Democratizing and technocratizing the notice-and-comment process

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Reeve T. Bull: “…When enacting the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress was not entirely clear on the extent to which it intended the agency to take into account public opinion as reflected in comments or merely to sift the comments for relevant information. This tension has simmered for years, but it never posed a major problem since the vast majority of rules garnered virtually no public interest.

Even now, most rules still generate a very anemic response. Internet submission has vastly simplified the process of filing a comment, however, and a handful of rules generate “mass comment” responses of hundreds of thousands or even millions of submissions. In these cases, as the net neutrality incident showed, individual commenters and even private firms have begun to manipulate the process by using computer algorithms to generate comments and, in some instances, affix false identities. As a result, agencies can no longer ignore the problem.

Nevertheless, technological progress is not necessarily a net negative for agencies. It also presents extraordinary opportunities to refine the notice-and-comment process and generate more valuable feedback. Moreover, if properly channeled, technological improvements can actually provide the remedies to many of the new problems that agencies have encountered. And other, non-technological reforms can address most, if not all of, the other newly emerging challenges. Indeed, if agencies are open-minded and astute, they can both “democratize” the public participation process, creating new and better tools for ascertaining public opinion (to the extent it is relevant in any given rule), and “technocratize” it at the same time, expanding and perfecting avenues for obtaining expert feedback….

As with many aspects of modern life, technological change that once was greeted with naive enthusiasm has now created enormous challenges. As a recent study for the Administrative Conference of the United States (for which I served as a co-consultant) has found, agencies can deploy technological tools to address at least some of these problems. For instance, so-called “deduplication software” can identify and group comments that come from different sources but that contain large blocks of identical text and therefore were likely copied from a common source. Bundling these comments can greatly reduce processing time. Agencies can also undertake various steps to combat unwanted computer-generated or falsely attributed comments, including quarantining such comments and issuing commenting policies discouraging their submission. A recently adopted set of ACUS recommendations partly based on the report offer helpful guidance to agencies on this front.

Unfortunately, as technology evolves, new challenges will emerge. As noted in the ACUS report, agencies are relatively unconcerned with duplicate comments since they possess the technological tools to process them. Yet artificial intelligence has evolved to the point that computer algorithms can produce comments that are both indistinguishable from human comments and at least facially appear to contain unique and relevant information. In one recent study, an algorithm generated and submitted…(More)”

Facial Recognition Technology: Responsible Use Principles and the Legislative Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by James Lewis: “…Criticism of FRT is too often based on a misunderstanding about the technology. A good starting point to change this is to clarify the distinction between FRT and facial characterization. FRT compares two images and asks how likely it is that one image is the same as the other. The best FRT is more accurate than humans at matching images. In contrast, “facial analysis” or “facial characterization” examines an image and then tries to characterize it by gender, age, or race. Much of the critique of FRT is actually about facial characterization. Claims about FRT inaccuracy are either out of date or mistakenly talking about facial characterization. Of course, accuracy depends on how FRT is used. When picture quality is poor, accuracy is lower but often still better than the average human. A 2021 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that accuracy had improved dramatically and that more accurate systems were less likely to make errors based on race or gender. This confusion hampers the development of effective rules.

Some want to ban FRT, but it will continue to be developed and deployed because of the convenience for consumers and the benefits to public safety. Continued progress in sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) will increase availability and performance of the technologies used for facial recognition. Stopping the development of FRT would require stopping the development of AI, and that is neither possible nor in the national interest. This report provides a list of guardrails to guide the development of law and regulation for civilian use….(More)”.

Bring American cities into the 21st century by funding urban innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Dan Doctoroff and Richard Florida: “The U.S. is on the verge of the fourth revolution in urban technology. Where railroads, the electric grid, and the automobile defined previous eras, today, new strategies that integrate new technologies in our cities can unlock striking possibilities.

Our buildings can be dramatically more sustainable, adaptable, and affordable. Energy systems and physical infrastructure can fulfill the promise of “climate-positive” development. Secure digital infrastructure can connect people and improve services while safeguarding privacy. We can deploy mobility solutions that regulate the flow of people and vehicles in real time, ease traffic, and cut carbon emissions. Innovative social infrastructure can enable new service models to build truly inclusive communities. 

Congress and the administration are currently negotiating a reconciliation package that is intended to put the U.S. on a path to a sustainable and equitable future. However, this mission will not succeed without meaningful investments in technical solutions that recognize the frontline role of cities and urban counties in so many national priorities.

U.S. cities are still built, connected, powered, heated, and run much as they have been for the past 75 years. Cities continue to generally rely on “dumb” infrastructure, such as the classic traffic light, which can direct traffic and do little else. 

When Detroit deployed the first red-yellow-green automatic traffic light in the 1920s, it pioneered state-of-the art traffic management. Soon, there was a traffic light at every major intersection in America, and it has remained an icon of urban technology ever since. Relying on 100-year-old technology isn’t all that unusual in our cities. If you look closely at any American city, you will see it’s rather the rule. While our policy needs and technical capabilities have changed dramatically, the urban systems U.S. cities rely on have remained essentially frozen in time since the Second World War.  

We must leverage today’s technology and use artificial intelligence, machine learning, data analytics, connected infrastructure, cloud computing, and automation to run our cities. That is why we have come together to help forge a new initiative, the Coalition for Urban Innovation, to reimagine urban infrastructure for the future. Consisting of leading urban thinkers, businesses, and nonprofits, the coalition is calling on Congress and the administration to seize this generational opportunity to finally unlock the potential of cities as powerful levers for tackling climate change, promoting inclusion, and otherwise addressing our thorniest challenges…(More)”.

The Pivot: Addressing Global Problems Through Local Action

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Steve Hamm: “When the world reemerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems likely that it will have transformed irrevocably. Can societies already reeling from climate change, income inequality, and structural racism change for the better? Does the shock of the pandemic offer an opportunity to pivot to a more sustainable way of life?

Early in the crisis, a global volunteer collaboration called Pivot Projects was formed to rethink how the world works. Some members are experts in the sciences and the humanities; others are environmental activists or regular people who see themselves as world citizens. In The Pivot, the journalist Steve Hamm—who embedded in the enterprise from the start—explores their efforts and shows how their approach provides a model for achieving systemic change. Chronicling the group’s progress along an uncharted path, he shows how people with a variety of skills and personalities collaborate to get things done.

Through their work, Hamm examines some of today’s most important technologies and concepts, such as systems thinking and modeling, complexity theory, artificial intelligence, and new thinking about resilience. The book features vivid, informal profiles of a number of the group’s members and brings to life the excitement and energy of dynamic, smart people trying to change the world.

Part journal of a plague year and part call to action, The Pivot tells the remarkable story of a collaborative experiment seeking to make the world more sustainable and resilient..(More)”.

Americans Need a Bill of Rights for an AI-Powered World

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Eric Lander and Alondra Nelson: “…Soon after ratifying our Constitution, Americans adopted a Bill of Rights to guard against the powerful government we had just created—enumerating guarantees such as freedom of expression and assembly, rights to due process and fair trials, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Throughout our history we have had to reinterpret, reaffirm, and periodically expand these rights. In the 21st century, we need a “bill of rights” to guard against the powerful technologies we have created.

Our country should clarify the rights and freedoms we expect data-driven technologies to respect. What exactly those are will require discussion, but here are some possibilities: your right to know when and how AI is influencing a decision that affects your civil rights and civil liberties; your freedom from being subjected to AI that hasn’t been carefully audited to ensure that it’s accurate, unbiased, and has been trained on sufficiently representative data sets; your freedom from pervasive or discriminatory surveillance and monitoring in your home, community, and workplace; and your right to meaningful recourse if the use of an algorithm harms you. 

Of course, enumerating the rights is just a first step. What might we do to protect them? Possibilities include the federal government refusing to buy software or technology products that fail to respect these rights, requiring federal contractors to use technologies that adhere to this “bill of rights,” or adopting new laws and regulations to fill gaps. States might choose to adopt similar practices….(More)”.

Volunteers Sped Up Alzheimer’s Research

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by SciStarter: “Across the United States, 5.7 million people are living with Alzheimer’s disease, the seventh leading cause of death in America. But there is still no treatment or cure. Alzheimer’s hits close to home for many of us who have seen loved ones suffer and who feel hopeless in the face of this disease. With Stall Catchers, an online citizen science project, joining the fight against Alzheimer’s is as easy as playing an online computer game…

Scientists at Cornell University found a link between “stalled” blood vessels in the brain and the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. These stalled vessels limit blood flow to the brain by up to 30 percent. In experiments with laboratory mice, when the blood cells causing the stalls were removed, the mice performed better on memory tests.about:blankabout:blank

The researchers are working to develop Alzheimer’s treatments that remove the stalls in mice in the hope they can apply these methods to humans. But analyzing the brain images to find the stalled capillaries is hard and time consuming. It could take a trained laboratory technician six to 12 months to analyze each week’s worth of data collection.

So, Cornell researchers created Stall Catchers to make finding the stalled blood vessels into a game that anyone can play. The game relies on the power of the crowd — multiple confirmed answers — before determining whether a vessel is stalled or flowing…

Since its inception is 2016, he project has grown steadily, addressing various datasets and uncovering new insights about Alzheimer’s disease. Citizen scientists who play the game identify blood vessels as “flowing” or “stalled,” earning points for their classifications.

One way Stall Catchers makes this research fun is by allowing volunteers to form teams and engage in friendly competition…(More)”.

Old Dog, New Tricks: Retraining and the Road to Government Reform

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Beth Noveck: “…To be sure, one strategy for modernizing government is hiring new people with fresh skills in the fields of technology, data science, design, and marketing. Today, only 6 percent of the federal workforce is under 30 and, if age is any proxy for mastery of these in-demand new skills, then efforts by non-profits such as the Partnership for Public Service and the Tech Talent Project to attract a younger generation to work in the public sector are crucial. But we will not reinvent government fast enough through hiring alone.

The crucial and overlooked mechanism for improving government effectiveness is, therefore, to change how people work by training public servants across departments to use data and collective intelligence at each stage of the problem-solving process to foster more informed decision-making, more innovative solutions to problems, and more agile implementation of what works. All around the world we have witnessed how, when public servants work differently, government solves problems better.

Jonathan Wachtel, the lone city planner in Lakewood, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, has been able to undertake 500 sustainability projects because he knows how to collaborate and codesign with a network of 20,000 residents. When former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu launched an initiative to start using data and resident engagement to address the city’s abysmal murder rate, that effort led to a 25 percent reduction in homicides in two years and a further decline to its lowest levels in 50 years by 2019. Because Samir Brahmachari, former Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, of the government of India, turned to crowdsourcing and engaged the assistance of 7,900 contributors, he was able to identify six already-approved drugs that showed promised in the fight against tuberculosis….(More)”.

The Downside to State and Local Privacy Regulations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

GovTech: “To fight back against cyber threats, state and local governments have started to implement tighter privacy regulations. But is this trend a good thing? Or do stricter rules present more challenges than they do solutions?

According to Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, one of the main issues with stricter privacy regulations is having no centralized rules for states to follow.

“Probably the biggest problem is states setting up a set of contradictory overlapping rules across the country,” Castro said. “This creates a serious cost on organizations and businesses. They can abide by 50 state privacy laws, but there could be different regulations across local jurisdictions.”

One example of a hurdle for organizations and businesses is local jurisdictions creating specific rules for facial recognition and biometric technology.

“Let’s say a company starts selling a smart doorbell service; because of these rules, this service might not be able to be legally sold in one jurisdiction,” Castro said.

Another concern relates to the distinction between government data collection and commercial data collection, said Washington state Chief Privacy Officer Katy Ruckle. Sometimes there is a notion that one law can apply to everything, but different data types involve different types of rights for individuals.

“An example I like to use is somebody that’s been committed to a mental health institution for mental health needs,” Ruckle said. “Their data collection is very different from somebody buying a vacuum cleaner off Amazon.”

On the topic of governments collecting data, Castro emphasized the importance of knowing how data will be utilized in order to set appropriate privacy regulations….(More)”

The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Jonathan Rauch: “Disinformation. Trolling. Conspiracies. Social media pile-ons. Campus intolerance. On the surface, these recent additions to our daily vocabulary appear to have little in common. But together, they are driving an epistemic crisis: a multi-front challenge to America’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction and elevate truth above falsehood.

In 2016 Russian trolls and bots nearly drowned the truth in a flood of fake news and conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump and his troll armies continued to do the same. Social media companies struggled to keep up with a flood of falsehoods, and too often didn’t even seem to try. Experts and some public officials began wondering if society was losing its grip on truth itself. Meanwhile, another new phenomenon appeared: “cancel culture.” At the push of a button, those armed with a cellphone could gang up by the thousands on anyone who ran afoul of their sanctimony.

In this pathbreaking book, Jonathan Rauch reaches back to the parallel eighteenth-century developments of liberal democracy and science to explain what he calls the “Constitution of Knowledge”—our social system for turning disagreement into truth.

By explicating the Constitution of Knowledge and probing the war on reality, Rauch arms defenders of truth with a clearer understanding of what they must protect, why they must do so—and how they can do it. His book is a sweeping and readable description of how every American can help defend objective truth and free inquiry from threats as far away as Russia and as close as the cellphone…(More)”.

Nudgeability: Mapping Conditions of Susceptibility to Nudge Influence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Denise de Ridder, Floor Kroese, and Laurens van Gestel: “Nudges are behavioral interventions to subtly steer citizens’ choices toward “desirable” options. An important topic of debate concerns the legitimacy of nudging as a policy instrument, and there is a focus on issues relating to nudge transparency, the role of preexisting preferences people may have, and the premise that nudges primarily affect people when they are in “irrational” modes of thinking. Empirical insights into how these factors affect the extent to which people are susceptible to nudge influence (i.e., “nudgeable”) are lacking in the debate. This article introduces the new concept of nudgeability and makes a first attempt to synthesize the evidence on when people are responsive to nudges. We find that nudge effects do not hinge on transparency or modes of thinking but that personal preferences moderate effects such that people cannot be nudged into something they do not want. We conclude that, in view of these findings, concerns about nudging legitimacy should be softened and that future research should attend to these and other conditions of nudgeability….(More)”.