How Americans View Data Privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Pew Research: “…Americans – particularly Republicans – have grown more concerned about how the government uses their data. The share who say they are worried about government use of people’s data has increased from 64% in 2019 to 71% today. That reflects rising concern among Republicans (from 63% to 77%), while Democrats’ concern has held steady. (Each group includes those who lean toward the respective party.)

The public increasingly says they don’t understand what companies are doing with their data. Some 67% say they understand little to nothing about what companies are doing with their personal data, up from 59%.

Most believe they have little to no control over what companies or the government do with their data. While these shares have ticked down compared with 2019, vast majorities feel this way about data collected by companies (73%) and the government (79%).

We’ve studied Americans’ views on data privacy for years. The topic remains in the national spotlight today, and it’s particularly relevant given the policy debates ranging from regulating AI to protecting kids on social media. But these are far from abstract concepts. They play out in the day-to-day lives of Americans in the passwords they choose, the privacy policies they agree to and the tactics they take – or not – to secure their personal information. We surveyed 5,101 U.S. adults using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel to give voice to people’s views and experiences on these topics.

In addition to the key findings covered on this page, the three chapters of this report provide more detail on:

How to share data — not just equally, but equitably

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Editorial in Nature: “Two decades ago, scientists asked more than 150,000 people living in Mexico City to provide medical data for research. Each participant gave time, blood and details of their medical history. For the researchers, who were based at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City and the University of Oxford, UK, this was an opportunity to study a Latin American population for clues about factors contributing to disease and health. For the participants, it was a chance to contribute to science so that future generations might one day benefit from access to improved health care. Ultimately, the Mexico City Prospective Study was an exercise in trust — scientists were trusted with some of people’s most private information because they promised to use it responsibly.

Over the years, the researchers have repaid the communities through studies investigating the effects of tobacco and other risk factors on participants’ health. They have used the data to learn about the impact of diabetes on mortality rates, and they have found that rare forms of a gene called GPR75 lower the risk of obesity. And on 11 October, researchers added to the body of knowledge on the population’s ancestry.

But this project also has broader relevance — it can be seen as a model of trust and of how the power structures of science can be changed to benefit the communities closest to it.

Mexico’s population is genetically wealthy. With a complex history of migration and mixing of several populations, the country’s diverse genetic resources are valuable to the study of the genetic roots of diseases. Most genetic databases are stocked with data from people with European ancestry. If genomics is to genuinely benefit the global community — and especially under-represented groups — appropriately diverse data sets are needed. These will improve the accuracy of genetic tests, such as those for disease risk, and will make it easier to unearth potential drug targets by finding new genetic links to medical conditions…(More)”.

Evidence-Based Government Is Alive and Well

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Zina Hutton: “A desire to discipline the whimsical rule of despots.” That’s what Gary Banks, a former chairman of Australia’s Productivity Commission, attributed the birth of evidence-based policy to back in the 14th century in a speech from 2009. Evidence-based policymaking isn’t a new style of government, but it’s one with well-known roadblocks that elected officials have been working around in order to implement it more widely.

Evidence-based policymaking relies on evidence — facts, data, expert analysis — to shape aspects of long- and short-term policy decisions. It’s not just about collecting data, but also applying it and experts’ analysis to shape future policy. Whether it’s using school enrollment numbers to justify building a new park in a neighborhood or scientists collaborating on analysis of wastewater to try to “catch” illness spread in a community before it becomes unmanageable, evidence-based policy uses facts to help elected and appointed officials decide what funds and other resources to allocate in their communities.

Problems with evidence-based governing have been around for years. They range from a lack of communication between the people designing the policy and its related programs and the people implementing them, to the way that local government struggles to recruit and maintain employees. Resource allocation also shapes the decisions some cities make when it comes to seeking out and using data. This can be seen in the way larger cities, with access to proportionately larger budgets, research from state universities within city limits and a larger workforce, have had more success with evidence-based policymaking.
“The largest cities have more personnel, more expertise, more capacity, whether that’s for collecting administrative data and monitoring it, whether that’s doing open data portals, or dashboards, or whether that’s doing things like policy analysis or program evaluation,” says Karen Mossberger, the Frank and June Sackton Professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “It takes expert personnel, it takes people within government with the skills and the capacity, it takes time.”

Roadblocks aside, state and local governments are finding innovative ways to collaborate with one another on data-focused projects and policy, seeking ways to make up for the problems that impacted early efforts at evidence-based governance. More state and local governments now recruit data experts at every level to collect, analyze and explain the data generated by residents, aided by advances in technology and increased access to researchers…(More)”.

PeaceTech: Digital Transformation to End War

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Christine Bell: “Why are we willing to believe that technology can bring about war… but not peace?

 PeaceTech: Digital Transformation to End Wars is the world’s first book dealing with the use of technological innovation to support peace and transition processes. Through an interwoven narrative of personal stories that capture the complexity of real-time peace negotiation, Bell maps the fast-paced developments of PeaceTech, and the ethical and practical challenges involved.

Bell locates PeaceTech within the wider digital revolution that is also transforming the conduct of war. She lays bare the ‘double disruption’ of peace processes, through digital transformation, and through changing conflict patterns that make processes more difficult to mount. Against this backdrop – can digital peacebuilding be a force for good?  Or do the risks outweigh the benefits?

PeaceTech provides a 12-Step Manifesto laying out the types of practice and commitment needed for successful use of digital tools to support peace processes. This open access book will be invaluable primer for business tech entrepreneurs, peacebuilders, the tech community, and students of international relations, informatics, comparative politics, ethics and law; and indeed for those simply curious about peace process innovation in the contemporary world…(More)”.

Zero-Problem Philanthropy 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Christian Seelos: “…problem-solving approaches often overlook the dynamics of problem supply, the ongoing creation of problems. This is apparent in daily news reports, which indicate that our societies generate both new and old problems at a faster rate than we can ever hope to solve them. Even solutions that “work” can have negative side-effects that then generate new problems. Climate change as an undesirable side-effect of the fantastic innovation of using fossil fuels for energy is an example. The live-saving invention of antibiotics has created mutated bacteria that now resist treatments. Indebted households, violence against poor women, and alcoholism can be the side-effect of providing innovative microfinance solutions that are well intended. These side effects require additional solutions that are often urgent and costly, leading to a never-ending cycle of problems and solutions.

Unfortunately, our blind faith in solutions and the capabilities of new technologies can lead to a careless attitude towards creating problems. We tend to overlook the importance of problems as indicators of deeper issues, instead glorifying the innovators and their solutions. This mindset can be problematic, as it reduces our role as philanthropists to playing catch-up and fails to acknowledge the possibility of fundamental flaws in our approach.

Russell Ackoff, a pioneering systems thinker and organization scholar, famously described the dangers of thinking in terms of problem-solving because “we walk into the future facing the past—we move away from, rather than toward, something. This often results in unforeseen consequences that are more distasteful than the deficiencies removed.” Ackoff highlights our tendency to be reactive rather than proactive in addressing social problems. What would it take to shift from a reactive, past-oriented solution perspective to a proactive philanthropy oriented towards a healthy future that does not create so many problems?…(More)”.

Think, before you nudge: those who pledge to eco-friendly diets respond more effectively to a nudge

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article (and paper) by Sanchayan Banerjee: “We appreciate the incredible array of global cuisines available to us. Despite the increasing prices, we enjoy a wide variety of food options, including an abundance of meats that our grandparents could only dream of, given their limited access. However, this diverse culinary landscape comes with a price – the current food choices significantly contribute to carbon emissions and conflict with our climate objectives. Therefore, transitioning towards more eco-friendly diets is crucial.

Instead of imposing strict measures or raising costs, researchers have employed subtle “nudges”, those that gently steer individuals toward socially beneficial choices, to reduce meat consumption. These nudges aim to modify how food choices are presented to consumers without imposing choices on them. Nevertheless, expanding the use of these nudges has proven to be a complex task in general, as it sometimes raises ethical concerns about whether people are fully aware of the messages encouraging them to change their behaviour. In the context of diets which are personal, researchers have argued nudging can be ethically dubious. What business do we have in telling people what to eat?

To address these challenges, a novel approach in behavioral science, known as “nudge+”, can empower individuals to reflect on their choices and encourage meaningful shifts towards more environmentally friendly behaviours. A nudge+ is a combination of a nudge with an encouragement to think…(More)”.

How a billionaire-backed network of AI advisers took over Washington

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Brendan Bordelon: “An organization backed by Silicon Valley billionaires and tied to leading artificial intelligence firms is funding the salaries of more than a dozen AI fellows in key congressional offices, across federal agencies and at influential think tanks.

The fellows funded by Open Philanthropy, which is financed primarily by billionaire Facebook co-founder and Asana CEO Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna, are already involved in negotiations that will shape Capitol Hill’s accelerating plans to regulate AI. And they’re closely tied to a powerful influence network that’s pushing Washington to focus on the technology’s long-term risks — a focus critics fear will divert Congress from more immediate rules that would tie the hands of tech firms.

Acting through the little-known Horizon Institute for Public Service, a nonprofit that Open Philanthropy effectively created in 2022, the group is funding the salaries of tech fellows in key Senate offices, according to documents and interviews…Current and former Horizon AI fellows with salaries funded by Open Philanthropy are now working at the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, as well as in the House Science Committee and Senate Commerce Committee, two crucial bodies in the development of AI rules. They also populate key think tanks shaping AI policy, including the RAND Corporation and Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, according to the Horizon web site…

In the high-stakes Washington debate over AI rules, Open Philanthropy has long been focused on one slice of the problem — the long-term threats that future AI systems might pose to human survival. Many AI thinkers see those as science-fiction concerns far removed from the current AI harms that Washington should address. And they worry that Open Philanthropy, in concert with its web of affiliated organizations and experts, is shifting the policy conversation away from more pressing issues — including topics some leading AI firms might prefer to keep off the policy agenda…(More)”.

The Good and Bad of Anticipating Migration

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sara Marcucci, Stefaan Verhulst, María Esther Cervantes, Elena Wüllhorst: “This blog is the first in a series that will be published weekly, dedicated to exploring innovative anticipatory methods for migration policy. Over the coming weeks, we will delve into various aspects of these methods, delving into their value, challenges, taxonomy, and practical applications. 

This first blog serves as an exploration of the value proposition and challenges inherent in innovative anticipatory methods for migration policy. We delve into the various reasons why these methods hold promise for informing more resilient, and proactive migration policies. These reasons include evidence-based policy development, enabling policymakers to ground their decisions in empirical evidence and future projections. Decision-takers, users, and practitioners can benefit from anticipatory methods for policy evaluation and adaptation, resource allocation, the identification of root causes, and the facilitation of humanitarian aid through early warning systems. However, it’s vital to acknowledge the challenges associated with the adoption and implementation of these methods, ranging from conceptual concerns such as fossilization, unfalsifiability, and the legitimacy of preemptive intervention, to practical issues like interdisciplinary collaboration, data availability and quality, capacity building, and stakeholder engagement. As we navigate through these complexities, we aim to shed light on the potential and limitations of anticipatory methods in the context of migration policy, setting the stage for deeper explorations in the coming blogs of this series…(More)”.

Deliberation is no silver bullet for the ‘problem’ of populism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kristof Jacobs: “Populists are not satisfied with the way democracy works nowadays. They do not reject liberal democracy outright, but want it to change. Indeed, they feel the political elite is unresponsive. Not surprisingly, then, populist parties thrive in settings where there is widespread feeling that politicians do not listen to the people.

What if… decision-makers gave citizens a voice in the decision-making process? In fact, this is happening across the globe. Democratic innovations, that is: decision-making processes that aim to deepen citizens’ participation and engagement in political decision-making, are ever more popular. They come in many shapes and forms, such as referendums, deliberative mini-publics or participatory budgeting. Deliberative democratic innovations in particular are popular, as is evidenced by the many nation-level citizens’ assemblies on climate change. We have seen such assemblies not only in France, but also in the UK, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Spain and Austria.

Several prominent scholars of deliberation contend that deliberation promotes considered judgment and counteracts populism

Scholars of deliberation are optimistic about the potential of such deliberative events. In one often-cited piece in Science, several prominent scholars of deliberation contend that ‘[d]eliberation promotes considered judgment and counteracts populism’.

But is that optimism warranted? What does the available empirical research tell us? To examine this, one must distinguish between populist citizens and populist parties…(More)”.

Towards a Considered Use of AI Technologies in Government 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Institute on Governance and Think Digital: “… undertook a case study-based research project, where 24 examples of AI technology projects and governance frameworks across a dozen jurisdictions were scanned. The purpose of this report is to provide policymakers and practitioners in government with an overview of controversial deployments of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the public sector, and to highlight some of the approaches being taken to govern the responsible use of these technologies in government. 

Two environmental scans make up the majority of the report. The first scan presents relevant use cases of public sector applications of AI technologies and automation, with special attention given to controversial projects and program/policy failures. The second scan surveys existing governance frameworks employed by international organizations and governments around the world. Each scan is then analyzed to determine common themes across use cases and governance frameworks respectively. The final section of the report provides risk considerations related to the use of AI by public sector institutions across use cases…(More)”.