China’s Aggressive Surveillance Technology Will Spread Beyond Its Borders

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Daniel Benaim and Hollie Russon Gilman at Slate: “…What happens when these technologies migrate to bigger, more fractious societies? This won’t happen overnight—and the financial and logistical obstacles to broad implementation are significant. But there is every reason to think that in a decade or two, if not sooner, authoritarians and would-be strongmen in places like Turkey, Hungary, Egypt, or Rwanda will seek these tools and use them to thwart civil society and crush dissent in ways that weaken democracy globally.

Already there are reports that Zimbabwe, for example, is turning to Chinese firms to implement nationwide facial-recognition and surveillance programs, wrapped into China’s infrastructure investments and a larger set of security agreements as well, including for policing online communication. The acquisition of black African faces will help China’s tech sector improve its overall data set.

Malaysia, too, announced new partnerships this spring with China to equip police with wearable facial-recognition cameras. There are quiet reports of Arab Gulf countries turning to China not just for the drone technologies America has denied but also for the authoritarian suite of surveillance, recognition, and data tools perfected in China’s provinces. In a recent article on Egypt’s military-led efforts to build a new capital city beyond Cairo’s chaos and revolutionary squares, a retired general acting as project spokesman declared, “a smart city means a safe city, with cameras and sensors everywhere. There will be a command center to control the entire city.” Who is financing construction? China.

While many governments are making attempts to secure this information, there have been several alarming stories of data leaks. Moreover, these national identifiers create an unprecedented opportunity for state surveillance at scale. What about collecting biometric information in nondemocratic regimes? In 2016, the personal details of nearly 50 million people in Turkey were leaked….

China and other determined authoritarian states may prove undeterrable in their zeal to adopt repressive technologies. A more realistic goal, as Georgetown University scholar Nicholas Wright has argued, is to sway countries on the fence by pointing out the reputational costs of repression and supporting those who are advocating for civil liberties in this domain within their own countries. Democracy promoters (which we hope will one day again include the White House) will also want to recognize the coming changes to the authoritarian public sphere. They can start now in helping vulnerable populations and civil society to gain greater technological literacy to advocate for their rights in new domains. It is not too early for governments and civil society groups alike to study what technological and tactical countermeasures exist to circumvent and disrupt new authoritarian tools.

Seven years ago, techno-optimists expressed hope that a wave of new digital tools for social networking and self-expression could help young people in the Middle East and elsewhere to find their voices. Today, a new wave of Chinese-led technological advances threatens to blossom into what we consider an “Arab spring in reverse”—in which the next digital wave shifts the pendulum back, enabling state domination and repression at a staggering scale and algorithmic effectiveness.

Americans are absolutely right to be urgently focused on countering Russian weaponized hacking and leaking as its primary beneficiary sits in the Oval Office. But we also need to be more proactive in countering the tools of algorithmic authoritarianism that will shape the worldwide future of individual freedom….(More)”.

Americans Want to Share Their Medical Data. So Why Can’t They?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Eleni Manis at RealClearHealth: “Americans are willing to share personal data — even sensitive medical data — to advance the common good. A recent Stanford University study found that 93 percent of medical trial participants in the United States are willing to share their medical data with university scientists and 82 percent are willing to share with scientists at for-profit companies. In contrast, less than a third are concerned that their data might be stolen or used for marketing purposes.

However, the majority of regulations surrounding medical data focus on individuals’ ability to restrict the use of their medical data, with scant attention paid to supporting the ability to share personal data for the common good. Policymakers can begin to right this balance by establishing a national medical data donor registry that lets individuals contribute their medical data to support research after their deaths. Doing so would help medical researchers pursue cures and improve health care outcomes for all Americans.

Increased medical data sharing facilitates advances in medical science in three key ways. First, de-identified participant-level data can be used to understand the results of trials, enabling researchers to better explicate the relationship between treatments and outcomes. Second, researchers can use shared data to verify studies and identify cases of data fraud and research misconduct in the medical community. For example, one researcher recently discovered a prolific Japanese anesthesiologist had falsified data for almost two decades. Third, shared data can be combined and supplemented to support new studies and discoveries.

Despite these benefits, researchers, research funders, and regulators have struggled to establish a norm for sharing clinical research data. In some cases, regulatory obstacles are to blame. HIPAA — the federal law regulating medical data — blocks some sharing on grounds of patient privacy, while federal and state regulations governing data sharing are inconsistent. Researchers themselves have a proprietary interest in data they produce, while academic researchers seeking to maximize publications may guard data jealously.

Though funding bodies are aware of this tension, they are unable to resolve it on their own. The National Institutes of Health, for example, requires a data sharing plan for big-ticket funding but recognizes that proprietary interests may make sharing impossible….(More)”.

What’s Wrong with Public Policy Education

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Francis Fukuyama at the American Interest: “Most programs train students to become capable policy analysts, but with no understanding of how to implement those policies in the real world…Public policy education is ripe for an overhaul…

Public policy education in most American universities today reflects a broader problem in the social sciences, which is the dominance of economics. Most programs center on teaching students a battery of quantitative methods that are useful in policy analysis: applied econometrics, cost-benefit analysis, decision analysis, and, most recently, use of randomized experiments for program evaluation. Many schools build their curricula around these methods rather than the substantive areas of policy such as health, education, defense, criminal justice, or foreign policy. Students come out of these programs qualified to be policy analysts: They know how to gather data, analyze it rigorously, and evaluate the effectiveness of different public policy interventions. Historically, this approach started with the Rand Graduate School in the 1970s (which has subsequently undergone a major re-thinking of its approach).

There is no question that these skills are valuable and should be part of a public policy education.  The world has undergone a revolution in recent decades in terms of the role of evidence-based policy analysis, where policymakers can rely not just on anecdotes and seat-of-the-pants assessments, but statistically valid inferences that intervention X is likely to result in outcome Y, or that the millions of dollars spent on policy Z has actually had no measurable impact. Evidence-based policymaking is particularly necessary in the age of Donald Trump, amid the broad denigration of inconvenient facts that do not suit politicians’ prior preferences.

But being skilled in policy analysis is woefully inadequate to bring about policy change in the real world. Policy analysis will tell you what the optimal policy should be, but it does not tell you how to achieve that outcome.

The world is littered with optimal policies that don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being adopted. Take for example a carbon tax, which a wide range of economists and policy analysts will tell you is the most efficient way to abate carbon emissions, reduce fossil fuel dependence, and achieve a host of other desired objectives. A carbon tax has been a nonstarter for years due to the protestations of a range of interest groups, from oil and chemical companies to truckers and cabbies and ordinary drivers who do not want to pay more for the gas they use to commute to work, or as inputs to their industrial processes. Implementing a carbon tax would require a complex strategy bringing together a coalition of groups that are willing to support it, figuring out how to neutralize the die-hard opponents, and convincing those on the fence that the policy would be a good, or at least a tolerable, thing. How to organize such a coalition, how to communicate a winning message, and how to manage the politics on a state and federal level would all be part of a necessary implementation strategy.

It is entirely possible that an analysis of the implementation strategy, rather than analysis of the underlying policy, will tell you that the goal is unachievable absent an external shock, which might then mean changing the scope of the policy, rethinking its objectives, or even deciding that you are pursuing the wrong objective.

Public policy education that sought to produce change-makers rather than policy analysts would therefore have to be different.  It would continue to teach policy analysis, but the latter would be a small component embedded in a broader set of skills.

The first set of skills would involve problem definition. A change-maker needs to query stakeholders about what they see as the policy problem, understand the local history, culture, and political system, and define a problem that is sufficiently narrow in scope that it can plausibly be solved.

At times reformers start with a favored solution without defining the right problem. A student I know spent a summer working at an NGO in India advocating use of electric cars in the interest of carbon abatement. It turns out, however, that India’s reliance on coal for marginal electricity generation means that more carbon would be put in the air if the country were to switch to electric vehicles, not less, so the group was actually contributing to the problem they were trying to solve….

The second set of skills concerns solutions development. This is where traditional policy analysis comes in: It is important to generate data, come up with a theory of change, and posit plausible options by which reformers can solve the problem they have set for themselves. This is where some ideas from product design, like rapid prototyping and testing, may be relevant.

The third and perhaps most important set of skills has to do with implementation. This begins necessarily with stakeholder analysis: that is, mapping of actors who are concerned with the particular policy problem, either as supporters of a solution, or opponents who want to maintain the status quo. From an analysis of the power and interests of the different stakeholders, one can begin to build coalitions of proponents, and think about strategies for expanding the coalition and neutralizing those who are opposed.  A reformer needs to think about where resources can be obtained, and, very critically, how to communicate one’s goals to the stakeholder audiences involved. Finally comes testing and evaluation—not in the expectation that there will be a continuous and rapid iterative process by which solutions are tried, evaluated, and modified. Randomized experiments have become the gold standard for program evaluation in recent years, but their cost and length of time to completion are often the enemies of rapid iteration and experimentation….(More) (see also http://canvas.govlabacademy.org/).

Informational Autocrats

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sergei M. Guriev and Daniel Treisman: “In recent decades, dictatorships based on mass repression have largely given way to a new model based on the manipulation of information. Instead of terrorizing citizens into submission, “informational autocrats” artificially boost their popularity by convincing the public they are competent.

To do so, they use propaganda and silence informed members of the elite by co-optation or censorship.

Using several sources – including a newly created dataset of authoritarian control techniques – we document a range of trends in recent autocracies that fit the theory: a decline in violence, efforts to conceal state repression, rejection of official ideologies, imitation of democracy, a perceptions gap between masses and elite, and the adoption by leaders of a rhetoric of performance rather than one aimed at inspiring fear….(More)”

Open Data Use Case: Using data to improve public health

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Chris Willsher at ODX: “Studies have shown that a large majority of Canadians spend too much time in sedentary activities. According to the Health Status of Canadians report in 2016, only 2 out of 10 Canadian adults met the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines. Increasing physical activity and healthy lifestyle behaviours can reduce the risk of chronic illnesses, which can decrease pressures on our health care system. And data can play a role in improving public health.

We are already seeing examples of a push to augment the role of data, with programs recently being launched at home and abroad. Canada and the US established an initiative in the spring of 2017 called the Healthy Behaviour Data Challenge. The goal of the initiative is to open up new methods for generating and using data to monitor health, specifically in the areas of physical activity, sleep, sedentary behaviour, or nutrition. The challenge recently wrapped up with winners being announced in late April 2018. Programs such as this provide incentive to the private sector to explore data’s role in measuring healthy lifestyles and raise awareness of the importance of finding new solutions.

In the UK, Sport England and the Open Data Institute (ODI) have collaborated to create the OpenActive initiative. It has set out to encourage both government and private sector entities to unlock data around physical activities so that others can utilize this information to ease the process of engaging in an active lifestyle. The goal is to “make it as easy to find and book a badminton court as it is to book a hotel room.” As of last fall, OpenActive counted more than 76,000 activities across 1,000 locations from their partner organizations. They have also developed a standard for activity data to ensure consistency among data sources, which eases the ability for developers to work with the data. Again, this initiative serves as a mechanism for open data to help address public health issues.

In Canada, we are seeing more open datasets that could be utilized to devise new solutions for generating higher rates of physical activity. A lot of useful information is available at the municipal level that can provide specifics around local infrastructure. Plus, there is data at the provincial and federal level that can provide higher-level insights useful to developing methods for promoting healthier lifestyles.

Information about cycling infrastructure seems to be relatively widespread among municipalities with a robust open data platform. As an example, the City of Toronto, publishes map data of bicycle routes around the city. This information could be utilized in a way to help citizens find the best bike route between two points. In addition, the city also publishes data on indoor, outdoor, and post and ring bicycle parking facilities that can identify where to securely lock your bike. Exploring data from proprietary sources, such as Strava, could further enhance an application by layering on popular cycling routes or allow users to integrate their personal information. And algorithms could allow for the inclusion of data on comparable driving times, projected health benefits, or savings on automotive maintenance.

The City of Calgary publishes data on park sports surfaces and recreation facilities that could potentially be incorporated into sports league applications. This would make it easier to display locations for upcoming games or to arrange pick-up games. Knowing where there are fields nearby that may be available for a last minute soccer game could be useful in encouraging use of the facilities and generating more physical activity. Again, other data sources, such as weather, could be integrated with this information to provide a planning tool for organizing these activities….(More)”.

How to be a public entrepreneur

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Rowan Conway at the RSA: “Political theorist Elinor Ostrom was the first to coin the phrase “public entrepreneur” in her 1965 UCLA PhD thesis where she proposed that government actors should be the makers of purpose-driven businesses. She later went on to surprise the world of economics by winning a Nobel prize.

To the economic establishment Ostrom was a social scientist and her theories of common goods and public purpose enterprise ran counter to the economic orthodoxy. 44 years later, at the same time that she was taking the stage as the first (and only) woman to win a Nobel prize for economics, another California-based thinker was positing his own vision for entrepreneurship… “Move fast and break things” was famously Mark Zuckerberg’s credo for Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. “Unless you are breaking stuff,” he said in 2009, “you are not moving fast enough.” This phrase came to epitomise the “fail fast” start-up culture that has seeped into our consciousness and redefined modern life in the last decade.

Public vs Private entrepreneurs

So which of these two types of entrepreneurship should prevail? I’d say that they’re not playing on the same field and barely even playing the same game. While the Silicon Valley model glorifies the frat boys who dreamt up tech start-ups in their dorm rooms and took the “self-made” financial gains when big tech took off, public entrepreneurs are not cast from this mold. They are the government actors taking on the system to solve social and environmental problems and the idea of “breaking things” won’t appeal to them. “Moving fast”, however, speaks to their ambitions for an agile government that wants to make change in a digital world.

Public entrepreneurs are socially minded — but they differ from social entrepreneurs in that they carry out a public or state role. In a Centre for Public Impact briefing paper entitled “Enter the Public Entrepreneur” the difference is clear:

“While “social entrepreneurs” are people outside government, public entrepreneurs act within government and, at their heart, are a blend of two different roles: that of a public servant, and that of an entrepreneur. The underlying premise is that these roles are usually distinct but the skill sets they require need not be. Indeed, the future public servant will increasingly need to think and act like an entrepreneur — building new relationships, leveraging resources, working across sector lines and acting, and sometimes failing, fast.”

Today we publish a RSA Lab report entitled “Move Fast and Fix Things” in partnership with Innovate UK. The report examines the role of Public Entrepreneurs who want to find ways to move fast without leaving a trail of destruction. It builds on the literature that makes the case for public missionsand entrepreneurship in government and acts as a kind of “how to guide” for those in the public sector who want to think and act like entrepreneurs, but sometimes feel like they are pushing up against an immovable bureaucratic system.

Acting entrepreneurially with procurement

A useful distinction of types of government innovation by the European Commission describes “innovation in government” as transforming public administration, such as the shift to digital service provision and “innovation through government” as initiatives that “foster innovation elsewhere in society, such as the public procurement of innovation”. Our report looks at public procurement — specifically the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) — as a route for innovation through government.

Governments have catalytic spending power. The UK public sector alone spends over £251.5 billion annually procuring goods and services which accounts for 33% of public sector spend and 13.7% of GDP. A profound shift in practice is required if government is to proactively use this power to stimulate innovation in the way that Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State calls for. As Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose she advocates for “mission-oriented innovation” which can enable speed as it has “not only a rate, but also a direction” — purposefully using government’s purchasing power to stimulate innovation for good.

But getting procurement professionals to understand how to be entrepreneurial with public funds is no mean feat….(More)”.

On the Bumpy Road Towards Open Government: The Not-Invented-Here Syndrome as a Major Pothole

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Lisa Schmidthuber, David Antons and Dennis Hilgers: “This paper investigates the role of public employees in absorbing external knowledge. Triggered by open government initiatives and open calls for participation, external actors are invited to integrate ideas, solutions, or experience into public organizations. Such exploitation of valuable external knowledge across organizational interfaces might, however, be hindered by negative attitudes of public employees towards external input. The rejection of outside knowledge by internal actors is known as the Not-Invented-Here syndrome. This paper sheds light on NIH attitudes in public organizations. After reviewing the state of the art of research on NIH, it emphasizes rethinking NIH in the public sector. The in-depth discussion of previous work thus serves to derive an extensive agenda for future research….(More)”

Cloud Communities: The Dawn of Global Citizenship?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper by Liav Orgad and Rainer Baubock: “New digital technologies are rapidly changing the global economy and have connected billions of people in deterritoralised social network. Will they also create new opportunities for global citizenship and alternatives to state-based political communities?

In his kick-off essay, Liav Orgad takes an optimistic view. Blockchain technology permits to give every human being a unique legal persona and allows individuals to associate in ‘cloud communities’ that may take on several functions of territorial states. 14 commentators discuss this vision.

Sceptics assume that states or business corporations have always found ways to capture and use new technologies for their purposes. They emphasise that the political functions of states, including their task to protect human rights, require territorial monopolies of legitimate coercion that cannot be provided by cloud communities.

Others point out that individuals would sort themselves out into cloud communities that are internally homogenous which risks to deepen political cleavages within territorial societies.

Finally, some authors are concerned that digital political communities will enhance global social inequalities through excluding from access those who are already worse off in the birthright lottery of territorial citizenship.

Optimists see instead the great potential of blockchain technology to overcome exclusion and marginalisation based on statelessness or sheer lack of civil registries; they regard it as a tool for enhancing individual freedom, since people are self-sovereign in controlling their personal data; and they emphasise the possibilities for emancipatory movements to mobilise for global justice across territorial borders or to create their own internally democratic political utopias.

In the boldest vision, the deficits of cloud communities as voluntary political associations with limited scope of power could be overcome in a global cryptodemocracy that lets all individuals participate on a one-person-one-vote basis in global political decisions….(More)”.

Blockchain is helping build a new Indian city, but it’s no cure for corruption

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Ananya Bhattacharya at Quartz: “Last year, Tharigopula Sambasiva Rao entered into a deal with the state government of Andhra Pradesh. He gave up six acres of his agricultural land in his village, Sakhamuru, in exchange for 7,250 square yards—6,000 square yards of residential plots and 1,250 square yards of commercial ones.

In February this year, the 50-year-old farmer got his plots registered at the sub-registrar’s office in Thullur town of Guntur district. He booked an appointment through a government-run app and turned up with his Aadhaar number, a unique identity provided by the government of India to every citizen. Rao’s land documents, complete with a map, certificate, and carrying a unique QR code, were prepared by officials and sent directly to the registration office, all done in just a couple of hours.

Kommineni Ramanjaneyulu, another farmer from around Thullur, exchanged 4.5 acres for 10 plots. The 83-year-old was wary of this new technology deployed to streamline the land registration process. However, he was relieved to see the documents for his new assets in his native language, Telugu. There was no information gap….

In theory, blockchain can store land documents in a tamper-proof, secure network, reducing human interventions and adding more transparency. Data is solidified and the transaction history of a property is fully trackable. This has the potential to reduce, if not entirely prevent, property fraud. But unlike in the case of bitcoin, the blockchain utilised by the government agency in charge of shaping Amaravati is private.

So, despite the promise on paper, local landowners and farmers remain convinced that there’s no escaping red tape and corruption yet….

The entire documentation process for this massive exercise is based on blockchain. The decentralised distributed ledger system—central to cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ether—can create foolproof digitised land registries of the residential and commercial plots allotted to farmers. It essentially serves as a book-keeping tool that can be accessed by all but is owned by none…

Having seen the government’s dirty tricks, most of the farmers gathered at Rayapudi aren’t buying the claim that the system is tamper-proof—especially at the stages before the information is moved to blockchain. After all, assignments and verifications are still being done by revenue officers on the ground.

That the Andhra Pradesh government is using a private blockchain complicates things further. The public can view information but not directly monitor whether any illicit changes have been made to their records. They have to go through the usual red tape to get those answers. The system may not be susceptible to hacking, but authorities could deliberately enter wrong information or refuse to reveal instances of fraud even if they are logged. This is the farmers’ biggest concern.

“The tampering cannot be stopped. If you give the right people a lot of bribe, they will go in and change the record,” said Seshagiri Rao. Nearly $700 million is paid in bribes across land registrars in India, an Andhra Pradesh government official estimated last year, and even probes into these matters are often flawed….(More)”.

Αugmented Nature

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The rate of extinction is about a thousand times what it used to be before humans. One species goes extinct every 5 minutes. Over the past 30 years 75% of all insects went extinct. 95% of all large predatory fish that roamed the seas are now gone. It probably comes as no surprise we are living in the 6th mass extinction. The big difference with the previous five is that this one is induced by humans.

Αugmented Nature is a set of robotic tools that help animals adapt to the mass extinction. The tools enhance the capacities of so called Ecosystem Engineer species to reclaim and change their own habitats.

The resilience of an ecosystem is strongly related to its biodiversity. Ecosystem engineers are species that engineer their environment and are highly interconnected within the ecosystem. Think for example of a beaver building a dam and creating wetlands that form the habitat for hundreds of other species. By actively enhancing these types of capabilities in endangered species we aim to provide an answer to the sharp decline in biodiversity.

We propose an active and animal-centered alternative to the current conservation efforts. Our premise is that humans are part of nature. Hence, efforts that try to separate species or revert nature to a certain state in the past (re-wilding, preservation) are not realistic. Nature is a dynamic system and evolution is equally driven by species adapting to change but also by transforming the environment for their purposes.

We worked in close collaboration with scientists to develop the next generation of high-tech biologging tags. These experimental interventions are the first step towards a future where instead of mitigating our impact on nature, we aim for a positive impact.  We demonstrate this approach with two example animals: humpback whales and collared peccaries.,,,(More)”.