Asia – Page 25 – The Living Library

Seeing and Being Seen

Curated on March 6, 2019March 6, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Russell C. Bogue in The Hedgehog Review: “On May 20, 2013, a pale, nervous American landed in Hong Kong and made his way to the Mira Hotel. Once there, he met with reporters from The Guardian and the Washington Post and turned over thousands of documents his high-level security clearance had enabled him to acquire while working as a contractor for the National Security Agency. Soon after this exchange, the world learned about PRISM, a top-secret NSA program that granted (court-ordered) direct access to Facebook, Apple, Google, and other US Internet giants, including users’ search histories, e-mails, file transfers, and live chats.1 Additionally, Verizon had been providing information to the NSA on an “ongoing, daily basis” about customers’ telephone calls, including location data and call duration (although not the content of conversations).2 Everyone, in short, was being monitored. Glenn Greenwald, one of the first journalists to meet with Edward Snowden, and one of his most vocal supporters, wrote later that “the NSA is collecting all forms of electronic communications between Americans…and thereby attempting by definition to destroy any remnants of privacy both in the US and globally.”3

According to a 2014 Pew Research Center poll, fully 91 percent of Americans believe they have lost control over their personal information.4 What is such a public to do? Anxious computer owners have taken to covering their devices’ built-in cameras with bits of tape.5Messaging services tout their end-to-end encryption.6 Researchers from Harvard Business School have started investigating the effectiveness of those creepy online ads that seem to know a little too much about your preferences.7

For some, this pushback has come far too late to be of any use. In a recent article in The Atlantic depressingly titled “Welcome to the Age of Privacy Nihilism,” Ian Bogost observes that we have already become unduly reliant on services that ask us to relinquish personal data in exchange for convenience. To reassert control over one’s privacy, one would have to abstain from credit card activity and use the Internet only sparingly. The worst part? We don’t get the simple pleasure of blaming this state of affairs on Big Government or the tech giants. Instead, our enemy is, as Bogost intones, “a hazy murk, a chilling, Lovecraftian murmur that can’t be seen, let alone touched, let alone vanquished.”8

The enemy may be a bit closer to home, however. While we fear being surveilled, recorded, and watched, especially when we are unaware, we also compulsively expose ourselves to others….(More)”.

The role of information and communications technology in the transformation of government and citizen trust

Curated on March 5, 2019March 5, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Mohamed Mahmood et al in the International Review of Administrative Sciences: “We present an empirically tested conceptual model based on exit–voice theory to study the influence of information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government on citizen trust in government. We conceptualize and address the key factors affecting the influence of transformation of government on citizen trust, including government performance and transparency. Based on 313 survey responses from citizens in Bahrain, the top-ranked country in information and communications technology adoption in the Gulf Cooperation Council region, we test government performance and transparency as mediators between transformation of government and citizen trust. The resulting preliminary insights on the measurement and manifestation of citizen trust in the context of information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government have multiple policy implications and extend our understanding of how information and communications technology-enabled transformation of government can improve the government–citizen relationship and digital services adoption….(More)”.

Whose Rules? The Quest for Digital Standards

Curated on February 23, 2019February 23, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Stephanie Segal at CSIS: “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan made news at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month when he announced Japan’s aspiration to make the G20 summit in Osaka a launch pad for “world-wide data governance.” This is not the first time in recent memory that Japan has taken a leadership role on an issue of keen economic importance. Most notably, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lives on as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), thanks in large part to Japan’s efforts to keep the trading bloc together after President Trump announced U.S. withdrawal from the TPP. But it’s in the area of data and digital governance that Japan’s efforts will perhaps be most consequential for future economic growth.

Data has famously been called “the new oil” in the global economy. A 2016 report by the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that global data flows contributed $2.8 trillion in value to the global economy back in 2014, while cross-border data flows and digital trade continue to be key drivers of global trade and economic growth. Japan’s focus on data and digital governance is therefore consistent with its recent efforts to support global growth, deepen global trade linkages, and advance regional and global standards.

Data governance refers to the rules directing the collection, processing, storage, and use of data. The proliferation of smart devices and the emergence of a data-driven Internet of Things portends an exponential growth in digital data. At the same time, recent reporting on overly aggressive commercial practices of personal data collection, as well as the separate topic of illegal data breaches, have elevated public awareness and interest in the laws and policies that govern the treatment of data, and personal data in particular. Finally, a growing appreciation of data’s central role in driving innovation and future technological and economic leadership is generating concern in many capitals that different data and digital governance standards and regimes will convey a competitive (dis)advantage to certain countries.

Bringing these various threads together—the inevitable explosion of digital data; the need to protect an individual’s right to privacy; and the appreciation that data has economic value and conveys economic advantage—is precisely why Japan’s initiative is both timely and likely to face significant challenges….(More)”.

The Role of Big Data Analytics in Predicting Suicide

Curated on February 20, 2019February 21, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Chapter by Ronald C. Kessler et al: “…reviews the long history of using electronic medical records and other types of big data to predict suicide. Although a number of the most recent of these studies used machine learning (ML) methods, these studies were all suboptimal both in the features used as predictors and in the analytic approaches used to develop the prediction models. We review these limitations and describe opportunities for making improvements in future applications.

We also review the controversy among clinical experts about using structured suicide risk assessment tools (be they based on ML or older prediction methods) versus in-depth clinical evaluations of needs for treatment planning. Rather than seeing them as competitors, we propose integrating these different approaches to capitalize on their complementary strengths. We also emphasize the distinction between two types of ML analyses: those aimed at predicting which patients are at highest suicide risk, and those aimed at predicting the treatment options that will be best for individual patients. We explain why both are needed to optimize the value of big data ML methods in addressing the suicide problem….(More)”.

Shutting down the internet doesn’t work – but governments keep doing it

Curated on February 20, 2019February 20, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

George Ogola in The Conversation: “As the internet continues to gain considerable power and agency around the world, many governments have moved to regulate it. And where regulation fails, some states resort to internet shutdowns or deliberate disruptions.

The statistics are staggering. In India alone, there were 154 internet shutdowns between January 2016 and May 2018. This is the most of any country in the world.

But similar shutdowns are becoming common on the African continent. Already in 2019 there have been shutdowns in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Last year there were 21 such shutdowns on the continent. This was the case in Togo, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Ethiopia, among others.

The justifications for such shutdowns are usually relatively predictable. Governments often claim that internet access is blocked in the interest of public security and order. In some instances, however, their reasoning borders on the curious if not downright absurd, like the case of Ethiopia in 2017 and Algeria in 2018 when the internet was shut down apparently to curb cheating in national examinations.

Whatever their reasons, governments have three general approaches to controlling citzens’ access to the web.

How they do it

Internet shutdowns or disruptions usually take three forms. The first and probably the most serious is where the state completely blocks access to the internet on all platforms. It’s arguably the most punitive, with significant social, economic and political costs.

The financial costs can run into millions of dollars for each day the internet is blocked. A Deloitte report on the issue estimates that a country with average connectivity could lose at least 1.9% of its daily GDP for each day all internet services are shut down.

For countries with average to medium level connectivity the loss is 1% of daily GDP, and for countries with average to low connectivity it’s 0.4%. It’s estimated that Ethiopia, for example, could lose up to US$500,000 a day whenever there is a shutdown. These shutdowns, then, damage businesses, discourage investments, and hinder economic growth.

The second way that governments restrict internet access is by applying content blocking techniques. They restrict access to particular sites or applications. This is the most common strategy and it’s usually targeted at social media platforms. The idea is to stop or limit conversations on these platforms.

Online spaces have become the platform for various forms of political expression that many states especially those with authoritarian leanings consider subversive. Governments argue, for example, that social media platforms encourage the spread of rumours which can trigger public unrest.

This was the case in 2016 in Uganda during the country’s presidential elections. The government restricted access to social media, describing the shutdown as a “security measure to avert lies … intended to incite violence and illegal declaration of election results”.

In Zimbabwe, the government blocked social media following demonstrations over an increase in fuel prices. It argued that the January 2019 ban was because the platforms were being “used to coordinate the violence”.

The third strategy, done almost by stealth, is the use of what is generally known as “bandwidth throttling”. In this case telecom operators or internet service providers are forced to lower the quality of their cell signals or internet speed. This makes the internet too slow to use. “Throttling” can also target particular online destinations such as social media sites….(More)”

Twentieth Century Town Halls: Architecture of Democracy

Curated on February 18, 2019February 18, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Jon Stewart: “This is the first book to examine the development of the town hall during the twentieth century and the way in which these civic buildings have responded to the dramatic political, social and architectural changes which took place during the period. Following an overview of the history of the town hall as a building type, it examines the key themes, variations and lessons which emerged during the twentieth century. This is followed by 20 case studies from around the world which include plans, sections and full-colour illustrations. Each of the case studies examines the town hall’s procurement, the selection of its architect and the building design, and critically analyses its success and contribution to the type’s development. The case studies include:

Copenhagen Town Hall, Denmark, Martin Nyrop

Stockholm City Hall, Sweden, Ragnar Ostberg

Hilversum Town Hall, the Netherlands, Willem M. Dudok

Walthamstow Town Hall, Britain, Philip Dalton Hepworth

Oslo Town Hall, Norway, Arnstein Arneberg and Magnus Poulsson

Casa del Fascio, Como, Italy, Guiseppe Terragni

Aarhus Town Hall, Denmark, Arne Jacobsen with Eric Moller

Saynatsalo Town Hall, Finland, Alvar Aalto

Kurashiki City Hall, Japan, Kenzo Tange

Toronto City Hall, Canada, Viljo Revell

Boston City Hall, USA, Kallmann, McKinnell and Knowles

Dallas City Hall, USA, IM Pei

Mississauga City Hall, Canada, Ed Jones and Michael Kirkland

Borgoricco Town Hall, Italy, Aldo Rossi

Reykjavik City Hall, Iceland, Studio Granda

Valdelaguna Town Hall, Spain, Victor Lopez Cotelo and Carlos Puente Fernandez

The Hague City Hall, the Netherlands, Richard Meier

Iragna Town Hall, Switzerland, Raffaele Cavadini

Murcia City Hall, Spain, Jose Rafael Moneo

London City Hall, UK, Norman Foster…(More)”.

Democracy Beyond Voting and Protests

Curated on February 14, 2019February 14, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Sasha Fisher at Project Syndicate: “For over a decade now, we have witnessed more elections and, simultaneously, less democracy. According to Bloomberg, elections have been occurring more frequently around the world. Yet Freedom House finds that some 110 countries have experienced declines in political and civil rights over the past 13 years.

As democracy declines, so does our sense of community. In the United States, this is evidenced by a looming loneliness epidemicand the rapid disappearance of civic institutions such as churches, eight of which close every day. And though these trends are global in nature, the US exemplifies them in the extreme.

This is no coincidence. As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in the 1830s, America’s founders envisioned a country governed not by shared values, but by self-interest. That vision has since defined America’s institutions, and fostered a hyper-individualistic society.

Growing distrust in governing institutions has fueled a rise in authoritarian populist movements around the world. Citizens are demanding individual economic security and retreating into an isolationist mentality. ...

And yet we know that “user engagement” works, as shown by countless studies and human experiences. For example, an evaluation conducted in Uganda found that the more citizens participated in the design of health programs, the more the perception of the health-care system improved. And in Indonesia, direct citizen involvement in government decision-making has led to higher satisfaction with government services....

While the Western world suffers from over-individualization, the most notable governance and economic innovations are taking place in the Global South. In Rwanda, for example, the government has introduced policies to encourage grassroots solutions that strengthen citizens’ sense of community and shared accountability. Through monthly community-service meetings, families and individuals work together to build homes for the needy, fix roads, and pool funds to invest in better farming practices and equipment.

Imagine if over 300 million Americans convened every month for a similar purpose. There would suddenly be billions more citizen hours invested in neighbor-to-neighbor interaction and citizen action.

This was one of the main effects of the Village Savings and Loan Associations that originated in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Within communities, members have access to loans to start small businesses and save for a rainy day. The model works because it leverages neighbor-to-neighbor accountability. Likewise, from Haiti to Liberia to Burundi and beyond, community-based health systems have proven effective precisely because health workers know their neighbors and their needs. Community health workers go from home to home, checking in on pregnant mothers and making sure they are cared for. Each of these solutions uses and strengthens communal accountability through shared engagement – not traditional vertical accountability lines.

If we believe in the democratic principle that governments must be accountable to citizens, we should build systems that hold us accountable to each other – and we must engage beyond elections and protests. We must usher in a new era of community-driven democracy – power must be decentralized and placed in the hands of families and communities.

When we achieve community-driven democracy, we will engage with one another and with our governments – not just on special occasions, but continuously, because our democracy and freedom depend on us….(More)” (See also Index on Trust in Institutions)

How Tech Utopia Fostered Tyranny

Curated on February 12, 2019February 12, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Jon Askonas at The New Atlantis: “The rumors spread like wildfire: Muslims were secretly lacing a Sri Lankan village’s food with sterilization drugs. Soon, a video circulated that appeared to show a Muslim shopkeeper admitting to drugging his customers — he had misunderstood the question that was angrily put to him. Then all hell broke loose. Over a several-day span, dozens of mosques and Muslim-owned shops and homes were burned down across multiple towns. In one home, a young journalist was trapped, and perished.

Mob violence is an old phenomenon, but the tools encouraging it, in this case, were not. As the New York Times reported in April, the rumors were spread via Facebook, whose newsfeed algorithm prioritized high-engagement content, especially videos. “Designed to maximize user time on site,” as the Times article describes, the newsfeed algorithm “promotes whatever wins the most attention. Posts that tap into negative, primal emotions like anger or fear, studies have found, produce the highest engagement, and so proliferate.” On Facebook in Sri Lanka, posts with incendiary rumors had among the highest engagement rates, and so were among the most highly promoted content on the platform. Similar cases of mob violence have taken place in India, Myanmar, Mexico, and elsewhere, with misinformation spread mainly through Facebook and the messaging tool WhatsApp.

Follow The New AtlantisThis is in spite of Facebook’s decision in January 2018 to tweak its algorithm, apparently to prevent the kind of manipulation we saw in the 2016 U.S. election, when posts and election ads originating from Russia reportedly showed up in newsfeeds of up to 126 million American Facebook users. The company explained that the changes to its algorithm will mean that newsfeeds will be “showing more posts from friends and family and updates that spark conversation,” and “less public content, including videos and other posts from publishers or businesses.” But these changes, which Facebook had tested out in countries like Sri Lanka in the previous year, may actually have exacerbated the problem — which is that incendiary content, when posted by friends and family, is guaranteed to “spark conversation” and therefore to be prioritized in newsfeeds. This is because “misinformation is almost always more interesting than the truth,” as Mathew Ingram provocatively put it in the Columbia Journalism Review.

How did we get here, from Facebook’s mission to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together”? Riot-inducing “fake news” and election meddling are obviously far from what its founders intended for the platform. Likewise, Google’s founders surely did not build their search engine with the intention of its being censored in China to suppress free speech, and yet, after years of refusing this demand from Chinese leadership, Google has recently relented rather than pull their search engine from China entirely. And YouTube’s creators surely did not intend their feature that promotes “trending” content to help clickbait conspiracy-theory videos go viral.

These outcomes — not merely unanticipated by the companies’ founders but outright opposed to their intentions — are not limited to social media. So far, Big Tech companies have presented issues of incitement, algorithmic radicalization, and “fake news” as merely bumps on the road of progress, glitches and bugs to be patched over. In fact, the problem goes deeper, to fundamental questions of human nature. Tools based on the premise that access to information will only enlighten us and social connectivity will only make us more humane have instead fanned conspiracy theories, information bubbles, and social fracture. A tech movement spurred by visions of libertarian empowerment and progressive uplift has instead fanned a global resurgence of populism and authoritarianism.

Despite the storm of criticism, Silicon Valley has still failed to recognize in these abuses a sharp rebuke of its sunny view of human nature. It remains naïvely blind to how its own aspirations for social engineering are on a spectrum with the tools’ “unintended” uses by authoritarian regimes and nefarious actors….(More)”.

Index: Trust in Institutions 2019

Curated on February 11, 2019June 7, 2019 by Michelle Winowatan

By Michelle Winowatan, Andrew J. Zahuranec, Andrew Young, Stefaan Verhulst

The Living Library Index – inspired by the Harper’s Index – provides important statistics and highlights global trends in governance innovation. This installment focuses on trust in institutions.

Please share any additional, illustrative statistics on open data, or other issues at the nexus of technology and governance, with us at [email protected]

Global Trust in Public Institutions

Percentage of citizens globally with trust in institutions: 52% – 2019
- Most trusted institution globally: United Nations (59%) – 2019
- Global trust in NGOs: 56% – 2019
Percentage of people around the world who trust their government: 47% – 2019
Countries with the lowest trust in their public institutions: Russia (29%), Japan (39%), Spain (40%), Ireland (42%), and United Kingdom: 43% – 2019
Most Trusted Institution in Latin America: The Church (65%) – 2017

Trust in Government

United States

Americans who say their democracy is working at least “somewhat well:” 58% – 2018
Number who believe sweeping changes to their government are needed: 61% – 2018
Percentage of Americans expressing faith in election system security: 45% – 2018
Percentage of Americans expressing an overarching trust in government: 40% – 2019
How Americans would rate the trustworthiness of Congress: 4.1 out of 10 – 2017
- The judicial system: 5.2 out of 10 – 2017
- The civil service: 5.4 out of 10 – 2017
- The police: 6.2 out of 10 – 2017
Number who have confidence elected officials act in the best interests of the public: 25% – 2018
Amount who trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always or most of the time”: 18% – 2017
Americans with trust and confidence in the federal government to handle domestic problems: 2 in 5 – 2018
- International problems: 1 in 2 – 2018
US institution with highest amount of confidence to act in the best interests of the public: The Military (80%) – 2018
Most favorably viewed level of government: Local (67%) – 2018
Most favorably viewed federal agency: National Park Service (83% favorable) – 2018
Least favorable federal agency: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (47% unfavorable) – 2018

United Kingdom

Overall trust in government: 42% – 2019
- Number who think the country is headed in the “wrong direction:” 7 in 10 – 2018
- Those who have trust in politicians: 17% – 2018
- Amount who feel unrepresented in politics: 61% – 2019
- Amount who feel that their standard of living will get worse over the next year: Nearly 4 in 10 – 2019
Trust the national government handling of personal data:
- Seeking consent when it comes to data collection: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018
- Being transparent about how it is used: 1 in 4 – 2018
- Protecting personal data: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018
- Encrypting data: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018
- Managing data in the source’s best interests: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018

European Union

Public trust in the European Union: 59% – 2018
Citizens who are optimistic about the future of the European Union: 66% – 2018
Most trusted institution in the European Union: European Parliament (50%) – 2018
- Highest level of trust in the European Parliament: Sweden (71%) – 2018
- Lowest level of trust in the European Parliament: Greece (39%) – 2018
Highest source of concern about the internet during the pre-election period: Disinformation and Misinformation on the Internet (almost 3 in 4 expressed concerns) – 2018
- Country with the highest concern: Spain and Greece (84%) – 2018
- Country with the lowest concern: Estonia (56%) – 2018
- Overall Concern for elections being manipulated through cyberattacks: 61% – 2018
  - Highest Concern: Spain (74%) – 2018
  - Lowest Concern: Estonia (42%) – 2018
- Most confident their country was doing what was needed to prevent illegal or fraudulent election activities: Finland (88%) – 2018
- Least confidence: Bulgaria (31%) – 2018
Number of EU member-states satisfied with free and fair elections in their country: 27 – 2018
Number of EU member-states dissatisfied with free and fair elections 1 (Bulgaria) – 2018
Europeans who are convinced that the EU is a secure place to live in: 7 in 10, declining since 2015 – 2018
EU citizens trust in the European national governments: 49% – 2018
- EU countries with the highest trust in government: Luxembourg (almost 3 in 4) – 2018
- EU countries with the lowest trust in government: Greece (about 1 in 10) – 2018
- Those who think that the national authorities are doing enough to combat terrorism: 6 in 10 – 2018
Most trusted actor to address corruption: Police – 2017
- France: 6.1 out of 10 – 2017
- Germany: 6.8 out of 10 – 2017
- Italy: 5.1 out of 10 – 2017
- Slovenia: 5.9 out of 10 – 2017
- United Kingdom: 5.9 out of 10 – 2017
Those who are confident that justice always prevails over injustice in their country: 39% – 2017
Support for the independence of European courts and judges: almost 1 in 2 – 2018
General public who think the independence of European courts and judges is good: 56% – 2018

Africa

Trust in government across Africa: 57% – 2016
Most trusted institutional actor across Africa: Religious Leaders (72%) – 2016
- Least trusted: Opposition Party (36%) – 2016
Country with highest level of trust in the state (president or prime minister, army and police): Niger (86%) – 2016
- Lowest: Nigeria (31%) – 2016
Highest trust in the courts: Niger (82%) – 2016
- Lowest: Madagascar (29%) – 2016
Highest Trust in Parliament: Namibia (74%) – 2016
- Lowest: Nigeria (25%) – 2016

Latin America

Confidence in government across Latin America: Only 1 in 4 trust their leaders – 2018
Highest confidence in government: Nicaragua (42%) – 2017
- Lowest confidence in government: Brazil (8%) – 2017
Highest confidence in the legislature: Venezuela (37%) – 2017
- Lowest confidence in the legislature: Paraguay (10%) – 2017
Highest Confidence in Political Parties: Uruguay (25%) – 2017
- Lowest Confidence in Political Parties: Brazil (7%) – 2017
Dissatisfaction with democracy: 13 in 20 – 2017
Confidence in political parties: 3 in 20 – 2017
Overall Trust in the Judiciary: 34% – 2018

Other

Most trusted institution in China: Government (86%) – 2019
What the Chinese public considers to be the largest problem facing the country: Corrupt Officials (49%) – 2016
Number of people who trust their government in India: 17 in 20 – 2017
- Canada: about 2 in 3 – 2017
- Russia: about 2 in 3 – 2017
- Mexico: less than 1 in 5 – 2017
- Lebanon: 3 in 20 – 2017

Trust in Media

Percentage of people around the world who trust the media: 47% – 2019
- In the United Kingdom: 37% – 2019
- In the United States: 48% – 2019
- In China: 76% – 2019
Rating of news trustworthiness in the United States: 4.5 out of 10 – 2017
- In South Korea: 4.0 out of 10 – 2017
Number of citizens who trust the press across the European Union: Almost 1 in 2 – 2019
France: 3.9 out of 10 – 2019
Germany: 4.8 out of 10 – 2019
Italy: 3.8 out of 10 – 2019
Slovenia: 3.9 out of 10 – 2019
Percentage of European Union citizens who trust the radio: 59% – 2017
- Television: 51% – 2017
- The internet: 34% – 2017
- Online social networks: 20% – 2017
EU citizens who do not actively participate in political discussions on social networks because they don’t trust online social networks: 3 in 10 – 2018
Those who are confident that the average person in the United Kingdom can tell real news from ‘fake news’: 3 in 10 – 2018

Trust in Business

Global trust in business: 56% – 2019
- American trust in business: 54% – 2019
- British trust in business: 47% – 2019
- Chinese trust in business: 80% – 2019
Number of Americans who believe pharmaceutical companies have too much power: More than 4 in 5 – 2018
- Banks and Financial Institutions: Almost 3 in 4 – 2018
- Advertisers: Over 7 in 10 – 2018
- Energy Industry: Over 11 in 20 – 2018
- Technology Companies: 11 in 20 – 2018
The most trusted business sector globally: Technology (78%) – 2019
- Americans who trust technology companies to “do what is right:” More than 17 in 20 – 2018
- British citizens who feel technology companies will seek their consent on data collection: 25% trust; 27% distrust – 2018
- British citizens who feel technology companies will be transparent on how they use data: 23% trust; 33% distrust – 2018
- British citizens who feel technology companies will protect personal data: 26% trust; 29% distrust – 2018
- British citizens who trust technology companies to encrypt their personal data: 31% trust; 25% distrust – 2018
Least trusted business sector globally: Financial Services (57%) – 2019
- Trustworthiness of the Financials Services industry as rated by French citizens: 3.9 out of 10 – 2017
- Germans: 4.5 out of 10 – 2017
- Italians: 3.5 out of 10 – 2017
- Slovenians: 4.5 out of 10 – 2017
- South Koreans: 5.1 out of 10 – 2017
- Brits: 4.9 out of 10 – 2017
- Americans: 5.6 out of 10 – 2017
Millennials who trust in companies to keep their personal information private: 44%, the highest compared to other generations – 2016
Percentage of American citizens confident that business leaders will act in the best interests of the public: 45% – 2018
Professions least trusted to tell the truth in the United Kingdom: Advertising Executives (16%) – 2018

Sources

1. Many unhappy with current political system. Pew Research Center, 2017.
Afrobarometer: Round 6. Afrobarometer. 2016.
Ambitious SDG goal confronts challenging realities: Access to justice is still elusive for many Africans. Afrobarometer, 2017.
Chinese Public Sees More Powerful Role in World, Names U.S. as Top Threat. Pew Research Center, 2016.
Confiana en los partidos políticos cae nueve puntos porcentuales desde 2013, se acentúa la crisis de respresentación. Latinobarometro, 2017.
Confianza en el congreso cae doce puntos porcentuales desde 2010 en América Latina. La crisis de representación se acentúa. Latinobarometro, 2017.
Corruption. European Commission, 2017.
Data Security: Not a Big Concern for Millennials. Gallup, 2016.
Desde 2010 la satisfacción con la democracia en América Latina ha caído 14 puntos porcentuales. Latinobarometro, 2017.
Edelman Trust Barometer. Edelman, 2019.
Eurobarometer interactive: And, for each of them, please tell me if you tend to trust it or not to trust it? The European Parliament. European Commission, 2018.
Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: Radio. European Commission, 2017.
Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: Television. European Commission, 2017.
Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: The Internet. European Commission, 2017.
Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: Online social networks. European Commission, 2017.
Eurobarometer: Democracy and elections. European Commission, 2018.
European Parliament the most trusted EU institution. European Parliament, 2018.
Fairness, inequality and inter-generational mobility. European Commission, 2018.
Ipsos MORI Almanac 2018. Ipsos MORI, 2018.
Job performance of MPs, local councillors: Are representatives serving voters or themselves? Afrobarometer, 2016.
La confianza en los gobiernos latinoamericanos alcanza su nivel más bajo desde 2004. Latinobarometro, 2017.
Latin American Economic Outlook 2018: Rethinking Institutions for Development. OECD Development Centre, 2018.
Perceived independence of the national justice systems in the EU among companies. European Commission, 2018.
Perceived independence of the national justice systems in the EU among the general public. European Commission, 2018.
The State of the Nation. Ipsos MORI, 2018.
Trust in Government. Gallup Poll, 2018.
Trust in the Digital Era. Pew Research Center, 2018.
Trust in the military exceeds trust in other institutions in Western Europe and U.S. Pew Research Center, 2018.
Trust, Facts, and Democracy: 1. Democracy and government, the U.S. political system, elected officials and governmental institutions. Pew Research Centre, 2018.
Trustlab. OECD, 2017.

Artificial Intelligence and National Security

Curated on February 7, 2019February 7, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Congressional Research Service: “Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing field of technology with potentially significant implications for national security. As such, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and other nations are developing AI applications for a range of military functions. AI research is underway in the fields of intelligence collection and analysis, logistics, cyber operations, information operations, command and control, and in a variety of semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles.

Already, AI has been incorporated into military operations in Iraq and Syria. Congressional action has the potential to shape the technology’s development further, with budgetary and legislative decisions influencing the growth of military applications as well as the pace of their adoption.

AI technologies present unique challenges for military integration, particularly because the bulk of AI development is happening in the commercial sector. Although AI is not unique in this regard, the defense acquisition process may need to be adapted for acquiring emerging technologies like AI.

In addition, many commercial AI applications must undergo significant modification prior to being functional for the military. A number of cultural issues also challenge AI acquisition, as some commercial AI companies are averse to partnering with DOD due to ethical concerns, and even within the department, there can be resistance to incorporating AI technology into existing weapons systems and processes.

Potential international rivals in the AI market are creating pressure for the United States to compete for innovative military AI applications. China is a leading competitor in this regard, releasing a plan in 2017 to capture the global lead in AI development by 2030. Currently, China is primarily focused on using AI to make faster and more well-informed decisions, as well as on developing a variety of autonomous military vehicles. Russia is also active in military AI development, with a primary focus on robotics. Although AI has the potential to impart a number of advantages in the military context, it may also introduce distinct challenges.

AI technology could, for example, facilitate autonomous operations, lead to more informed military decisionmaking, and increase the speed and scale of military action. However, it may also be unpredictable or vulnerable to unique forms of manipulation. As a result of these factors, analysts hold a broad range of opinions on how influential AI will be in future combat operations.

While a small number of analysts believe that the technology will have minimal impact, most believe that AI will have at least an evolutionary—if not revolutionary—effect….(More)”.