Book from the Aspen Strategy Group: “This edition is a collection of papers commissioned for the 2018 Aspen Strategy Group Summer Workshop, a bipartisan meeting of national security experts, academics, private sector leaders, and technologists. The chapters in this volume evaluate the disruptive nature of technological change on the US military, economic power, and democratic governance. They highlight possible avenues for US defense modernization, the impact of disinformation tactics and hybrid warfare on democratic institutions, and the need for a reinvigorated innovation triangle comprised of the US government, academia, and private corporations. The executive summary offers practical recommendations to meet the daunting challenges this technological era imposes….(More)”.
Congress needs your input (but don’t call it crowdsourcing)
Lorelei Kelly at TechCrunch: “As it stands, Congress does not have the technical infrastructure to ingest all this new input in any systematic way. Individual members lack a method to sort and filter signal from noise or trusted credible knowledge from malicious falsehood and hype.
What Congress needs is curation, not just more information
Curation means discovering, gathering and presenting content. This word is commonly thought of as the job of librarians and museums, places we go to find authentic and authoritative knowledge. Similarly, Congress needs methods to sort and filter information as required within the workflow of lawmaking. From personal offices to committees, members and their staff need context and informed judgement based on broadly defined expertise. The input can come from individuals or institutions. It can come from the wisdom of colleagues in Congress or across the federal government. Most importantly, it needs to be rooted in local constituents and it needs to be trusted.
It is not to say that crowdsourcing is unimportant for our governing system. But input methods that include digital must demonstrate informed and accountable deliberative methods over time. Governing is the curation part of democracy. Governing requires public review, understanding of context, explanation and measurements of value for the nation as a whole. We are already thinking about how to create an ethical blockchain. Why not the same attention for our most important democratic institution?
Governing requires trade-offs that elicit emotion and sometimes anger. But as in life, emotions require self-regulation. In Congress, this means compromise and negotiation. In fact, one of the reasons Congress is so stuck is that its own deliberative process has declined at every level. Besides the official committee process stalling out, members have few opportunities to be together as colleagues, and public space is increasingly antagonistic and dangerous.
With so few options, members are left with blunt communications objects like clunky mail management systems and partisan talking points. This means that lawmakers don’t use public input for policy formation as much as to surveil public opinion.
Any path forward to the 21st century must include new methods to (1) curate and hear from the public in a way that informs policy AND (2) incorporate real data into a results-driven process.
While our democracy is facing unprecedented stress, there are bright spots. Congress is again dedicating resources to an in-house technologyassessment capacity. Earlier this month, the new 116th Congress created a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. It will be chaired by Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA). Then the Open Government Data Actbecame law. This law will potentially scale the level of access to government data to unprecedented levels. It will require that all public-facing federal data must be machine-readable and reusable. This is a move in the right direction, and now comes the hard part.
Marci Harris, the CEO of civic startup Popvox, put it well, “The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking (FEBP) Act, which includes the OPEN Government Data Act, lays groundwork for a more effective, accountable government. To realize the potential of these new resources, Congress will need to hire tech literate staff and incorporate real data and evidence into its oversight and legislative functions.”
In forsaking its own capacity for complex problem solving, Congress has become non-competitive in the creative process that moves society forward. During this same time period, all eyes turned toward Silicon Valley to fill the vacuum. With mass connection platforms and unlimited personal freedom, it seemed direct democracy had arrived. But that’s proved a bust. If we go by current trends, entrusting democracy to Silicon Valley will give us perfect laundry and fewer voting rights. Fixing democracy is a whole-of-nation challenge that Congress must lead.
Finally, we “the crowd” want a more effective governing body that incorporates our experience and perspective into the lawmaking process, not just feel-good form letters thanking us for our input. We also want a political discourse grounded in facts. A “modern” Congress will provide both, and now we have the institutional foundation in place to make it happen….(More)”.
Achieving Digital Permanence
Raymond Blum with Betsy Beyer at ACM
First, let’s define digital permanence and the more basic concept of data integrity.
Data integrity is the maintenance of the accuracy and consistency of stored information. Accuracy means that the data is stored as the set of values that were intended. Consistency means that these stored values remain the same over time—they do not unintentionally waver or morph as time passes.
Digital permanence refers to the techniques used to anticipate and then meet the expected lifetime of data stored in digital media. Digital permanence not only considers data integrity, but also targets guarantees of relevance and accessibility: the ability to recall stored data and to recall it with predicted latency and at a rate acceptable to the applications that require that information.
To illustrate the aspects of relevance and accessibility, consider two counterexamples: journals that were safely stored redundantly on Zip drives or punch cards may as well not exist if the hardware required to read the media into a current computing system isn’t available. Nor is it very useful to have receipts and ledgers stored on a tape medium that will take eight days to read in when you need the information for an audit on Thursday.
The Multiple Facets of Digital Permanence
Human memory is the most subjective record imaginable. Common adages and clichés such as “He said, she said,” “IIRC (If I remember correctly),” and “You might recall” recognize the truth of memories—that they are based only on fragments of the one-time subjective perception of any objective state of affairs. What’s more, research indicates that people alter their memories over time. Over the years, as the need to provide a common ground for actions based on past transactions arises, so does the need for an objective record of fact—an independent “true” past. These records must be both immutable to a reasonable degree and durable. Media such as clay tablets, parchment, photographic prints, and microfiche became popular because they satisfied the “write once, read many” requirement of society’s record keepers.
Information storage in the digital age has evolved to fit the scale of access (frequent) and volume (high) by moving to storage media that record and deliver information in an almost intangible state. Such media have distinct advantages: electrical impulses and the polarity of magnetized ferric compounds can be moved around at great speed and density. These media, unfortunately, also score higher in another measure: fragility. Paper and clay can survive large amounts of neglect and punishment, but a stray electromagnetic discharge or microscopic rupture can render a digital library inaccessible or unrecognizable.
It stands to reason that storing permanent records in some immutable and indestructible medium would be ideal—something that, once altered to encode information, could never be altered again, either by an overwrite or destruction. Experience shows that such ideals are rarely realized; with enough force and will, the hardest stone can be broken and the most permanent markings defaced.
In considering and ensuring digital permanence, you want to guard against two different failures: the destruction of the storage medium, and a loss of the integrity or “truthfulness” of the records
The Future of FOIA in an Open Government World: Implications of the Open Government Agenda for Freedom of Information Policy and Implementation
The political and policy contexts for FOI have fundamentally shifted due to the rise of the open government reform agenda. FOI was at one point the primary tool used to promote governance transparency. FOI is now just one good governance tool in an increasingly crowded field of transparency policy areas.
Bureaucracy vs. Democracy
Philip Howard in The American Interest: “…For 50 years since the 1960s, modern government has been rebuilt on what I call the “philosophy of correctness.” The person making the decision must be able to demonstrate its correctness by compliance with a precise rule or metric, or by objective evidence in a trial-type proceeding. All day long, Americans are trained to ask themselves, “Can I prove that what I’m about to do is legally correct?”
In the age of individual rights, no one talks about the rights of institutions. But the disempowerment of institutional authority in the name of individual rights has led, ironically, to the disempowerment of individuals at every level of responsibility. Instead of striding confidently toward their goals, Americans tiptoe through legal minefields. In virtually every area of social interaction—schools, healthcare, business, public agencies, public works, entrepreneurship, personal services, community activities, nonprofit organizations, churches and synagogues, candor in the workplace, children’s play, speech on campus, and more—studies and reports confirm all the ways that sensible choices are prevented, delayed, or skewed by overbearing regulation, by an overemphasis on objective metrics,3 or by legal fear of violating someone’s alleged rights.
A Three-Part Indictment of Modern Bureaucracy
Reformers have promised to rein in bureaucracy for 40 years, and it’s only gotten more tangled. Public anger at government has escalated at the same time, and particularly in the past decade. While there’s a natural reluctance to abandon a bureaucratic structure that is well-intended, public anger is unlikely to be mollified until there is change, and populist solutions do not bode well for the future of democracy. Overhauling operating structures to permit practical governing choices would re-energize democracy as well as relieve the pressures Americans feel from Big Brother breathing down their necks.
Viewed in hindsight, the operating premise of modern bureaucracy was utopian and designed to fail. Here’s the three-part indictment of why we should abandon it.
1. The Economic Dysfunction of Modern Bureaucracy
Regulatory programs are indisputably wasteful, and frequently extract costs that exceed benefits. The total cost of compliance is high, about $2 trillion for federal regulation alone….
2. Bureaucracy Causes Cognitive Overload
The complex tangle of bureaucratic rules impairs a human’s ability to focus on the actual problem at hand. The phenomenon of the unhelpful bureaucrat, famously depicted in fiction by Dickens, Balzac, Kafka, Gogol, Heller, and others, has generally been characterized as a cultural flaw of the bureaucratic personality. But studies of cognitive overload suggest that the real problem is that people who are thinking about rules actually have diminished capacity to think about solving problems. This overload not only impedes drawing on
3. Bureaucracy Subverts the Rule of Law
The purpose of
Configurations, Dynamics and Mechanisms of Multilevel Governance
Book edited by Nathalie Behnke, Jörg Broschek and Jared Sonnicksen: “This edited volume provides a comprehensive overview of the diverse and multi-faceted research on governance in multilevel systems. The book features a collection of cutting-edge trans-Atlantic contributions, covering topics such as federalism, decentralization as well as various forms and processes of regionalization and Europeanization. While the field of multilevel governance is comparatively young, research in the subject has also come of age as considerable theoretical, conceptual and empirical advances have been achieved since the first influential works were published in the early noughties. The present volume aims to gauge the state-of-the-art in the different research areas as it brings together a selection of original contributions that are united by a variety of configurations, dynamics
Smart Contracts and Their Identity Crisis
This is an over-simplification of the role of relationships, contract law, and risk. We believe there is a gap in the understanding of the capabilities of SC’s. With that in
Open Data Politics: A Case Study on Estonia and Kazakhstan
Book by Maxat Kassen: “… offers a cross-national comparison of open data policies in Estonia and Kazakhstan. By analyzing a broad range of open data-driven projects and startups in both countries, it reveals the potential that open data phenomena hold with regard to promoting public sector innovations. The book addresses various political and socioeconomic contexts in these two transitional
Thinking about GovTech: A brief guide for policymakers
Report by Tanya Filer: “If developed with care, the emergent GovTech ecosystem, in which start-ups and innovative small and medium enterprises (SMEs) provide innovative technology products and services to public sector clients, could contribute to achieving these objectives. Thinking about GovTech introduces the concept of GovTech and identifies eight activities that policymakers can undertake to foster national GovTech innovation ecosystems and help to steer them towards positive outcomes for citizens and public administrators. It suggests that policymakers:
1. Build the social and technical foundations for GovTech
2. Embed expectations of accountability at an ecosystem-wide level
3. Address GovTech procurement barriers
4. Ensure the provision of appropriate, and often patient, capital
5. Engage academia at each stage of the GovTech innovation lifecycle
6. Develop pipelines of technological talent, emphasising public sector problems and
opportunities
7. Build translator capacity within the public sector
8. Develop and utilise regional and international networks
Thinking about GovTech is the first GovTech guide written for a fully international audience of policymakers. It offers examples of emerging international policy and programme design and urges policymakers to think carefully about local context and capacity for implementation….(More)”.
Evidence vs Democracy: what are we doing to bridge the divide?
Jonathan Breckon, and Anna Hopkins at the Alliance for Useful E
The evidence movement must respond to the ‘politics of distrust’. We cannot carry on regardless. For evidence advocates like us, reaching over the heads of the public to get research into the hands of elite policy-makers is not enough. Let’s be honest and accept that a lot of our work goes on behind closed doors. The UK’s nine What Works Centres only rarely engage with the public – more often with professionals, budget holders or civil servants. The evidence movement needs to democratise.
However, the difficulty is that evidence is hard work. It needs slow-thinking, and at least a passing knowledge of statistics, economics, or science. How on earth can you do all that on Twitter or Facebook?
In a report published today we look at ‘mini-publics’ – an alternative democratic platform to connect citizens with research. Citizens’ Juries, Deliberative Polls, Consensus Conferences and other mini-publics are forums that bring people and evidence together, for constructive, considered debate. Ideally, people work in small groups, that are randomly chosen, and have the chance to interrogate experts in the field in question.
This is not a new idea. The idea of a ‘minipopulus’ was set out by the American political theorist Robert Dahl in the 1970s. Indeed, there is an even older heritage. Athenian classical democracy did for a time select small groups of officials by lot.
It’s also not a utopian idea from the past, as we have found many promising recent examples. For example in the UK, a Citizens’ Assembly on adult social care gave recommendations to two parliamentary Select Committees last year. There are also examples of citizens contributing to our public institutions and agendas by deliberating – through NICE’s Citizens Council or the James Lind Alliance.
We shouldn’t ignore this resistance to the mood of disaffection. Initiatives like the RSA’s Campaign for Deliberative Democracy are making the case for a step-change. To break the political deadlock on Brexit, there has been a call to create a Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Stella Creasy MP and others. And there are many hopeful visions of a democratic future from abroad – like the experiments in Canada and Australia. Our report explores many of these international examples.
Citizens can make informed decisions – if we allow them to be citizens. They can understand, debate and interrogate research