Google launches new search tool to help combat food insecurity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Andrew J. Hawkins: “Google announced a new website designed to be a “one-stop shop” for people with food insecurity. The “Find Food Support” site includes a food locator tool powered by Google Maps which people can use to search for their nearest food bank, food pantry, or school lunch program pickup site in their community.

Google is working with non-profit groups like No Kid Hungry and FoodFinder, as well as the US Department of Agriculture, to aggregate 90,000 locations with free food support across all 50 states — with more locations to come.

The new site is a product of Google’s newly formed Food for Good team, formerly known as Project Delta when it was headquartered at Alphabet’s X moonshot division. Project Delta’s mission is to “create a smarter food system,” which includes standardizing data to improve communication between food distributors to curb food waste….(More)”.

The ‘hidden data’ that could boost the UK’s productivity and job market

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report from Learning and Work Institute and Nesta (UK): “… highlights the complexities of labour market data used to support adults in their career planning…

The deficiencies in the UK’s labour market data are illustrated by the experiences of the winners of the CareerTech Challenge Prize, the team developing Bob UK, a tool designed to provide instant, online careers advice and job recommendations based on information about local vacancies and the jobseeker’s skills. The developers attempted to source UK data that directly replicated data sources used to develop the version of Bob which has helped over 250,000 jobseekers in France. However, it became apparent that equivalent sources of data rarely existed. The Bob UK team was able to work around this issue by carefully combining alternative sources of data from a number of UK and non-UK sources.

Many other innovators experienced similar barriers, finding that the publicly available data that could help people to make more informed decisions about their careers is often incomplete, difficult to use and poorly described. The impact of this is significant. A shocking insight from the report is that one solution enabled careers advisors to base course recommendations on labour market information for the first time. Prior to using this tool, such information was too time-consuming for careers advisors to uncover and analyse for it to be of use, and job seekers were given advice that was not based on employer demand for skills…To address this issue of hidden and missing data and unleash the productivity-raising potential of better skills matching, the report makes a series of recommendations, including:

  • The creation of a central labour market data repository that collates publicly available information about the labour market.
  • Public data providers should review the quality and accessibility of the data they hold, and make it easier for developers to use.

The development of better skills and labour market taxonomies to facilitate consistency between sources and enhance data matching…(More)”

Facial Recognition Technology: Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Should Better Assess Privacy and Other Risks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office: “GAO surveyed 42 federal agencies that employ law enforcement officers about their use of facial recognition technology. Twenty reported owning systems with facial recognition technology or using systems owned by other entities, such as other federal, state, local, and non-government entities (see figure).

Ownership and Use of Facial Recognition Technology Reported by Federal Agencies that Employ Law Enforcement Officers

HLP_5 - 103705

Note: For more details, see figure 2 in GAO-21-518.

Agencies reported using the technology to support several activities (e.g., criminal investigations) and in response to COVID-19 (e.g., verify an individual’s identity remotely). Six agencies reported using the technology on images of the unrest, riots, or protests following the death of George Floyd in May 2020. Three agencies reported using it on images of the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Agencies said the searches used images of suspected criminal activity.

All fourteen agencies that reported using the technology to support criminal investigations also reported using systems owned by non-federal entities. However, only one has awareness of what non-federal systems are used by employees. By having a mechanism to track what non-federal systems are used by employees and assessing related risks (e.g., privacy and accuracy-related risks), agencies can better mitigate risks to themselves and the public….GAO is making two recommendations to each of 13 federal agencies to implement a mechanism to track what non-federal systems are used by employees, and assess the risks of using these systems. Twelve agencies concurred with both recommendations. U.S. Postal Service concurred with one and partially concurred with the other. GAO continues to believe the recommendation is valid, as described in the report….(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)”.

National strategies on Artificial Intelligence: A European perspective

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the OECD’s Science Technology and Innovation Directorate: “Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the world in many aspects. It is essential for Europe to consider how to make the most of the opportunities from this transformation and to address its challenges. In 2018 the European Commission adopted the Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence that was developed together with the Member States to maximise the impact of investments at European Union (EU) and national levels, and to encourage synergies and cooperation across the EU.

One of the key actions towards these aims was an encouragement for the Member States to develop their national AI strategies.The review of national strategies is one of the tasks of AI Watch launched by the European Commission to support the implementation of the Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence.

Building on the 2020 AI Watch review of national strategies, this report presents an updated review of national AI strategies from the EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland. By June 2021, 20 Member States and Norway had published national AI strategies, while 7 Member States were in the final drafting phase. Since the 2020 release of the AI Watch report, additional Member States – i.e. Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, and Spain – published strategies, while Cyprus, Finland and Germany have revised the initial strategies.

This report provides an overview of national AI policies according to the following policy areas: Human capital, From the lab to the market, Networking, Regulation, and Infrastructure. These policy areas are consistent with the actions proposed in the Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence and with the policy recommendations to governments contained in the OECD Recommendation on AI. The report also includes a section on AI policies to address societal challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change….(More)”.

Civic Space Scan of Finland

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Report: “At the global level, civic space is narrowing and thus efforts to protect and promote it are more important than ever. The OECD defines Civic Space as the set of legal, policy, institutional, and practical conditions necessary for non-governmental actors to access information, express themselves, associate, organise, and participate in public life. This document presents the Civic Space Scan of Finland, which was undertaken at the request of the Finnish government and is the first OECD report of its kind. OECD Civic Space Scans in particular assess how governments protect and promote civic space in each national context and propose ways to strengthen existing frameworks and practices. The Scan assesses four key dimensions of civic space: civic freedoms and rights, media freedoms and digital rights, the enabling environment for civil society organisations, and civic participation in policy and decision making. Each respective chapter of the report contains actionable recommendations for the Government of Finland. As part of the scan process, a citizens’ panel – also overseen by the OECD – was held in February 2021 and generated a wide range of recommendations for the government from a representative microcosm of Finnish society….(More)”.

The Returns to Public Library Investment

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Working Paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: “Local governments spend over 12 billion dollars annually funding the operation of 15,000 public libraries in the United States. This funding supports widespread library use: more than 50% of Americans visit public libraries each year. But despite extensive public investment in libraries, surprisingly little research quantities the effects of public libraries on communities and children. We use data on the near-universe of U.S. public libraries to study the effects of capital spending shocks on library resources, patron usage, student achievement, and local housing prices. We use a dynamic difference-in-difference approach to show that library capital investment increases children’s attendance at library events by 18%, children’s checkouts of items by 21%, and total library visits by 21%. Increases in library use translate into improved children’s test scores in nearby school districts: a $1,000 or greater per-student capital investment in local public libraries increases reading test scores by 0.02 standard deviations and has no effects on math test scores. Housing prices do not change after a sharp increase in public library capital investment, suggesting that residents internalize the increased cost and improved quality of their public libraries….(More)”.

Unity in Privacy Diversity: A Kaleidoscopic View of Privacy Definitions

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Bert-Jaap Koops and Maša Galič: “Contrary to the common claim that privacy is a concept in disarray, this Article argues that there is considerable coherence in the way privacy has been conceptualized over many decades of privacy scholarship. Seemingly disparate approaches and widely differing definitions actually share close family resemblances that, viewed together from a bird’s-eye perspective, suggest that the concept of privacy is more akin to a kaleidoscope than to a swamp. As a heuristic device to look at this kaleidoscope, we use a working definition of privacy as having spaces in which you can be yourselves, building on two major strands in privacy theory: identity-building and boundary-management. With this heuristic, we analyze how six authoritative privacy accounts can be understood in the terms and rationale of other definitions. We show how the notions of Cohen (room for boundary management), Johnson (freedom from others’ judgement), Nissenbaum (contextual integrity), Reiman (personhood), Warren and Brandeis (being let alone), and Westin (control over information) have significant overlap with—or may even be equivalent to—an understanding of privacy in terms of identity-fostering spaces. Our kaleidoscopic perspective highlights not only that there is coherence in privacy, but also helps to understand the function and value of having many different privacy definitions around: each time and context bring their own privacy-related challenges, which might best be addressed through a certain conceptualization of privacy that works in that particular context. As the world turns its kaleidoscope of emerging privacy issues, privacy scholarship turns its kaleidoscope of privacy definitions along. The result of this kaleidoscopic perspective on privacy is an illuminating picture of unity in diversity….(More)”.

Public Administration and Democracy: The Virtue and Limit of Participatory Democracy as a Democratic Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sirvan karimi: “The expansion of public bureaucracy has been one of the most significant developments that has marked societies particularly, Western liberal democratic societies. Growing political apathy, citizen disgruntlement and the ensuing decline in electoral participation reflects the political nature of governance failures. Public bureaucracy, which has historically been saddled with derogatory and pejorative connotations, has encountered fierce assaults from multiple fronts. Out of theses sharp criticisms of public bureaucracy that have emanated from both sides of the ideological spectrum, attempts have been made to popularize and advance citizen participation in both policy formulation and policy implementation processes as innovations to democratize public administration. Despite their virtue, empowering connotations and spirit-uplifting messages to the public, these proposed practices of democratic innovations not only have their own shortcomings and are conducive to exacerbating the conditions that they are directed to ameliorate but they also have the potential to undermine the traditional administrative and political accountability mechanisms….(More)”.

Spies Like Us: The Promise and Peril of Crowdsourced Intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book Review by Amy Zegart of “We Are Bellingcat: Global Crime, Online Sleuths, and the Bold Future of News” by Eliot Higgins: “On January 6, throngs of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump rampaged through the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to derail Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results. The mob threatened lawmakers, destroyed property, and injured more than 100 police officers; five people, including one officer, died in circumstances surrounding the assault. It was the first attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the first violent transfer of presidential power in American history.

Only a handful of the rioters were arrested immediately. Most simply left the Capitol complex and disappeared into the streets of Washington. But they did not get away for long. It turns out that the insurrectionists were fond of taking selfies. Many of them posted photos and videos documenting their role in the assault on Facebook, Instagram, Parler, and other social media platforms. Some even earned money live-streaming the event and chatting with extremist fans on a site called DLive. 

Amateur sleuths immediately took to Twitter, self-organizing to help law enforcement agencies identify and charge the rioters. Their investigation was impromptu, not orchestrated, and open to anyone, not just experts. Participants didn’t need a badge or a security clearance—just an Internet connection….(More)”.