World War Web

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Special issue of Foreign Affairs: “The last few decades have witnessed the growth of an American-sponsored Internet open to all. But that was then; conditions have changed.

History is filled with supposed lost utopias, and there is no greater cliché than to see one’s own era as a lamentable decline from a previous golden age. Sometimes, however, clichés are right. And as we explored the Internet’s future for this issue’s lead package, it became clear this was one of those times. Contemplating where we have come from digitally and where we are heading, it’s hard not to feel increasingly wistful and nostalgic.

The last few decades have witnessed the growth of an American-sponsored Internet open to all, and that has helped tie the world together, bringing wide-ranging benefits to billions. But that was then; conditions have changed.

Other great powers are contesting U.S. digital leadership, pushing their own national priorities. Security threats appear and evolve constantly. Platforms that were supposed to expand and enrich the marketplace of ideas have been hijacked by trolls and bots and flooded with disinformation. And real power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few private tech giants, whose self-interested choices have dramatic consequences for the entire world around them.

Whatever emerges from this melee, it will be different from, and in many ways worse than, what we have now.

Adam Segal paints the big picture well. “The Internet has long been an American project,” he writes. “Yet today, the United States has ceded leadership in cyberspace to China.” What will happen if Beijing continues its online ascent? “The Internet will be less global and less open. A major part of it will run Chinese applications over Chinese-made hardware. And Beijing will reap the economic, diplomatic, national security, and intelligence benefits that once flowed to Washington.”

Nandan Nilekani, a co-founder of Infosys, outlines India’s unique approach to these issues, which is based on treating “digital infrastructure as a public good and data as something that citizens deserve access to.” Helen Dixon, Ireland’s data protection commissioner, presents a European perspective, arguing that giving individuals control over their own data—as the General Data Protection Regulation, the EU’s historic new regulatory effort, aims to do—is essential to restoring the Internet’s promise. And Karen Kornbluh, a veteran U.S. policymaker, describes how the United States dropped the digital ball and what it could do to pick it up again.

Finally, Michèle Flournoy and Michael Sulmeyer explain the new realities of cyberwarfare, and Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Thomas Ramge consider the problems caused by Big Tech’s hoarding of data and what can be done to address it.

A generation from now, people across the globe will no doubt revel in the benefits the Internet has brought. But the more thoughtful among them will also lament the eclipse of the founders’ idealistic vision and dream of a world connected the way it could—and should— have been….(More)”.

The Risks of Dangerous Dashboards in Basic Education

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Lant Pritchett at the Center for Global Development: “On June 1, 2009 Air France flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris crashed into the Atlantic Ocean killing all 228 people on board. While the Airbus 330 was flying on auto-pilot, the different speed indicators received by the on-board navigation computers started to give conflicting speeds, almost certainly because the pitot tubes responsible for measuring air speed had iced over. Since the auto-pilot could not resolve conflicting signals and hence did not know how fast the plane was actually going, it turned control of the plane over to the two first officers (the captain was out of the cockpit). Subsequent flight simulator trials replicating the conditions of the flight conclude that had the pilots done nothing at all everyone would have lived—nothing was actually wrong; only the indicators were faulty, not the actual speed. But, tragically, the pilots didn’t do nothing….

What is the connection to education?

Many countries’ systems of basic education are in “stall” condition.

A recent paper of Beatty et al. (2018) uses information from the Indonesia Family Life Survey, a representative household survey that has been carried out in several waves with the same individuals since 2000 and contains information on whether individuals can answer simple arithmetic questions. Figure 1, showing the relationship between the level of schooling and the probability of answering a typical question correctly, has two shocking results.

First, the difference in the likelihood a person can answer a simple mathematics question correctly differs by only 20 percent between individuals who have completed less than primary school (<PS)—who can answer correctly (adjusted for guessing) about 20 percent of the time—and those who have completed senior secondary school or more (>=SSS), who answer correctly only about 40 percent of the time. These are simple multiple choice questions like whether 56/84 is the same fraction as (can be reduced to) 2/3, and whether 1/3-1/6 equals 1/6. This means that in an entire year of schooling, less than 2 additional children per 100 gain the ability to answer simple arithmetic questions.

Second, this incredibly poor performance in 2000 got worse by 2014. …

What has this got to do with education dashboards? The way large bureaucracies prefer to work is to specify process compliance and inputs and then measure those as a means of driving performance. This logistical mode of managing an organization works best when both process compliance and inputs are easily “observable” in the economist’s sense of easily verifiable, contractible, adjudicated. This leads to attention to processes and inputs that are “thin” in the Clifford Geertz sense (adopted by James Scott as his primary definition of how a “high modern” bureaucracy and hence the state “sees” the world). So in education one would specify easily-observable inputs like textbook availability, class size, school infrastructure. Even if one were talking about “quality” of schooling, a large bureaucracy would want this too reduced to “thin” indicators, like the fraction of teachers with a given type of formal degree, or process compliance measures, like whether teachers were hired based on some formal assessment.

Those involved in schooling can then become obsessed with their dashboards and the “thin” progress that is being tracked and easily ignore the loud warning signals saying: Stall!…(More)”.

Searching for the Smart City’s Democratic Future

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Bianca Wylie at the Center for International Governance Innovation: “There is a striking blue building on Toronto’s eastern waterfront. Wrapped top to bottom in bright, beautiful artwork by Montreal illustrator Cecile Gariepy, the building — a former fish-processing plant — stands out alongside the neighbouring parking lots and a congested highway. It’s been given a second life as an office for Sidewalk Labs — a sister company to Google that is proposing a smart city development in Toronto. Perhaps ironically, the office is like the smart city itself: something old repackaged to be light, fresh and novel.

“Our mission is really to use technology to redefine urban life in the twenty-first century.”

Dan Doctoroff, CEO of Sidewalk Labs, shared this mission in an interview with Freakonomics Radio. The phrase is a variant of the marketing language used by the smart city industry at large. Put more simply, the term “smart city” is usually used to describe the use of technology and data in cities.

No matter the words chosen to describe it, the smart city model has a flaw at its core: corporations are seeking to exert influence on urban spaces and democratic governance. And because most governments don’t have the policy in place to regulate smart city development — in particular, projects driven by the fast-paced technology sector — this presents a growing global governance concern.

This is where the story usually descends into warnings of smart city dystopia or failure. Loads of recent articles have detailed the science fiction-style city-of-the-future and speculated about the perils of mass data collection, and for good reason — these are important concepts that warrant discussion. It’s time, however, to push past dystopian narratives and explore solutions for the challenges that smart cities present in Toronto and globally…(More)”.

A roadmap for restoring trust in Big Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
Mark Lawler et al in the Lancet: “The fallout from the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook scandal marks a significant inflection point in the public’s trust concerning Big Data. The health-science community must use this crisis-in-confidence to redouble its commitment to talk openly and transparently about benefits and risks and to act decisively to deliver robust effective governance frameworks, under which personal health data can be responsibly used. Activities such as the Innovative Medicines Initiative’s Big Data for Better Outcomes emphasise how a more granular data-driven understanding of human diseases including cancer could underpin innovative therapeutic intervention.
 Health Data Research UK is developing national research expertise and infrastructure to maximise the value of health data science for the National Health Service and ultimately British citizens.
Comprehensive data analytics are crucial to national programmes such as the US Cancer Moonshot, the UK’s 100 000 Genomes project, and other national genomics programmes. Cancer Core Europe, a research partnership between seven leading European oncology centres, has personal data sharing at its core. The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health recently highlighted the need for a global cancer knowledge network to drive evidence-based solutions for a disease that kills more than 8·7 million citizens annually worldwide. These activities risk being fatally undermined by the recent data-harvesting controversy.
We need to restore the public’s trust in data science and emphasise its positive contribution in addressing global health and societal challenges. An opportunity to affirm the value of data science in Europe was afforded by Digital Day 2018, which took place on April 10, 2018, in Brussels, and where European Health Ministers signed a declaration of support to link existing or future genomic databanks across the EU, through the Million European Genomes Alliance.
So how do we address evolving challenges in analysis, sharing, and storage of information, ensure transparency and confidentiality, and restore public trust? We must articulate a clear Social Contract, where citizens (as data donors) are at the heart of decision-making. We need to demonstrate integrity, honesty, and transparency as to what happens to data and what level of control people can, or cannot, expect. We must embed ethical rigour in all our data-driven processes. The Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health Related Data represents a practical global approach, promoting effective and ethical sharing and use of research or patient data, while safeguarding individual privacy through secure and accountable data transfer…(More)”.

Data Colonialism: Rethinking Big Data’s Relation to the Contemporary Subject

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias in Television & New Media (TVNM): “...Data colonialism combines the predatory extractive practices of historical colonialism with the abstract quantification methods of computing. Understanding Big Data from the Global South means understanding capitalism’s current dependence on this new type of appropriation that works at every point in space where people or things are attached to today’s infrastructures of connection. The scale of this transformation means that it is premature to map the forms of capitalism that will emerge from it on a global scale. Just as historical colonialism over the long-run provided the essential preconditions for the emergence of industrial capitalism, so over time, we can expect that data colonialism will provide the preconditions for a new stage of capitalism that as yet we can barely imagine, but for which the appropriation of human life through data will be central.

Right now, the priority is not to speculate about that eventual stage of capitalism, but to resist the data colonialism that is under way. This is how we understand Big Data from the South. Through what we call ‘data relations’ (new types of human relations which enable the extraction of data for commodification), social life all over the globe becomes an ‘open’ resource for extraction that is somehow ‘just there’ for capital. These global flows of data are as expansive as historic colonialism’s appropriation of land, resources, and bodies, although the epicentre has somewhat shifted. Data colonialism involves not one pole of colonial power (‘the West’), but at least two: the USA and China. This complicates our notion of the geography of the Global South, a concept which until now helped situate resistance and disidentification along geographic divisions between former colonizers and colonized. Instead, the new data colonialism works both externally — on a global scale — and internally on its own home populations. The elites of data colonialism (think of Facebook) benefit from colonization in both dimensions, and North-South, East-West divisions no longer matter in the same way.

It is important to acknowledge both the apparent similarities and the significant differences between our argument and the many preceding critical arguments about Big Data…(More)”

Regulatory Technology – Replacing Law with Computer Code

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

LSE Legal Studies Working Paper by Eva Micheler and Anna Whaley: “Recently both the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority have carried out experiments using new digital technology for regulatory purposes. The idea is to replace rules written in natural legal language with computer code and to use artificial intelligence for regulatory purposes.

This new way of designing public law is in line with the government’s vision for the UK to become a global leader in digital technology. It is also reflected in the FCA’s business plan.

The article reviews the technology and the advantages and disadvantages of combining the technology with regulatory law. It then informs the discussion from a broader public law perspective. It analyses regulatory technology through criteria developed in the mainstream regulatory discourse. It contributes to that discourse by anticipating problems that will arise as the technology evolves. In addition, the hope is to assist the government in avoiding mistakes that have occurred in the past and creating a better system from the start…(More)”.

What top technologies should the next generation know how to use?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Lottie Waters at Devex: “Technology provides some great opportunities for global development, and a promising future. But for the next generation of professionals to succeed, it’s vital they stay up to date with the latest tech, innovations, and tools.

In a recent report produced by Devex in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development and DAI, some 86 percent of survey respondents believe the technology, skills, and approaches development professionals will be using in 10 years’ time will be significantly different to today’s.

In fact, “technology for development” is regarded as the sector that will see the most development progress, but is also cited as the one that will see the biggest changes in skills required, according to the survey.

“As different technologies develop, new possibilities will open up that we may not even be aware of yet. These opportunities will bring new people into the development sector and require those in it to be more agile in adapting technologies to meet development challenges,” said one survey respondent.

While “blockchain,” “artificial intelligence,” and “drones” may be the current buzzwords surrounding tech in global development, geographical information systems, or GIS, and big data are actually the top technologies respondents believe the next generation of development professionals should learn how to utilize.

So, how are these technologies currently being used in development, how might this change in the near future, and what will their impact be in the next 10 years? Devex spoke with experts in the field who are already integrating these technologies into their work to find out….(More)”

Cloud Communities: The Dawn of Global Citizenship?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper by Liav Orgad and Rainer Baubock: “New digital technologies are rapidly changing the global economy and have connected billions of people in deterritoralised social network. Will they also create new opportunities for global citizenship and alternatives to state-based political communities?

In his kick-off essay, Liav Orgad takes an optimistic view. Blockchain technology permits to give every human being a unique legal persona and allows individuals to associate in ‘cloud communities’ that may take on several functions of territorial states. 14 commentators discuss this vision.

Sceptics assume that states or business corporations have always found ways to capture and use new technologies for their purposes. They emphasise that the political functions of states, including their task to protect human rights, require territorial monopolies of legitimate coercion that cannot be provided by cloud communities.

Others point out that individuals would sort themselves out into cloud communities that are internally homogenous which risks to deepen political cleavages within territorial societies.

Finally, some authors are concerned that digital political communities will enhance global social inequalities through excluding from access those who are already worse off in the birthright lottery of territorial citizenship.

Optimists see instead the great potential of blockchain technology to overcome exclusion and marginalisation based on statelessness or sheer lack of civil registries; they regard it as a tool for enhancing individual freedom, since people are self-sovereign in controlling their personal data; and they emphasise the possibilities for emancipatory movements to mobilise for global justice across territorial borders or to create their own internally democratic political utopias.

In the boldest vision, the deficits of cloud communities as voluntary political associations with limited scope of power could be overcome in a global cryptodemocracy that lets all individuals participate on a one-person-one-vote basis in global political decisions….(More)”.

Information Asymmetries, Blockchain Technologies, and Social Change

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Reflections by Stefaan Verhulst on “the potential (and challenges) of Distributed Ledgers for “Market for Lemons” Conditions: We live in a data age, and it has become common to extol the transformative power of data and information. It is now conventional to assume that many of our most pressing public problems—everything from climate change to terrorism to mass migration—are amenable to a “data fix.”

The truth, though, is a little more complicated. While there is no doubt that data—when analyzed and used responsibly—holds tremendous potential, many factors affect whether, and to what extent, that potential will ultimately be fulfilled.

Our ability to address complex public problems using data depends vitally on how our respective data ecosystems is designed (as well as ongoing questions of representation in, power over, and stewardship of these ecosystems).

Flaws in our data ecosystem that prevent us from addressing problems; may also be responsible for many societal failures and inequalities result from the fact that:

  • some actors have better access to data than others;
  • data is of poor quality (or even “fake”); contains implicit bias; and/or is not validated and thus not trusted;
  • only easily accessible data are shared and integrated (“open washing”) while important data remain carefully hidden or without resources for relevant research and analysis; and more generally that
  • even in an era of big and open data, information too often remains stove-piped, siloed, and generally difficult to access.

Several observers have pointed to the relationship between these information asymmetries and, for example, corruption, financial exclusion, global pandemics, forced mass migration, human rights abuses, and electoral fraud.

Consider the transaction costs, power inequities and other obstacles that result from such information asymmetries, namely:

–     At the individual level: too often someone who is trying to open a bank account (or sign up for new cell phone service) is unable to provide all the requisite information, such as credit history, proof of address or other confirmatory and trusted attributes of identity. As such, information asymmetries are in effect limiting this individual’s access to financial and communications services.

–     At the corporate level, a vast body of literature in economics has shown how uncertainty over the quality and trustworthiness of data can impose transaction costs, limit the development of markets for goods and services, or shut them down altogether. This is the well-known “market for lemons” problem made famous in a 1970 paper of the same name by George Akerlof.

–     At the societal or governance level, information asymmetries don’t just affect the efficiency of markets or social inequality. They can also incentivize unwanted behaviors that cause substantial public harm. Tyrants and corrupt politicians thrive on limiting their citizens’ access to information (e.g., information related to bank accounts, investment patterns or disbursement of public funds). Likewise, criminals, operate and succeed in the information-scarce corners of the underground economy.

Blockchain technologies and Information Asymmetries

This is where blockchain comes in. At their core, blockchain technologies are a new type of disclosure mechanism that have the potential to address some of the information asymmetries listed above. There are many types of blockchain technologies, and while I use the blanket term ‘blockchain’ in the below for simplicity’s sake, the nuances between different types of blockchain technologies can greatly impact the character and likelihood of success of a given initiative.

By leveraging a shared and verified database of ledgers stored in a distributed manner, blockchain seeks to redesign information ecosystems in a more transparent, immutable, and trusted manner. Solving information asymmetries may be the real potential of blockchain, and this—much more than the current hype over virtual currencies—is the real reason to assess its potential….(More)”.

The Case for Accountability: How it Enables Effective Data Protection and Trust in the Digital Society

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Centre for Information Policy Leadership: “Accountability now has broad international support and has been adopted in many laws, including in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), regulatory policies and organisational practices. It is essential that there is consensus and clarity on the precise meaning and application of organisational accountability among all stakeholders, including organisations implementing accountability and data protection authorities (DPAs) overseeing accountability.

Without such consensus, organisations will not know what DPAs expect of them and DPAs will not know how to assess organisations’ accountability-based privacy programs with any degree of consistency and predictability. Thus, drawing from the global experience with accountability to date and from the Centre for Information Policy Leadership’s (CIPL) own extensive prior work on accountability, this paper seeks to explain the following issues:

  • The concept of organisational accountability and how it is reflected in the GDPR;
  • The essential elements of accountability and how the requirements of the GDPR (and of other normative frameworks) map to these elements;
  • Global acceptance and adoption of accountability;
  • How organisations can implement accountability (including by and between controllers and processors) through comprehensive internal privacy programs that implement external rules or the organisation’s own data protection policies and goals, or through verified or certified accountability mechanisms, such as Binding Corporate Rules (BCR), APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR), APEC Privacy Recognition for Processors (PRP), other seals and certifications, including future GDPR certifications and codes of conduct; and
  • The benefits that accountability can deliver to each stakeholder group.

In addition, the paper argues that accountability exists along a spectrum, ranging from basic accountability requirements required by law (such as under the GDPR) to stronger and more granular accountability measures that may not be required by law but that organisations may nevertheless want to implement because they convey substantial benefits….(More)”.