Paper by Long Pham and Conor Linehan: “Smart City (SC) initiatives offer best possible outcomes to citizens and other stakeholders when those people are involved centrally in all stages of the project. However, undertaking design processes that facilitate citizen engagement often involves prohibitive challenges in cost, design and deployment mechanisms, particularly for small cities that have limited resources. We report on a project carried out in Cork City, a small city in Ireland, where a method inspired by crowdsourcing was used to involve local participants in decisions regarding smart city infrastructure. Academics, local government, volunteers and civil organisations came together to collaboratively design and carry out a study to represent local interests around the deployment of smart city infrastructure. Our project demonstrates a new way of translating crowdsourcing for use in government problem-solving. It was comparatively inexpensive, creative in design, and flexible but collaborative in deployment, resulting in high volume of reliable data for project prioritisation and implementation….(More)”
The Problem With Participatory Democracy Is the Participants
Eitan D. Hersh in the New York Times: “…For years, political scientists have studied how people vote, petition, donate, protest, align with parties and take in the news, and have asked what motivates these actions. The typical answers are civic duty and self-interest.
But civic duty and self-interest do not capture the ways that middle- and upper-class Americans are engaging in politics. Now it is the Facebooker who argues with friends of friends he does not know; the news consumer who spends hours watching cable; the repeat online petitioner who demands actions like impeaching the president; the news sharer willing to spread misinformation and rumor because it feels good; the data junkie who frantically toggles between horse races in suburban Georgia and horse races in Britain and France and horse races in sports (even literal horse races).
What is really motivating this behavior is hobbyism — the regular use of free time to engage in politics as a leisure activity. Political hobbyism is everywhere.
There are several reasons. For one, technology allows those interested in politics to gain specialized knowledge and engage in pleasing activities, like reinforcing their views with like-minded friends on Facebook. For another, our era of relative security (nearly a half-century without a conscripted military) has diminished the solemnity that accompanied politics in the past. Even in the serious moments since the 2016 election, political engagement for many people is characterized by forwarding the latest clip that embarrasses the other side, like videos of John McCain asking incomprehensible questions or Elizabeth Warren “destroying” Betsy DeVos.
Then there are the well-intentioned policy innovations over the years that were meant to make politics more open but in doing so exposed politics to hobbyists: participatory primaries, ballot initiatives, open-data policies, even campaign contribution limits. The contribution rules that are now in place favor the independent vanity projects of wealthy egomaniacs instead of allowing parties to raise money and build durable local support.
The result of this is political engagement that takes the form of partisan fandom, the seeking of cheap thrills, and amateurs trying their hand at a game — the billionaire funding “super PACs” all the way down to the everyday armchair quarterback who professes that the path to political victory is through ideological purity. (In the face of a diverse and moderate country, the demand for ideological purity itself can be a symptom of hobbyism: If politics is a sport and the stakes are no higher, why not demand ideological purity if it feels good?)….
What, exactly, is wrong with political hobbyism? We live in a democracy, after all. Aren’t we supposed to participate? Political hobbyism might not be so bad if it complemented mundane but important forms of participation. The problem is that hobbyism is replacing other forms of participation, like local organizing, supporting party organizations, neighbor-to-neighbor persuasion, even voting in midterm elections — the 2014 midterms had the lowest level of voter participation in over 70 years.
The Democratic Party, the party that embraces “engagement,” is in atrophy in state legislatures across the country. Perhaps this is because state-level political participation needs to be motivated by civic duty; it is not entertaining enough to pique the interest of hobbyists. The party of Hollywood celebrities also struggles to energize its supporters to vote. Maybe it is because when politics is something one does for fun rather than out of a profound moral obligation, the citizen who does not find it fun has no reason to engage. The important parts of politics for the average citizen simply may not be enjoyable….
An unqualified embrace of engagement, without leaders channeling activists toward clear goals, yields the spinning of wheels of hobbyism.
Democrats should know that an unending string of activities intended for instant gratification does not amount to much in political power. What they should ask is whether their emotions and energy are contributing to a behind-the-scenes effort to build local support across the country or whether they are merely a hollow, self-gratifying manifestation of the new political hobbyism….(More)”
The solution to US politics’ Facebook problem is Facebook
Parag Khanna in Quartz: “In just one short decade, Facebook has evolved from a fast-growing platform for sharing classmates’ memories and pet photos to being blamed for Donald Trump’s election victory, promoting hate speech, and accelerating ISIS recruitment. Clearly, Facebook has outgrown its original mission.
It should come as no surprise then that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has in the past few months issued a long manifesto explaining the company’s broader aim to foster global connectivity, given a commencement speech at Harvard focused on the need for people to feel a meaningful “sense of purpose,” as well as more recently changed the company’s mission to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”
In truth, Facebook has been doing this all along. In just a three year period between 2011-2014, the average number of international “friends” Facebook members have (whether from rich or poor countries) doubled and in many cases tripled. There is no denying that without Facebook, people would have much less exposure to people they would never meet, and therefore opportunities to gain wider perspectives (irrespective of whether they confirm or contradict one’s own). Then there are charities and NGOs from UNICEF to Human Rights Watch that raise millions of dollars on Facebook and other online platforms such as Avaaz and Change.org.
Facebook has just crossed two billion monthly users, meaning more people express their views on it each month than will vote in all elections in the world this year. That makes Facebook the largest player in wide array of social media tools that are the epicenter–and the lightening rod–for our conversation about technology and politics. Ironically, though, while so many of these innovations come out of the US, the American approach to using digital technology for better governance is at best pathetic…. Sloppy analysis, a cynical Kommentariat and an un-innovative government have led America down the path of ignoring most of the positive ways digital governance can unfold. Fortunately, there are plenty of lessons from around the world for those who care to look and learn.
Citizen engagement is an obvious start. But this should be more than just live-streamed town halls and Q&As in the run-up to elections. European governments such as the UK use Facebook pages to continuously gather policy proposals on public spending priorities. In Estonia, electronic voting is the norm. In the world’s oldest direct democracy, Switzerland, citizen petitions and initiatives are being digitized for even more transparent and inclusive deliberation. In Australia, the Flux movement is allowing all citizens to cast digital ballots on specific policy issues and submit them straight to parliament. Meanwhile, America has the Koch Brothers and the NRA…..
Even governments that are less respected in the West because their regimes do not resemble our own do a better job of harnessing social media. Sheikh Mohammed, ruler of Dubai, uses Facebook to crowdsource suggestions for infrastructure projects and other ideas from a population that is a whopping 90 percent foreign.
Singapore may be the most sophisticated government in this domain. Though the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) wins every parliamentary election hands-down, more important is the fact that surveys the public ad nauseam on issues of savings and healthcare, transit routes, immigration policy and just about everything else. Singapore is not Switzerland, but it might be the world’s most responsive government.
This is how governments that appear illegitimate according to a narrow reading of Western political theory boast far higher public satisfaction than most all Western governments today. If you don’t understand this, you probably spend too much time in a filter bubble….
The US should aspire to be a place where democracy and data reinforce rather than contradict each other….(More)
What is One Team Government?
Kit Collingwood-Richardso at Medium: “On 29th June, 186 people came together in London to talk about how we could work across disciplines to make government more effective…. Below are our current ideas on what we want it to be. We’d love your help shaping them up.
So what is One Team Government?
At its heart, it’s a community (join it here and see the bottom of this post), united and guided by a set of principles. Together, we are working to create a movement of reform through practical action.
The community is made up of people who are passionate about public sector reform (we deliberately want this to be wider than just government), with the emphasis on improving the services we offer to citizens and how we work. We believe the public sector can be brilliant, and we’re committed to making it so.
You don’t have to work for government to be in the community, nor be a public servant in the wider sense, nor indeed be in the UK; we need diverse perspectives, with people of all sectors, areas and interests helping. We think we’re unstoppable if we work together.
Our initial thinking (see below for how to help us iterate on this) is that we want the One Team Government movement to be guided by seven principles:
1. Work in the open and positively
We’re a community; everything we do will be documented and made to share. Where conversations happen that can’t be shared, the wider learning still will be. This is a reform cooperative, where we choose to be generous with knowledge. Ideas are infectious; we’ll share ours early and often….
2. Take practical action
Although talking is vital, we will be defined more by the things we do than the things we say. We will create change by taking small, measured steps every day — everything from creating a new contact in a different area or discipline, sharing something we’ve written, or giving our time to contribute to others’ work — and encouraging others to do the same. We won’t create huge plans, but do things that make a real difference today, no matter how big or small. We will document what they are.
3. Experiment and iterate
We don’t think there’s one way to ‘do’ reform. We will experiment with design, and put user-focused service design thinking into everything we do, learning from and with each other. We will test, iterate and reflect. We will be humble in our approach, focusing on asking the right questions to get to the best answers.
We will embrace small failures as opportunities to learn. We won’t get everything right, and we won’t try to. We will listen, learn and improve together.
4. Be diverse and inclusive
Our approach to inclusiveness and diversity is driven by a simple desire to better represent the citizens we serve. We’ll put effort into making that so, by balancing our events, making sure our teams are reflective of society at large and by making sure we have a range of citizen and team voices in the room with us….
5. Care deeply about citizens
We work for users and other citizens affected by our work; everything we do will be guided by our impact on them. We will talk to them, early and often; we will use the best research methods to understand them better. We will be distinguished by our empathy — for users and for each other. The policy that we develop will be tested with real people as early as possible, and refined with their needs in mind.
6. Work across borders
We believe that diverse views make our outcomes and services better. We will be characterised by our work to break down boundaries between groups. …
7. Embrace technology
We are passionate about public sector reform for the internet age. We will be a technology-enabled community, using online tools to collaborate, network and share. We will put the best of digital thinking into policy and service design, using technology to make us quicker, smarter, better and more data-driven. We will help to shape a public sector we can be proud to work in in the 21st century….(More)”.
Four lessons NHS Trusts can learn from the Royal Free case
Blog by Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner in the UK: “Today my office has announced that the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust did not comply with the Data Protection Act when it turned over the sensitive medical data of around 1.6 million patients to Google DeepMind, a private sector firm, as part of a clinical safety initiative. As a result of our investigation, the Trust has been asked to sign an undertaking committing it to changes to ensure it is acting in accordance with the law, and we’ll be working with them to make sure that happens.
But what about the rest of the sector? As organisations increasingly look to unlock the huge potential that creative uses of data can have for patient care, what are the lessons to be learned from this case?
It’s not a choice between privacy or innovation
It’s welcome that the trial looks to have been positive. The Trust has reported successful outcomes. Some may reflect that data protection rights are a small price to pay for this.
But what stood out to me on looking through the results of the investigation is that the shortcomings we found were avoidable. The price of innovation didn’t need to be the erosion of legally ensured fundamental privacy rights….
Don’t dive in too quickly
Privacy impact assessments are a key data protection tool of our era, as evolving law and best practice around the world demonstrate. Privacy impact assessments play an increasingly prominent role in data protection, and they’re a crucial part of digital innovation. ….
New cloud processing technologies mean you can, not that you always should
Changes in technology mean that vast data sets can be made more readily available and can be processed faster and using greater data processing technologies. That’s a positive thing, but just because evolving technologies can allow you to do more doesn’t mean these tools should always be fully utilised, particularly during a trial initiative….
Know the law, and follow it
No-one suggests that red tape should get in the way of progress. But when you’re setting out to test the clinical safety of a new service, remember that the rules are there for a reason….(More)”
The role of Open Data in driving sustainable mobility in nine smart cities
Paper by Piyush Yadav et al: “In today’s era of globalization, sustainable mobility is considered as a key factor in the economic growth of any country. With the emergence of open data initiatives, there is tremendous potential to improve mobility. This paper presents findings of a detailed analysis of mobility open data initiatives in nine smart cities – Amsterdam, Barcelona, Chicago, Dublin, Helsinki, London, Manchester, New York and San Francisco. The paper discusses the study of various sustainable indicators in the mobility domain and its convergence with present open datasets. Specifically, it throws light on open data ecosystems in terms of their production and consumption. It gives a comprehensive view of the nature of mobility open data with respect to their formats, interactivity, and availability. The paper details the open datasets in terms of their alignment with different mobility indicators, publishing platforms, applications and API’s available. The paper discusses how these open datasets have shown signs of fostering organic innovation and sustainable growth in smart cities with impact on mobility trends. The results of the work can be used to inform the design of data driven sustainable mobility in smart cities to maximize the utilization of available open data resources….(More)”.
Research data infrastructures in the UK
The Open Research Data Task Force : “This report is intended to inform the work of the Open Research Data Task Force, which has been established with the aim of building on the principles set out in Open Research Data Concordat (published in July 2016) to co-ordinate creation of a roadmap to develop the infrastructure for open research data across the UK. As an initial contribution to that work, the report provides an outline of the policy and service infrastructure in the UK as it stands in the first half of 2017, including some comparisons with other countries; and it points to some key areas and issues which require attention. It does not seek to identify possible courses of action, nor even to suggest priorities the Task Force might consider in creating its final report to be published in 2018. That will be the focus of work for the Task Force over the next few months.
Why is this important?
The digital revolution continues to bring fundamental changes to all aspects of research: how it is conducted, the findings that are produced, and how they are interrogated and transmitted not only within the research community but more widely. We are as yet still in the early stages of a transformation in which progress is patchy across the research community, but which has already posed significant challenges for research funders and institutions, as well as for researchers themselves. Research data is at the heart of those challenges: not simply the datasets that provide the core of the evidence analysed in scholarly publications, but all the data created and collected throughout the research process. Such data represents a potentially-valuable resource for people and organisations in the commercial, public and voluntary sectors, as well as for researchers. Access to such data, and more general moves towards open science, are also critically-important in ensuring that research is reproducible, and thus in sustaining public confidence in the work of the research community. But effective use of research data depends on an infrastructure – of hardware, software and services, but also of policies, organisations and individuals operating at various levels – that is as yet far from fully-formed. The exponential increases in volumes of data being generated by researchers create in themselves new demands for storage and computing power. But since the data is characterised more by heterogeneity then by uniformity, development of the infrastructure to manage it involves a complex set of requirements in preparing, collecting, selecting, analysing, processing, storing and preserving that data throughout its life cycle.
Over the past decade and more, there have been many initiatives on the part of research institutions, funders, and members of the research community at local, national and international levels to address some of these issues. Diversity is a key feature of the landscape, in terms of institutional types and locations, funding regimes, and nature and scope of partnerships, as well as differences between disciplines and subject areas. Hence decision-makers at various levels have fostered via their policies and strategies many community-organised developments, as well as their own initiatives and services. Significant progress has been achieved as a result, through the enthusiasm and commitment of key organisations and individuals. The less positive features have been a relative lack of harmonisation or consolidation, and there is an increasing awareness of patchiness in provision, with gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies. This is not surprising, since policies, strategies and services relating to research data necessarily affect all aspects of support for the diverse processes of research itself. Developing new policies and infrastructure for research data implies significant re-thinking of structures and regimes for supporting, fostering and promoting research itself. That in turn implies taking full account of widely-varying characteristics and needs of research of different kinds, while also keeping in clear view the benefits to be gained from better management of research data, and from greater openness in making data accessible for others to re-use for a wide range of different purposes….(More)”.
Volunteers teach AI to spot slavery sites from satellite images
This data will then be used to train machine learning algorithms to automatically recognise brick kilns in satellite imagery. If computers can pinpoint the location of such possible slavery sites, then the coordinates could be passed to local charities to investigate, says Kevin Bales, the project leader, at the University of Nottingham, UK.
South Asian brick kilns are notorious as modern-day slavery sites. There are an estimated 5 million people working in brick kilns in South Asia, and of those nearly 70 per cent are thought to be working there under duress – often to pay off financial debts.
However, no one is quite sure how many of these kilns there are in the so-called “Brick Belt”, a region that stretches across parts of Pakistan, India and Nepal. Some estimates put the figure at 20,000, but it may be as high as 50,000.
Bales is hoping that his machine learning approach will produce a more accurate figure and help organisations on the ground know where to direct their anti-slavery efforts.
It’s great to have a tool for identifying possible forced labour sites, says Sasha Jesperson at St Mary’s University in London. But it is just a start – to really find out how many people are being enslaved in the brick kiln industry, investigators still need to visit every site and work out exactly what’s going on there, she says….
So far, volunteers have identified over 4000 potential slavery sites across 400 satellite images taken via Google Earth. Once these have been checked several times by volunteers, Bales plans to use these images to teach the machine learning algorithm what kilns look like, so that it can learn to recognise them in images automatically….(More)”.
The Politics of Listening: Possibilities and Challenges for Democratic Life
Book by Leah Bassel: “…explores listening as a social and political practice, in contrast to the more common focus on voice and speaking. The author draws on cases from Canada, France and the United Kingdom, exploring: minority women and debates over culture and religion; riots and young men in France and England; citizen journalism and the creative use of different media; and solidarity between migrant justice and indigenous activists. Analysis across these diverse settings considers whether and how a politics of listening, which demands that the roles of speakers and listeners change, can be undertaken in adversarial and tense political moments. The Politics of Listening argues that such a practice has the potential to create new ways of being and acting together, as political equals who are heard on their own terms….(More)”
Detecting riots with Twitter
Cardiff University News: “An analysis of data taken from the London riots in 2011 showed that computer systems could automatically scan through Twitter and detect serious incidents, such as shops being broken in to and cars being set alight, before they were reported to the Metropolitan Police Service.
The computer system could also discern information about where the riots were rumoured to take place and where groups of youths were gathering. The new research, published in the peer-review journal ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, showed that on average the computer systems could pick up on disruptive events several minutes before officials and over an hour in some cases.
“Antagonistic narratives and cyber hate”
The researchers believe that their work could enable police officers to better manage and prepare for both large and small scale disruptive events.
Co-author of the study Dr Pete Burnap, from Cardiff University’s School of Computer Science and Informatics, said: “We have previously used machine-learning and natural language processing on Twitter data to better understand online deviance, such as the spread of antagonistic narratives and cyber hate…”
“We will never replace traditional policing resource on the ground but we have demonstrated that this research could augment existing intelligence gathering and draw on new technologies to support more established policing methods.”
Scientists are continually looking to the swathes of data produced from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to help them to detect events in real-time.
Estimates put social media membership at approximately 2.5 billion non-unique users, and the data produced by these users have been used to predict elections, movie revenues and even the epicentre of earthquakes.
In their study the research team analysed 1.6m tweets relating to the 2011 riots in England, which began as an isolated incident in Tottenham on August 6 but quickly spread across London and to other cities in England, giving rise to looting, destruction of property and levels of violence not seen in England for more than 30 years.
Machine-learning algorithms
The researchers used a series of machine-learning algorithms to analyse each of the tweets from the dataset, taking into account a number of key features such as the time they were posted, the location where they were posted and the content of the tweet itself.
Results showed that the machine-learning algorithms were quicker than police sources in all but two of the disruptive events reported…(More)”.