Surveillance pricing: How your data determines what you pay

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Douglas Crawford: “Surveillance pricing, also known as personalized or algorithmic pricing, is a practice where companies use your personal data, such as your location, the device you’re using, your browsing history, and even your income, to determine what price to show you. It’s not just about supply and demand — it’s about you as a consumer and how much the system thinks you’re able (or willing) to pay.

Have you ever shopped online for a flight(new window), only to find that the price mysteriously increased the second time you checked? Or have you and a friend searched for the same hotel room on your phones, only to find your friend sees a lower price? This isn’t a glitch — it’s surveillance pricing at work.

In the United States, surveillance pricing is becoming increasingly prevalent across various industries, including airlines, hotels, and e-commerce platforms. It exists elsewhere, but in other parts of the world, such as the European Union, there is a growing recognition of the danger this pricing model presents to citizens’ privacy, resulting in stricter data protection laws aimed at curbing it. The US appears to be moving in the opposite direction…(More)”.

In a world first, Brazilians will soon be able to sell their digital data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Gabriel Daros: “Last month, Brazil announced it is rolling out a data ownership pilot that will allow its citizens to manage, own, and profit from their digital footprint — the first such nationwide initiative in the world. 

The project is administered by Dataprev, a state-owned company that provides technological solutions for the government’s social programs. Dataprev is partnering with DrumWave, a California-based data valuation and monetization firm.

Today, “people get nothing from the data they share,” Brittany Kaiser, co-founder of the Own Your Data Foundation and board adviser for DrumWave, told Rest of World. “Brazil has decided its citizens should have ownership rights over their data.”

In monetizing users’ data, Brazil is ahead of the U.S., where a 2019 “data dividend” initiative by California Governor Gavin Newsom never took off. The city of Chicago successfully monetizes government data including transportation and education. If implemented, Brazil’s will be the first public-private partnership that allows citizens, rather than companies, to get a share of the global data market, currently valued at $4 billion and expected to grow to over $40 billion by 2034.

The pilot involves a small group of Brazilians who will use data wallets for payroll loans. When users apply for a new loan, the data in the contract will be collected in the data wallets, which companies will be able to bid on. Users will have the option to opt out. It works much like third-party cookies, but instead of simply accepting or declining, people can choose to make money…(More)”.

Project Push creates an archive of news alerts from around the world

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Neel Dhanesha: “A little over a year ago, Matt Taylor began to feel like he was getting a few too many push notifications from the BBC News app.

It’s a feeling many of us can probably relate to. Many people, myself included, have turned off news notifications entirely in the past few months. Taylor, however, went in the opposite direction.

Instead of turning off notifications, he decided to see how the BBC — the most popular news app in the U.K., where Taylor lives —  compared to other news organizations around the world. So he dug out an old Google Pixel phone, downloaded 61 news apps onto it, and signed up for push notifications on all of them.

As notifications roll in, a custom-built script (made with the help of ChatGPT) uploads their text to a server and a Bluesky page, providing a near real-time view of push notifications from services around the world. Taylor calls it Project Push.

People who work in news “take the front page very seriously,” said Taylor, a product manager at the Financial Times who built Project Push in his spare time. “There are lots of editors who care a lot about that, but actually one of the most important people in the newsroom is the person who decides that they’re going to press a button that sends an immediate notification to millions of people’s phones.”

The Project Push feed is a fascinating portrait of the news today. There are the expected alerts — breaking news, updates to ongoing stories like the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the latest shenanigans in Washington — but also:

— Updates on infrastructure plans that, without the context, become absolutely baffling (a train will instead be a bus?).

— Naked attempts to increase engagement.

— Culture updates that some may argue aren’t deserving of a push alert from the Associated Press.

— Whatever this is.

Taylor tells me he’s noticed some geographic differences in how news outlets approach push notifications. Publishers based in Asia and the Middle East, for example, send far more notifications than European or American ones; CNN Indonesia alone pushed about 17,000 of the 160,000 or so notifications Project Push has logged over the past year…(More)”.

Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik: “In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power.

Mr. Trump has not publicly talked about the effort since. But behind the scenes, officials have quietly put technological building blocks into place to enable his plan. In particular, they have turned to one company: Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm.

The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government in recent months. The company has received more than $113 million in federal government spending since Mr. Trump took office, according to public records, including additional funds from existing contracts as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. (This does not include a $795 million contract that the Department of Defense awarded the company last week, which has not been spent.)

Representatives of Palantir are also speaking to at least two other agencies — the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service — about buying its technology, according to six government officials and Palantir employees with knowledge of the discussions.

The push has put a key Palantir product called Foundry into at least four federal agencies, including D.H.S. and the Health and Human Services Department. Widely adopting Foundry, which organizes and analyzes data, paves the way for Mr. Trump to easily merge information from different agencies, the government officials said…(More)“

Creating detailed portraits of Americans based on government data is not just a pipe dream. The Trump administration has already sought access to hundreds of data points on citizens and others through government databases, including their bank account numbers, the amount of their student debt, their medical claims and any disability status…(More)”.

The Global Data Barometer 2nd edition: A Shared Compass for Navigating the Data Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Global Data Barometer: “Across the globe, we’re at a turning point. From artificial intelligence and digital governance to public transparency and service delivery, data is now a fundamental force shaping how our societies function and who they serve. It holds tremendous promise to drive inclusive growth, foster accountability, and support urgent action on global challenges. And yet, access to high-quality, usable data is becoming increasingly constrained.

Some, like Verhulst (2024), have begun calling this moment a “data winter,” a period marked by shrinking openness, rising inequality in access, and growing fragmentation in how data is governed and used. This trend poses a risk not just to innovation but to the democratic values that underpin trust, participation, and accountability.

In this complex landscape, evidence matters more than ever. That is why we are proud to launch the Second Edition of the Global Data Barometer (GDB), a collaborative and comparative study that tracks the state of data for the public good across 43 countries, with a focused lens on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and Africa…

The Barometer tracks countries across four dimensions: governance, capabilities, and availability, while also exploring key cross-cutting areas like AI readiness, inclusion, and data use. Here are some of the key takeaways:

  • The Implementation Gap

Many countries have adopted laws and frameworks for data governance, but there is a stark gap between policy and practice. Without strong institutions and dedicated capacity, even well-designed frameworks fall short.

  • The Role of Skills and Infrastructure

Data does not flow or translate into value without people and systems in place. Across both Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa, we see underinvestment in public sector skills, training, and the infrastructure needed to manage and reuse data effectively.

  • AI Is Moving Faster Than Governance

AI is increasingly present in national strategies, but very few countries have clear policies to guide its ethical use. Governance frameworks rarely address issues like algorithmic bias, data quality, or the accountability of AI-driven decision-making.

  • Open Data Needs Reinvestment

Many countries once seen as open data champions are struggling to sustain their efforts. Legal mandates are not always matched by technical implementation or resources. As a result, open data initiatives risk losing momentum.

  • Transparency Tools Are Missing

Key datasets that support transparency and anti-corruption, such as lobbying registers, beneficial ownership data, and political finance records, are often missing or fragmented. This makes it hard to follow the money or hold institutions to account.

  • Inclusion Is Still Largely Symbolic

Despite commitments to equity, inclusive data governance remains the exception. Data is rarely published in Indigenous or widely spoken non-official languages. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is often treated as a recommendation rather than a requirement.

  • Interoperability Remains a Barrier

Efforts to connect datasets across government, such as on procurement, company data, or political integrity, are rare. Without common standards or identifiers, it is difficult to track influence or evaluate policy impact holistically…(More)”.

How Canada Needs to Respond to the US Data Crisis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Danielle Goldfarb: “The United States is cutting and undermining official US data across a wide range of domains, eroding the foundations of evidence-based policy making. This is happening mostly under the radar here in Canada, buried by news about US President Donald Trump’s barrage of tariffs and many other alarming actions. Doing nothing in response means Canada accepts blind spots in critical areas. Instead, this country should respond by investing in essential data and building the next generation of trusted public intelligence.

The United States has cut or altered more than 2,000 official data sets across the science, health, climate and development sectors, according to the National Security Archive. Deep staff cuts across all program areas effectively cancel or deeply erode many other statistical programs….

Even before this data purge, official US data methods were becoming less relevant and reliable. Traditional government surveys lag by weeks or months and face declining participation. This lag proved particularly problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic and also now, when economic data with a one- or two-month lag is largely irrelevant for tracking the real-time impact of constantly shifting Trump tariffs….

With deep ties to the United States, Canada needs to take action to reduce these critical blind spots. This challenge brings a major strength into the picture: Canada’s statistical agencies have strong reputations as trusted, transparent information sources.

First, Canada should strengthen its data infrastructure. Official Canadian data suffers from similar delays and declining response rates as in the United States. Statistics Canada needs a renewed mandate and stable resources to produce policy-relevant indicators, especially in a timelier way, and in areas where US data has been cut or compromised.

Second, Canada could also act as a trusted place to store vulnerable indicators — inventorying missing data sets, archiving those at risk and coordinating global efforts to reconstruct essential metrics.

Third, Canada has an opportunity to lead in shaping the next generation of trusted and better public-interest intelligence…(More)”.

The Teacher in the Machine: A Human History of Education Technology

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Anne Trumbore: “From AI tutors who ensure individualized instruction but cannot do math to free online courses from elite universities that were supposed to democratize higher education, claims that technological innovations will transform education often fall short. Yet, as Anne Trumbore shows in The Teacher in the Machine, the promises of today’s cutting-edge technologies aren’t new. Long before the excitement about the disruptive potential of generative AI–powered tutors and massive open online courses, scholars at Stanford, MIT, and the University of Illinois in the 1960s and 1970s were encouraged by the US government to experiment with computers and artificial intelligence in education. Trumbore argues that the contrast between these two eras of educational technology reveals the changing role of higher education in the United States as it shifted from a public good to a private investment.

Writing from a unique insider’s perspective and drawing on interviews with key figures, historical research, and case studies, Trumbore traces today’s disparate discussions about generative AI, student loan debt, and declining social trust in higher education back to their common origins at a handful of elite universities fifty years ago. Arguing that those early educational experiments have resonance today, Trumbore points the way to a more equitable and collaborative pedagogical future. Her account offers a critical lens on the history of technology in education just as universities and students seek a stronger hand in shaping the future of their institutions…(More)”

Measuring the Shade Coverage of Trees and Buildings in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Amirhosein Shabrang, Mehdi Pourpeikari Heris, and Travis Flohr: “We investigated the spatial shade patterns of trees and buildings on sidewalks and bike lanes in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We used Lidar data and 3D modeling to analyze the spatial and temporal shade distribution across the City. Our analysis shows significant shade variations throughout the City. Western city areas receive more shade from trees, and the eastern regions receive more shade from buildings. The City’s northern areas lack shade, but natural and built sources of shade can improve shade coverage integration. This study’s findings help identify shade coverage gaps, which have implications for urban planning and design for more heat-resilient cities…(More)”

Who Is Government?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Michael Lewis: “The government is a vast, complex system that Americans pay for, rebel against, rely upon, dismiss, and celebrate. It’s also our shared resource for addressing the biggest problems of society. And it’s made up of people, mostly unrecognized and uncelebrated, doing work that can be deeply consequential and beneficial to everyone.

Michael Lewis invited his favorite writers, including Casey Cep, Dave Eggers, John Lanchester, Geraldine Brooks, Sarah Vowell, and W. Kamau Bell, to join him in finding someone doing an interesting job for the government and writing about them. The stories they found are unexpected, riveting, and inspiring, including a former coal miner devoted to making mine roofs less likely to collapse, saving thousands of lives; an IRS agent straight out of a crime thriller; and the manager who made the National Cemetery Administration the best-run organization, public or private, in the entire country. Each essay shines a spotlight on the essential behind-the-scenes work of exemplary federal employees.

Whether they’re digitizing archives, chasing down cybercriminals, or discovering new planets, these public servants are committed to their work and universally reluctant to take credit. Expanding on the Washington Post series, the vivid profiles in Who Is Government? blow up the stereotype of the irrelevant bureaucrat. They show how the essential business of government makes our lives possible, and how much it matters…(More)”.

Computer Science and the Law

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Steven M. Bellovin: “There were three U.S. technical/legal developments occurring in approximately 1993 that had a profound effect on the technology industry and on many technologists. More such developments are occurring with increasing frequency.

The three developments were, in fact, technically unrelated. One was a bill before the U.S. Congress for a standardized wiretap interface in phone switches, a concept that spread around the world under the generic name of “lawful intercept.” The second was an update to the copyright statute to adapt to the digital age. While there were some useful changes—caching proxies and ISPs transmitting copyrighted material were no longer to be held liable for making illegal copies of protected content—it also provided an easy way for careless or unscrupulous actors—including bots—to request takedown of perfectly legal material. The third was the infamous Clipper chip, an encryption device that provided a backdoor for the U.S.—and only the U.S.—government.

All three of these developments could be and were debated on purely legal or policy grounds. But there were also technical issues. Thus, one could argue on legal grounds that the Clipper chip granted the government unprecedented powers, powers arguably in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That, of course, is a U.S. issue—but technologists, including me, pointed out the technical risks of deploying a complex cryptographic protocol, anywhere in the world (and many other countries have since expressed similar desires). Sure enough, Matt Blaze showed how to abuse the Clipper chip to let it do backdoor-free encryption, and at least two other mechanisms for adding backdoors to encryption protocols were shown to have flaws that allowed malefactors to read data that others had encrypted.

These posed a problem: debating some issues intelligently required not just a knowledge of law or of technology, but of both. That is, some problems cannot be discussed purely on technical grounds or purely on legal grounds; the crux of the matter lies in the intersection.

Consider, for example, the difference between content and metadata in a communication. Metadata alone is extremely powerful; indeed, Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and the NSA, once said, “We kill people based on metadata.” The combination of content and metadata is of course even more powerful. However, under U.S. law (and the legal reasoning is complex and controversial), the content of a phone call is much more strongly protected than the metadata: who called whom, when, and for how long they spoke. But how does this doctrine apply to the Internet, a network that provides far more powerful abilities to the endpoints in a conversation? (Metadata analysis is not an Internet-specific phenomenon. The militaries of the world have likely been using it for more than a century.) You cannot begin to answer that question without knowing not just how the Internet actually works, but also the legal reasoning behind the difference. It took more than 100 pages for some colleagues and I, three computer scientists and a former Federal prosecutor, to show how the line between content and metadata can be drawn in some cases (and that the Department of Justice’s manuals and some Federal judges got the line wrong), but that in other cases, there is no possible line1 

Newer technologies pose the same sorts of risks…(More)”.