hundreds of pages of spending reports every ten days, outlining how tax dollars were being put to use in minute detail. The speed and thoroughness with which these reports were produced is hard to fathom, and yet the administration was actually holding its best information back. FDR’s Treasury had itemized information on hundreds of thousands of projects, down to the individual checks that were written. Incredibly, politicians had better dashboards in the era of punch cards than we have in the era of AI. The decline in government competence runs deeper than our inability to match the speed and economy of New Deal construction: even their accounting was better. What happened?

Political scientists discuss the decline in government competence in terms of “state capacity,” which describes a government’s ability to achieve the goals it pursues. Most political scientists agree that the United States not only suffers from degraded state capacity in absolute terms, but has less state capacity today than in the early twentieth century. A popular theory for this decline blames the excessive proceduralism of the U.S. government: the “cascade of rigidity” or the “procedure fetish.”

But reformers need more than complaints. To rebuild state capacity, reformers need an affirmative vision of what good procedure should look like and, in order to enact it, knowledge of how government procedure is changed. The history of government budgeting and accounting reform illustrates both. There were three major eras of reform to federal accounting in the twentieth century: New Deal reforms of the 1930s, conservative reforms of the 1940s and 1950s, and liberal reforms of the 1960s. This history tells the story of how accounting reforms first built up American state capacity and how later reforms contributed to its gradual decline. These reforms thus offer lessons on rebuilding state capacity today…(More)”.

How to Break Down Silos and Collaborate Across Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Jessica MacLeod: “…To help public sector leaders navigate these cultural barriers, I use a simple but powerful framework: Clarity, Care, and Challenge. It’s built from research, experience, and what I’ve seen actually shift how teams work. You can read more about the framework in my previous article on high-performing teams. Here’s how this framework relates to breaking down silos:

  • Clarity → How We Work:
    Clear priorities, aligned expectations, and a shared understanding of how individual work connects to the bigger picture.
  • Care → How We Relate:
    Trust, psychological safety, and strong collaboration.
  • Challenge → How We Achieve:
    Stretch goals, high standards, and a culture that encourages innovation and growth.

Silos thrive in ambiguity. If no one can see the work, understand the language, or map who owns what, collaboration dies on arrival.

When I work with public sector teams, one of the first things I look for is how visible the work is. Can people across departments explain where things stand on a project today? Or what the context is behind a project? Do they know who’s accountable? Can they locate the latest draft of the work without digging through three email chains?

Often, the answer is no, and it’s not because people aren’t trying. It’s because our systems are optimized for siloed visibility, not shared clarity.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

  • A particular acronym means one thing to IT, another to leadership, and something entirely different to community stakeholders.
  • “Launch” for one team means public announcement. For another, it means testing a feature with a pilot group.
  • Documents live in private folders, on individual desktops, or in tools that don’t talk to each other…(More)”.

The Technopolar Paradox

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ian Bremmer: “In February 2022, as Russian forces advanced on Kyiv, Ukraine’s government faced a critical vulnerability: with its Internet and communication networks under attack, its troops and leaders would soon be in the dark. Elon Musk—the de facto head of Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink—stepped in. Within days, SpaceX had deployed thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine and activated satellite Internet service at no cost. Having kept the country online, Musk was hailed as a hero.

But the centibillionaire’s personal intervention—and Kyiv’s reliance on it—came with risks. Months later, Ukraine asked SpaceX to extend Starlink’s coverage to Russian-occupied Crimea, to enable a submarine drone strike that Kyiv wanted to carry out against Russian naval assets. Musk refused—worried, he said, that this would cause a major escalation in the war. Even the Pentagon’s entreaties on behalf of Ukraine failed to convince him. An unelected, unaccountable private citizen had unilaterally thwarted a military operation in an active war zone while exposing the fact that governments had remarkably little control over crucial decisions affecting their citizens and national security.

This was “technopolarity” in action: a technology leader not only driving stock market returns but also controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs that have been traditionally the exclusive preserve of nation-states. Over the past decade, the rise of such individuals and the firms they control has transformed the global order, which had been defined by states since the Peace of Westphalia enshrined them as the building blocks of geopolitics nearly 400 years ago. For most of this time, the structure of that order could be described as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, depending on how power was distributed among countries. The world, however, has since entered a “technopolar moment,” a term I used in Foreign Affairs in 2021 to describe an emerging order in which “a handful of large technology companies rival [states] for geopolitical influence.” Major tech firms have become powerful geopolitical actors, exercising a form of sovereignty over digital space and, increasingly, the physical world that potentially rivals that of states…(More)”.

Bus Stops Here: Shanghai Lets Riders Design Their Own Routes

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Chen Yiru: From early-morning school drop-offs to seniors booking rides to the hospital, from suburban commuters seeking a faster link to the metro to families visiting ancestral graves, Shanghai is rolling out a new kind of public bus — one that’s designed by commuters, and launched only when enough riders request it.

Branded “DZ” for dingzhi, or “customized,” the system invites residents to submit proposed routes through a city-run platform. Others with similar travel needs can opt in or vote, and if demand meets the threshold — typically 15 to 20 passengers per trip — the route goes live.

More than 220 DZ routes have already launched across all 16 city districts. Through an online platform opened May 8, users enter start and end points, preferred times, and trip frequency. If approved, routes can begin running in as little as three days…(More)”.