Four Internets: Data, Geopolitics, and the Governance of Cyberspace


Book by Kieron O’Hara and Wendy Hall: “The book describes the Internet, and how Internet governance prevents it fragmenting into a ‘Splinternet’. Four opposing ideologies about how data flows around the network have become prominent because they are (a) implemented by technical standards, and (b) backed by influential geopolitical entities. Each of these specifies an ‘Internet’, described in relation to its implementation by a specific geopolitical entity. The four Internets of the title are: the Silicon Valley Open Internet, developed by pioneers of the Internet in the 1960s, based on principles of openness and efficient dataflow; the Brussels Bourgeois Internet, exemplified by the European Union, with a focus on human rights and legal administration; the DC Commercial Internet, exemplified by the Washington establishment and its focus on property rights and market solutions; and the Beijing Paternal Internet, exemplified by the Chinese government’s control of Internet content. These Internets have to coexist if the Internet as a whole is to remain connected. The book also considers the weaponization of the hacking ethic as the Moscow Spoiler model, exemplified by Russia’s campaigns of misinformation at scale; this is not a vision of the Internet, but is parasitic on the others. Each of these ideologies is illustrated by a specific policy question. Potential future directions of Internet development are considered, including the policy directions that India might take, and the development of technologies such as artificial intelligence, smart cities, the Internet of Things, and social machines. A conclusion speculates on potential future Internets that may emerge alongside those described….(More)”.

Alliance formed to create new professional standards for data science


Press Release: “A new alliance has been formed to create industry-wide professional standards for data science. ‘The Alliance for Data Science Professionals’ is defining the standards needed to ensure an ethical and well-governed approach so the public, organisations and governments can have confidence in how their data is being used. 

While the skills of data scientists are increasingly in demand, there is currently no professional framework for those working in the field. These new industry-wide standards, which will be finalised by the autumn, look to address current issues, such as data breaches, the misuse of data in modelling and bias in artificial intelligence. They can give people confidence that their data is being used ethically, stored safely and analysed robustly. 

The Alliance members, who initially convened in July 2020, are the Royal Statistical Society, BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, the Operational Research Society, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, the Alan Turing Institute and the National Physical Laboratory (NPL). They are supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society.  

Since convening, the Alliance has worked with volunteers and stakeholders to develop draft standards for individuals, standards for universities seeking accreditation of their courses and a certification process that will enable both individuals and education providers to gain recognition based on skills and knowledge within data science.  

Governed by a memorandum of understanding, the Alliance is committed to:  

  • Defining the standards of professional competence and behaviour expected of people who work with data which impacts life and livelihoods. These include data scientists, data engineers, data analysts and data stewards.  
  • Using an open-source process to maintain and update the standards. 
  • Delivering these standards as data science certifications offered by the Alliance members to their professional members, with processes to hold certified members accountable for their professional status in this area. 
  • Using these standards as criteria for Alliance members to accredit data science degrees, and data science modules of associated degrees, as contributing to certification. 
  • Creating a single searchable public register of certified data science professionals….(More)”.

Satellite Earth observation for sustainable rural development


A blog post by Peter Hargreaves: “…We find ourselves in a “golden age for satellite exploration”. ‘Big Data’ from satellite Earth observation – hereafter denoted ‘EO’ – could be an important part of the solution to the shortage of socioeconomic data required to inform several of the goals and targets that compose the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [hyperlink]. In particular, the goals that pertain to socioeconomic and human wellbeing dimensions of development. EO data could play a significant role in producing the transparent data system necessary to achieve sustainable development….

Census and nationally representative household surveys are the medium through which most socioeconomic data are collected. It is impossible to understand socioeconomic conditions without them – I cannot stress this enough. But they have limitations, particularly in terms of cost and spatio-temporal coverage. In an ideal world, we would vastly upscale the spatial and temporal reporting of these surveys to cover more places and points in time. But this mass enumeration would be prohibitively expensive and *logistically impossible*. Imagine the quantity of data produced and the burden placed upon National Statistics Offices (NSOs) and governmental institutions? The 2030 end point for the SDGs would be upon us before much of the data was processed leaving very little time to use the outputs for policy.

This is where unconventional data enters the debate, and in this sphere – that of measuring socioeconomic conditions for development – EO data is unconventional. EO data has considerable potential to augment survey and census data for measuring rural poverty development in rural spaces, especially during intercensal periods, and where ground data are patchy, or non-existent. While on the subject, there is an important point to make: you can’t use EO to understand everything about a particular context. It does not matter how elaborate the model or the effort put in. Quite simply, EO cannot give you the full picture.

What EO *does* have is a five-decade temporal legacy (most platforms and data products are near continuous), and its broadly open access with low to negligible acquisition costs. EO data is also availabile across multiple spatial resolutions and is often easily comparable and complementary. When we say, ‘five-decade temporal legacy’, this means that there are roughly 50 years of EO data (if we use the Landsat program as an anchor). Not all EO platforms have operated across the whole timeline – Figure 1 below offers an idea of when different platforms were launched and for how long they were, or have been, operational. What’s more, data will be increasingly available and accessible, catalysed by technological innovation and investment in public and private ventures. A lot of this data is open access e.g. EO platforms operated by NASA or the ESA Copernicus programme, which include Landsat, MODIS, AVHRR, VIIRs, and the Sentinels amongst others. Meanwhile, the availability of EO data across multiple spatial resolutions enables disaggregation of data alongside survey and census data for subnational monitoring of socioeconomic conditions….(More)”.

I’ll Have What She’s Having. Mapping Social Behavior


Book by R. Alexander Bentley, Mark Earls and Michael J. O’Brien: “Humans are, first and foremost, social creatures. And this, according to the authors of I’ll Have What She’s Having, shapes—and explains—most of our choices. We’re not just blindly driven by hard-wired instincts to hunt or gather or reproduce; our decisions are based on more than “nudges” exploiting individual cognitive quirks.

I’ll Have What She’s Having shows us how we use the brains of others to think for us and as storage space for knowledge about the world. The story zooms out from the individual to small groups to the complexities of populations. It describes, among other things, how buzzwords propagate and how ideas spread; how the swine flu scare became an epidemic; and how focused social learning by a few gets amplified as copying by the masses. It describes how ideas, behavior, and culture spread through the simple means of doing what others do.

It is notoriously difficult to change behavior. For every “Yes We Can” political slogan, there are thousands of “Just Say No” buttons. I’ll Have What She’s Having offers a practical map to help us navigate the complex world of social behavior, an essential guide for anyone who wants to understand how people behave and how to begin to change things….(More)”

Generationalism is bad science


Essay by Cort W Rudolph: “Millennials – the much-maligned generation of people who, according to the Pew Research Center, were born between 1981 and 1996 – started turning 40 this year. This by itself is not very remarkable, but a couple of related facts bear consideration. In the United States, legislation that protects ‘older workers’ from discrimination applies to those aged 40 and over. There is a noteworthy irony here: a group of people who have long been branded negatively by their elders and accused of ‘killing’ cultural institutions ranging from marriage to baseball to marmalade are now considered ‘older’ in the eyes of the government. Inevitably, the latest round of youngsters grows up, complicating the stereotypes attached to them in youth. More importantly, though, the concept of a discrete generation of ‘millennials’ – like that of the ‘Generation X’ that preceded these people, the ‘Generation Z’ that will soon follow them into middle adulthood, and indeed the entire notion of ‘generations’ – is completely made up….

The lack of evidence stems primarily from the fact that there is no research methodology that would allow us to unambiguously identify generations, let alone study whether there are differences between them. We must fall back on theory and logic to parse whether what we see is due to generations or some other phenomenon related to age or the passing of time. In our research, my colleagues and I have suggested that, owing to these limitations, there has never actually been a genuine study of generations.

Generations create a lens through which we interact with others, shaping various forms of social behaviour

Generally, when researchers seek to identify generations, they consider the year in which people were born (their ‘cohort’) as a proxy for their generation. This practice has become well established and is usually not questioned. To form generations using this approach, people are rather arbitrarily grouped together into a band of birth years (for example, members of one generation are born between 19XX and 20YY, whereas members of the next generation are born between 20YY and 20XX, etc). The problem with doing this, especially when people are studied only at a single point in time, is that it is impossible to separate the apparent influence of one’s birth year (being part of a certain ‘generation’) from how old one is at the time of the study. This means that studies that purport to offer evidence for generational differences could just as easily be showing the effects of being a particular age – a 25-year-old is likely to think and act differently than a 45-year-old does, regardless of the ‘generation’ they belong to.

Alternatively, some studies adopt a ‘cross-temporal’ approach to studying generations and attempt to hold the effect of age constant (for example, comparing 18-year-olds surveyed in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, etc). The issue with this approach is that any effects of living at a particular time (eg, 2010) – on political attitudes, for example – are now easily misconstrued as effects of having been born in a certain year. As such, we again cannot unambiguously attribute the findings to generational membership. This is a well-known issue. Indeed, nearly every study that has ever tried to investigate generations falls into some form of this trap.

Recently, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US published the results of a consensus study on the idea of generations and generational differences at work. The conclusions of this study were clear and direct: there is little credible scientific evidence to back up the idea of generations and generational differences, and the (mis)application of these ideas has the potential to detrimentally affect people regardless of their age.

Where does this leave us? Absent evidence, or a valid way of disentangling the complexities of generations through research, what do we do with the concept of generations? Recognising these challenges, we can shift the focus from understanding the supposed natures of generations to understanding the existence and persistence of generational concepts and beliefs. My colleagues and I have advanced the argument that generations exist because they are willed into being. In other words, generations are socially constructed through discourse on ageing in society; they exist because we establish them, label them, ascribe traits to them, and then promote and legitimise them through various media channels (eg, books, magazines, and even film and television), general discourse and through more formalised policy guidance….(More)”

Innovative Data for Urban Planning: The Opportunities and Challenges of Public-Private Data Partnerships


GSMA Report: “Rapid urbanisation will be one of the most pressing and complex challenges in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) for the next several decades. With cities in Africa and Asia expected to add more than one billion people, urban populations will represent two-thirds of the world population by 2050. This presents LMICs with an interesting opportunity and challenge, where rapid urbanisation can both contribute to economic or poverty growth.

The rapid pace and unequal character of urbanisation in LMICs has meant that not enough data has been generated to support urban planning solutions and the effective provision of urban utility services. Data-sharing partnerships between the public and private sector can bridge this data gap and open up an opportunity for governments to address urbanisation challenges with data-driven decisions. Innovative data sources such as mobile network operator data, remote sensing data, utility services data and other digital services data, can be applied to a range of critical urban planning and service provision use cases.

This report identifies challenges and enablers for public-private data-sharing partnerships (PPPs) that relate to the partnership engagement model, data and technology, regulation and ethics frameworks and evaluation and sustainability….(More)”

From open policy-making to crowd-sourcing: illustrative forms of open government in education


Policy Brief by Muriel Poisson: “As part of its research project on ‘Open government (OG) in education: Learning from experience’, the UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) has prepared five thematic briefs illustrating various forms of OG as applied to the education field: open government, open budgeting, open contracting, open policy-making and crowd-sourcing, and social auditing. This brief deals specifically with open policy-making and crowd-sourcing….(More)”.

Indigenous Peoples Rise Up: The Global Ascendency of Social Media Activism


Book edited by Bronwyn Carlson and Jeff Berglund: “…llustrates the impact of social media in expanding the nature of Indigenous communities and social movements. Social media has bridged distance, time, and nation states to mobilize Indigenous peoples to build coalitions across the globe and to stand in solidarity with one another. These movements have succeeded and gained momentum and traction precisely because of the strategic use of social media. Social media—Twitter and Facebook in particular—has also served as a platform for fostering health, well-being, and resilience, recognizing Indigenous strength and talent, and sustaining and transforming cultural practices when great distances divide members of the same community.
 
Including a range of international indigenous voices from the US, Canada, Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Africa, the book takes an interdisciplinary approach, bridging Indigenous studies, media studies, and social justice studies. Including examples like Idle No More in Canada, Australian Recognise!, and social media campaigns to maintain Maori language, Indigenous Peoples Rise Up serves as one of the first studies of Indigenous social media use and activism…(More)”.

The people’s panopticon: Open-source intelligence comes of age


The Economist: “The great hope of the 1990s and 2000s was that the internet would be a force for openness and freedom. As Stewart Brand, a pioneer of online communities, put it: “Information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time.” It was not to be. Bad information often drove out good. Authoritarian states co-opted the technologies that were supposed to loosen their grip. Information was wielded as a weapon of war. Amid this disappointment one development offers cause for fresh hope: the emerging era of open-source intelligence (osint).

New sensors, from humdrum dashboard cameras to satellites that can see across the electromagnetic spectrum, are examining the planet and its people as never before. The information they collect is becoming cheaper. Satellite images cost several thousand dollars 20 years ago, today they are often provided free and are of incomparably higher quality. A photograph of any spot on Earth, of a stricken tanker or the routes taken by joggers in a city is available with a few clicks. And online communities and collaborative tools, like Slack, enable hobbyists and experts to use this cornucopia of information to solve riddles and unearth misdeeds with astonishing speed.

Human Rights Watch has analysed satellite imagery to document ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. Nanosatellites tag the automatic identification system of vessels that are fishing illegally. Amateur sleuths have helped Europol, the European Union’s policing agency, investigate child sexual exploitation by identifying geographical clues in the background of photographs. Even hedge funds routinely track the movements of company executives in private jets, monitored by a web of amateurs around the world, to predict mergers and acquisitions.

osint thus bolsters civil society, strengthens law enforcement and makes markets more efficient. It can also humble some of the world’s most powerful countries.

In the face of vehement denials from the Kremlin, Bellingcat, an investigative group, meticulously demonstrated Russia’s role in the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight mh17 over Ukraine in 2014, using little more than a handful of photographs, satellite images and elementary geometry. It went on to identify the Russian agents who attempted to assassinate Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, in England in 2018. amateur analysts and journalists used osint to piece together the full extent of Uyghur internment camps in Xinjiang. In recent weeks researchers poring over satellite imagery have spotted China constructing hundreds of nuclear-missile silos in the desert.

Such an emancipation of information promises to have profound effects. The decentralised and egalitarian nature of osint erodes the power of traditional arbiters of truth and falsehood, in particular governments and their spies and soldiers. For those like this newspaper who believe that secrecy can too easily be abused by people in power, osint is welcome….(More)”.

Data ownership revisited: clarifying data accountabilities in times of big data and analytics


Paper by Martin Fadler and Christine Legner: “Today, a myriad of data is generated via connected devices and digital applications. In order to benefit from these data, companies have to develop their capabilities related to big data and analytics (BDA). A critical factor that is often cited concerning the “soft” aspects of BDA is data ownership, i.e., clarifying the fundamental rights and responsibilities for data. IS research has investigated data ownership for operational systems and data warehouses, where the purpose of data processing is known. In the BDA context, defining accountabilities for data is more challenging because data are stored in data lakes and used for previously unknown purposes. Based on four case studies, we identify ownership principles and three distinct types: data, data platform, and data product ownership. Our research answers fundamental questions about how data management changes with BDA and lays the foundation for future research on data and analytics governance….(More)”.