Data Ethics Framework

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction by Matt Hancock MP, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the UK’s Data Ethics Framework: “Making better use of data offers huge benefits, in helping us provide the best possible services to the people we serve.

However, all new opportunities present new challenges. The pace of technology is changing so fast that we need to make sure we are constantly adapting our codes and standards. Those of us in the public sector need to lead the way.

As we set out to develop our National Data Strategy, getting the ethics right, particularly in the delivery of public services, is critical. To do this, it is essential that we agree collective standards and ethical frameworks.

Ethics and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Thinking carefully about how we use our data can help us be better at innovating when we use it.

Our new Data Ethics Framework sets out clear principles for how data should be used in the public sector. It will help us maximise the value of data whilst also setting the highest standards for transparency and accountability when building or buying new data technology.

We have come a long way since we published the first version of the Data Science Ethical Framework. This new version focuses on the need for technology, policy and operational specialists to work together, so we can make the most of expertise from across disciplines.

We want to work with others to develop transparent standards for using new technology in the public sector, promoting innovation in a safe and ethical way.

This framework will build the confidence in public sector data use needed to underpin a strong digital economy. I am looking forward to working with all of you to put it into practice…. (More)”

The Data Ethics Framework principles

1.Start with clear user need and public benefit

2.Be aware of relevant legislation and codes of practice

3.Use data that is proportionate to the user need

4.Understand the limitations of the data

5.Ensure robust practices and work within your skillset

6.Make your work transparent and be accountable

7.Embed data use responsibly

The Data Ethics Workbook

User Perceptions of Privacy in Smart Homes

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Serena Zheng, Marshini Chetty, and Nick Feamster: “Despite the increasing presence of Internet of Things (IoT) devices inside the home, we know little about how users feel about their privacy living with Internet-connected devices that continuously monitor and collect data in their homes. To gain insight into this state of affairs, we conducted eleven semi-structured interviews with owners of smart homes, investigating privacy values and expectations.

In this paper, we present the findings that emerged from our study: First, users prioritize the convenience and connectedness of their smart homes, and these values dictate their privacy opinions and behaviors. Second, user opinions about who should have access to their smart home data depend on the perceived benefit. Third, users assume their privacy is protected because they trust the manufacturers of their IoT devices. Our findings bring up several implications for IoT privacy, which include the need for design for privacy and evaluation standards….(More)”.

The Slippery Math of Causation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Pradeep Mutalik for Quanta Magazine: “You often hear the admonition “correlation does not imply causation.” But what exactly is causation? Unlike correlation, which has a specific mathematical meaning, causation is a slippery concept that has been debated by philosophers for millennia. It seems to get conflated with our intuitions or preconceived notions about what it means to cause something to happen. One common-sense definition might be to say that causation is what connects one prior process or agent — the cause — with another process or state — the effect. This seems reasonable, except that it is useful only when the cause is a single factor, and the connection is clear. But reality is rarely so simple.

Although we tend to credit or blame things on a single major cause, in nature and in science there are almost always multiple factors that have to be exactly right for an event to take place. For example, we might attribute a forest fire to the carelessly thrown cigarette butt, but what about the grassy tract leading to the forest, the dryness of the vegetation, the direction of the wind and so on? All of these factors had to be exactly right for the fire to start. Even though many tossed cigarette butts don’t start fires, we zero in on human actions as causes, ignoring other possibilities, such as sparks from branches rubbing together or lightning strikes, or acts of omission, such as failing to trim the grassy path short of the forest. And we tend to focus on things that can be manipulated: We overlook the direction of the wind because it is not something we can control. Our scientifically incomplete intuitive model of causality is nevertheless very useful in practice, and helps us execute remedial actions when causes are clearly defined. In fact, artificial intelligence pioneer Judea Pearl has published a new book about why it is necessary to teach cause and effect to intelligent machines.

However, clearly defined causes may not always exist. Complex, interdependent multifactorial causes arise often in nature and therefore in science. Most scientific disciplines focus on different aspects of causality in a simplified manner. Physicists may talk about causal influences being unable to propagate faster than the speed of light, while evolutionary biologists may discuss proximate and ultimate causes as mentioned in our previous puzzle on triangulation and motion sickness. But such simple situations are rare, especially in biology and the so-called “softer” sciences. In the world of genetics, the complex multifactorial nature of causality was highlighted in a recent Quanta article by Veronique Greenwood that described the intertwined effects of genes.

One well-known approach to understanding causality is to separate it into two types: necessary and sufficient….(More)”

How Citizens Can Hack EU Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Stephen Boucher at Carnegie Europe: “…To connect citizens with the EU’s decisionmaking center, European politicians will need to provide ways to effectively hack this complex system. These democratic hacks need to be visible and accessible, easily and immediately implementable, viable without requiring changes to existing European treaties, and capable of having a traceable impact on policy. Many such devices could be imagined around these principles. Here are three ideas to spur debate.

Hack 1: A Citizens’ Committee for the Future in the European Parliament

The European Parliament has proposed that twenty-seven of the seventy-three seats left vacant by Brexit should be redistributed among the remaining member states. According to one concept, the other forty-six unassigned seats could be used to recruit a contingent of ordinary citizens from around the EU to examine legislation from the long-term perspective of future generations. Such a “Committee for the Future” could be given the power to draft a response to a yearly report on the future produced by the president of the European Parliament, initiate debates on important political themes of their own choosing, make submissions on future-related issues to other committees, and be consulted by members of the European Parliament (MEPs) on longer-term matters.

MEPs could decide to use these forty-six vacant seats to invite this Committee for the Future to sit, at least on a trial basis, with yearly evaluations. This arrangement would have real benefits for EU politics, acting as an antidote to the union’s existential angst and helping the EU think systemically and for the longer term on matters such as artificial intelligence, biodiversity, climate concerns, demography, mobility, and energy.

Hack 2: An EU Participatory Budget

In 1989, the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, decided to cede control of a share of its annual budget for citizens to decide upon. This practice, known as participatory budgets, has since spread globally. As of 2015, over 1,500 instances of participatory budgets have been implemented across five continents. These processes generally have had a positive impact, with people proving that they take public spending matters seriously.

To replicate these experiences at the European level, the complex realities of EU budgeting would require specific features. First, participative spending probably would need to be both local and related to wider EU priorities in order to ensure that citizens see its relevance and its wider European implications. Second, significant resources would need to be allocated to help citizens come up with and promote projects. For instance, the city of Paris has ensured that each suggested project that meets the eligibility requirements has a desk officer within its administration to liaise with the idea’s promoters. It dedicates significant resources to reach out to citizens, in particular in the poorer neighborhoods of Paris, both online and face-to-face. Similar efforts would need to be deployed across Europe. And third, in order to overcome institutional complexities, the European Parliament would need to work with citizens as part of its role in negotiating the budget with the European Council.

Hack 3: An EU Collective Intelligence Forum

Many ideas have been put forward to address popular dissatisfaction with representative democracy by developing new forums such as policy labs, consensus conferences, and stakeholder facilitation groups. Yet many citizens still feel disenchanted with representative democracy, including at the EU level, where they also strongly distrust lobby groups. They need to be involved more purposefully in policy discussions.

A yearly Deliberative Poll could be run on a matter of significance, ahead of key EU summits and possibly around the president of the commission’s State of the Union address. On the model of the first EU-wide Deliberative Poll, Tomorrow’s Europe, this event would bring together in Brussels a random sample of citizens from all twenty-seven EU member states, and enable them to discuss various social, economic, and foreign policy issues affecting the EU and its member states. This concept would have a number of advantages in terms of promoting democratic participation in EU affairs. By inviting a truly representative sample of citizens to deliberate on complex EU matters over a weekend, within the premises of the European Parliament, the European Parliament would be the focus of a high-profile event that would draw media attention. This would be especially beneficial if—unlike Tomorrow’s Europe—the poll was not held at arm’s length by EU policymakers, but with high-level national officials attending to witness good-quality deliberation remolding citizens’ views….(More)”.

EU ministers endorse Commission’s plans for research cloud

Curated on Posted on by admin

European Commission: “The European Open Science Cloud, which will support EU science in its global leading by creating a trusted environment for hosting and processing research data, is one important step closer to becoming a reality. Meeting in Brussels today, EU research ministers endorsed the roadmap for its creation. The Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council, proposed by the current Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU, are the result of two years of intense negotiations….

According to Commissioner Moedas, much remains to be done to make the EOSC a reality by 2020, but several important aspects stand out:

  1. the Cloud should be a wide, pan-European federation of existing and emerging excellent infrastructures, which respects the governance and funding mechanisms of its components;
  2. membership in this federation would be voluntary; and
  3. the governance structure would include member state ministries, stakeholders and scientists.

 

…In another important step for Open Science, the Commission published today the final recommendations of the Open Science Policy Platform. Established in 2016, the platform comprises important stakeholders who advise the Commission on how to further develop and practically implement Open Science policy in order to improve radically the quality and impact of European science….(More)”.

Information to Action: Strengthening EPA Citizen Science Partnerships for Environmental Protection

Curated on Posted on by admin

Report by the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: “Citizen science is catalyzing collaboration; new data and information brought about by greater public participation in environmental research are helping to drive a new era of environmental protection. As the body of citizen-generated data and information in the public realm continues to grow, EPA must develop a clear strategy to lead change and encourage action beyond the collection of data. EPA should recognize the variety of opportunities that it has to act as a conduit between the public and key partners, including state, territorial, tribal and local governments; nongovernmental organizations; and leading technology groups in the private sector. The Agency should build collaborations with new partners, identify opportunities to integrate equity into all relationships, and ensure that grassroots and community-based organizations are well supported and fairly resourced in funding strategies.

Key recommendations under this theme:

  • Recommendation 1. Catalyze action from citizen science data and information by providing guidance and leveraging collaboration.
  • Recommendation 2. Build inclusive and equitable partnerships by understanding partners’ diverse concerns and needs, including prioritizing better support for grassroots and community-based partnerships in EPA grantfunding strategies.

Increase state, territorial, tribal and local government engagement with citizen science

The Agency should reach out to tribes, states, territories and local governments throughout the country to understand the best practices and strategies for encouraging and incorporating citizen science in environmental protection. For states and territories looking for ways to engage in citizen science, EPA can help design strategies that recognize the community perspectives while building capacity in state and territorial governments. Recognizing the direct Executive Summary Information to Action: Strengthening EPA Citizen Science Partnerships for Environmental Protection connection between EPA and tribes, the Agency should seek tribal input and support tribes in using citizen science for environmental priorities. EPA should help to increase awareness for citizen science and where jurisdictional efforts already exist, assist in making citizen science accessible through local government agencies. EPA should more proactively listen to the voices of local stakeholders and encourage partners to embrace a vision for citizen science to accelerate the achievement of environmental goals. As part of this approach, EPA should find ways to define and communicate the Agency’s role as a resource in helping communities achieve environmental outcomes.

Key recommendations under this theme:

  • Recommendation 3. Provide EPA support and engage states and territories to better integrate citizen science into program goals.
  • Recommendation 4. Build on the unique strengths of EPA-tribal relationships.
  • Recommendation 5. Align EPA citizen science work to the priorities of local governments.

Leverage external organizations for expertise and project level support

Collaborations between communities and other external organizations—including educational institutions, civic organizations, and community-based organizations— are accelerating the growth of citizen science. Because EPA’s direct connection with members of the public often is limited, the Agency could benefit significantly by consulting with key external organizations to leverage citizen science efforts to provide the greatest benefit for the protection of human health and the environment. EPA should look to external organizations as vital connections to communities engaged in collaboratively led scientific investigation to address community-defined questions, referred to as community citizen science. External organizations can help EPA in assessing gaps in community-driven research and help the Agency to design effective support tools and best management practices for facilitating effective environmental citizen science programs….(More)”.

Is ‘Innovocracy’ Hurting the Public Sector?

Curated on Posted on by admin

Katherine Barrett & Richard Greene at Governing: “Tom Shack has an unusual background for his job. Most state comptrollers have worked exclusively in finance and accounting. Before becoming comptroller of Massachusetts in 2015, Shack went to law school, taught college courses in entrepreneurship, and became an assistant district attorney.

When Shack took over the comptroller’s office, which has administrative and audit oversight over every state government agency, he quickly recognized an issue that he’s been trying to address ever since.

“One of the things I noticed right away, when working for government, is that there’s complete risk-aversion,” he says. “You have to be able to manage risk and avoid it when necessary.”

That tendency, he says, holds back innovation and progress. He and his staff have even made up a word for the phenomenon: “innovocracy, which in our vernacular means that though the government has come up with great innovative ideas, it then imposes a bureaucratic framework, thus crushing any entrepreneurial spirit associated with the idea.”

Take technology. Shack is frustrated by the typical approach to investing in new government IT….(More)”.

How the Math Men Overthrew the Mad Men

Curated on Posted on by admin

 in the New Yorker: “Once, Mad Men ruled advertising. They’ve now been eclipsed by Math Men—the engineers and data scientists whose province is machines, algorithms, pureed data, and artificial intelligence. Yet Math Men are beleaguered, as Mark Zuckerberg demonstrated when he humbled himself before Congress, in April. Math Men’s adoration of data—coupled with their truculence and an arrogant conviction that their “science” is nearly flawless—has aroused government anger, much as Microsoft did two decades ago.

The power of Math Men is awesome. Google and Facebook each has a market value exceeding the combined value of the six largest advertising and marketing holding companies. Together, they claim six out of every ten dollars spent on digital advertising, and nine out of ten new digital ad dollars. They have become more dominant in what is estimated to be an up to two-trillion-dollar annual global advertising and marketing business. Facebook alone generates more ad dollars than all of America’s newspapers, and Google has twice the ad revenues of Facebook.

In the advertising world, Big Data is the Holy Grail, because it enables marketers to target messages to individuals rather than general groups, creating what’s called addressable advertising. And only the digital giants possess state-of-the-art Big Data. “The game is no longer about sending you a mail order catalogue or even about targeting online advertising,” Shoshana Zuboff, a professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School, wrote on faz.net, in 2016. “The game is selling access to the real-time flow of your daily life—your reality—in order to directly influence and modify your behavior for profit.” Success at this “game” flows to those with the “ability to predict the future—specifically the future of behavior,” Zuboff writes. She dubs this “surveillance capitalism.”

However, to thrash just Facebook and Google is to miss the larger truth: everyone in advertising strives to eliminate risk by perfecting targeting data. Protecting privacy is not foremost among the concerns of marketers; protecting and expanding their business is. The business model adopted by ad agencies and their clients parallels Facebook and Google’s. Each aims to massage data to better identify potential customers. Each aims to influence consumer behavior. To appreciate how alike their aims are, sit in an agency or client marketing meeting and you will hear wails about Facebook and Google’s “walled garden,” their unwillingness to share data on their users. When Facebook or Google counter that they must protect “the privacy” of their users, advertisers cry foul: You’re using the data to target ads we paid for—why won’t you share it, so that we can use it in other ad campaigns?…(More)”

On Dimensions of Citizenship

Curated on Posted on by admin

Introduction by Niall Atkinson, Ann Lui, and Mimi Zeiger to a Special Exhibit and dedicated set of Essays: “We begin by defining citizenship as a cluster of rights, responsibilities, and attachments, and by positing their link to the built environment. Of course architectural examples of this affiliation—formal articulations of inclusion and exclusion—can seem limited and rote. The US-Mexico border wall (“The Wall,” to use common parlance) dominates the cultural imagination. As an architecture of estrangement, especially when expressed as monolithic prototypes staked in the San Diego-Tijuana landscape, the border wall privileges the rhetorical security of nationhood above all other definitions of citizenship—over the individuals, ecologies, economies, and communities in the region. And yet, as political theorist Wendy Brown points out, The Wall, like its many counterparts globally, is inherently fraught as both a physical infrastructure and a nationalist myth, ultimately racked by its own contradictions and paradoxes.

Calling border walls across the world “an ad hoc global landscape of flows and barriers,” Brown writes of the paradoxes that riddle any effort to distinguish the nation as a singular, cohesive form: “[O]ne irony of late modern walling is that a structure taken to mark and enforce an inside/outside distinction—a boundary between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and between friend and enemy—appears precisely the opposite when grasped as part of a complex of eroding lines between the police and the military, subject and patria, vigilante and state, law and lawlessness.”1 While 2018 is a moment when ideologies are most vociferously cast in binary rhetoric, the lived experience of citizenship today is rhizomic, overlapping, and distributed. A person may belong and feel rights and responsibilities to a neighborhood, a voting district, remain a part of an immigrant diaspora even after moving away from their home country, or find affiliation on an online platform. In 2017, Blizzard Entertainment, the maker of World of Warcraft, reported a user community of 46 million people across their international server network. Thus, today it is increasingly possible to simultaneously occupy multiple spaces of citizenship independent from the delineation of a formal boundary.

Conflict often makes visible emergent spaces of citizenship, as highlighted by recent acts both legislative and grassroots. Gendered bathrooms act as renewed sites of civil rights debate. Airports illustrate the thresholds of national control enacted by the recent Muslim bans. Such clashes uncover old scar tissue, violent histories and geographies of spaces. The advance of the Keystone XL pipeline across South Dakota, for example, brought the fight for indigenous sovereignty to the fore.

If citizenship itself designates a kind of border and the networks that traverse and ultimately elude such borders, then what kind of architecture might Dimensions of Citizenship offer in lieu of The Wall? What designed object, building, or space might speak to the heart of what and how it means to belong today? The participants in the United States Pavilion offer several of the clear and vital alternatives deemed so necessary by Samuel R. Delany: The Cobblestone. The Space Station. The Watershed.

Dimensions of Citizenship argues that citizenship is indissociable from the built environment, which is exactly why that relationship can be the source for generating or supporting new forms of belonging. These new forms may be more mutable and ephemeral, but no less meaningful and even, perhaps, ultimately more equitable. Through commissioned projects, and through film, video artworks, and responsive texts, Dimensions of Citizenship exhibits the ways that architects, landscape architects, designers, artists, and writers explore the changing form of citizenship: the different dimensions it can assume (legal, social, emotional) and the different dimensions (both actual and virtual) in which citizenship takes place. The works are valuably enigmatic, wide-ranging, even elusive in their interpretations, which is what contemporary conditions seem to demand. More often than not, the spaces of citizenship under investigation here are marked by histories of inequality and the violence imposed on people, non-human actors, ecologies. Our exhibition features spaces and individuals that aim to manifest the democratic ideals of inclusion against the grain of broader systems: new forms of “sharing economy” platforms, the legacies of the Underground Railroad, tenuous cross-national alliances at the border region, or the seemingly Sisyphean task of buttressing coastline topologies against the rising tides….(More)”.

Why Policymakers Should Care About “Big Data” in Healthcare

Curated on Posted on by admin

David W.Bates et al at Health Policy and Technology: “The term “big data” has gotten increasing popular attention, and there is growing focus on how such data can be used to measure and improve health and healthcare. Analytic techniques for extracting information from these data have grown vastly more powerful, and they are now broadly available. But for these approaches to be most useful, large amounts of data must be available, and barriers to use should be low. We discuss how “smart cities” are beginning to invest in this area to improve the health of their populations; provide examples around model approaches for making large quantities of data available to researchers and clinicians among other stakeholders; discuss the current state of big data approaches to improve clinical care including specific examples, and then discuss some of the policy issues around and examples of successful regulatory approaches, including deidentification and privacy protection….(More)”.