How credit unions could help people make the most of personal data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Dylan Walsh at MIT Sloan: “In May of 2018, the EU adopted the General Data Protection Regulation, referred to by The New York Timesas “the world’s toughest rules to protect people’s online data.” Among its many safeguards, the GDPR gave individuals ownership of their personal data and thereby restricted its collection and use by businesses.

“That’s a good first start,” said Alex Pentland, a co-creator of the MIT Media Lab who played a foundational role in the development of the GDPR. “But ownership isn’t enough. Simply having the rights to your data doesn’t allow you to do much with it.” In response to this shortcoming, Pentland and his team have proposed the establishment of data cooperatives.

The idea is conceptually straightforward: Individuals would pool their personal data in a single institution — just as they pool money in banks — and that institution would both protect the data and put it to use. Pentland and his team suggest credit unions as one type of organization that could fill this role. And while companies would need to request permission to use consumer data, consumers themselves could request analytic insights from the cooperative. Lyft drivers, for instance, might compare their respective incomes across routes, and ride-share passengers could compare how much they pay relative to other cooperative members….

Several states have now asked credit unions to look into the idea of data cooperatives, but the model has yet to gain a foothold. “Credit unions are conservative,” Pentland said. But assuming the idea gains traction, the infrastructure won’t be difficult to build. Technology exists to automatically record and organize all the data that we give to companies; and credit unions, which have 100 million members nationwide, possess charters readymade to take on data management….(More)”.

Design Tweak Yields 18 Percent Rise in SNAP Enrollment

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Zack Quaintance at Government Technology: “A new study has found that a small human-centered design tweak made by government can increase the number of eligible people who enroll for food benefits.

The study — conducted by the data science firm Civis Analytics and the nonprofit food benefits enrollment advocacy group mRelief — was conducted in Los Angeles County from January to April of this year. It was designed to test a pair of potential improvements. The first was the ability to schedule a call directly with the CalFresh office, which handles food benefits enrollment in California. The second was the ability to schedule a call along with a text reminder to schedule a call. The study was conducted via a randomized control trial that ultimately included about 2,300 people.

What the research found was an 18 percent increase in enrollment within the group that was given the chance to schedule a call. Subsequently, text reminders showed no increase of any significance….(More)”.

Urbanism Under Google: Lessons from Sidewalk Toronto

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ellen P. Goodman and Julia Powles: “Cities around the world are rapidly adopting digital technologies, data analytics, and the trappings of “smart” infrastructure. No company is more ambitious about exploring data flows and seeking to dominate networks of information than Google. In October 2017, Google affiliate Sidewalk Labs embarked on its first prototype smart city in Toronto, Canada, planning a new kind of data-driven urban environment: “the world’s first neighborhood built from the internet up.” Although the vision is for an urban district foregrounding progressive ideals of inclusivity, for the crucial first 18 months of the venture, many of the most consequential features of the project were hidden from view and unavailable for serious scrutiny. The players defied public accountability on questions about data collection and surveillance, governance, privacy, competition, and procurement. Even more basic questions about the use of public space went unanswered: privatized services, land ownership, infrastructure deployment and, in all cases, the question of who is in control. What was hidden in this first stage, and what was revealed, suggest that the imagined smart city may be incompatible with democratic processes, sustained public governance, and the public interest.

This article analyzes the Sidewalk project in Toronto as it took shape in its first phase, prior to the release of the Master Innovation and Development Plan, exploring three major governance challenges posed by the imagined “city of the future”: privatization, platformization, and domination. The significance of this case study applies well beyond Toronto. Google and related companies are modeling future business growth embedded in cities and using projects like the one in Toronto as test beds. What happens in Toronto is designed to be replicated. We conclude with some lessons, highlighting the precarity of civic stewardship and public accountability when cities are confronted with tantalizing visions of privatized urban innovation…(More)”.

Why data ownership is the wrong approach to protecting privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by John B. Morris Jr. and Cameron F. Kerry: “It’s my data.” It’s an idea often expressed about information privacy.

Indeed, in congressional hearings last year, Mark Zuckerberg said multiple times that “people own all of their own content” on Facebook. A survey by Insights Network earlier this year found that 79% of consumers said they want compensation when their data is shared. Musician and tech entrepreneur will.i.am took to the website of The Economist to argue that payment for data is a way to “redress the balance” between individuals and “data monarchs.”

Some policymakers are taking such thinking to heart. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a three-page bill, the “Own Your Own Data Act of 2019,” which declares that “each individual owns and has an exclusive property right in the data that individual generates on the internet” and requires that social media companies obtain licenses to use this data. Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) are filing legislation to require Facebook, Google, and other large collectors of data to disclose the value of personal data they collect, although the bill would not require payments. In California, Governor Gavin Newsome wants to pursue a “data dividend” designed to “share in the wealth that is created from [people’s] data.”

Treating our data as our property has understandable appeal. It touches what the foundational privacy thinker Alan Westin identified as an essential aspect of privacy, a right “to control, edit, manage, and delete information about [individuals] and decide when, how, and to what extent information is communicated to others.” It expresses the unfairness people feel about an asymmetrical marketplace in which we know little about the data we share but the companies that receive the data can profit by extracting marketable information.

The trouble is, it’s not your data; it’s not their data either.  Treating data like it is property fails to recognize either the value that varieties of personal information serve or the abiding interest that individuals have in their personal information even if they choose to “sell” it. Data is not a commodity. It is information. Any system of information rights—whether patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property, or privacy rights—presents some tension with strong interest in the free flow of information that is reflected by the First Amendment. Our personal information is in demand precisely because it has value to others and to society across a myriad of uses.

Treating personal information as property to be licensed or sold may induce people to trade away their privacy rights for very little value while injecting enormous friction into free flow of information. The better way to strengthen privacy is to ensure that individual privacy interests are respected as personal information flows to desirable uses, not to reduce personal data to a commodity….(More)”.

Three Companies Innovating Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Matt Harder at Beyond Voting: “….Below, we’ll explore three websites that allow citizens to communicate better with their governing systems.

Countable.us makes it easier to know what your representatives are voting on, and to tell them how you think they should vote. For each upcoming bill, you can suggest a yea or nay to your representative via email or can even send video messages. Each bill also has a lively debate section so the yeas and nays can share, upvote their opinions and learn from each other. The result is seeing more informed and better arguments in favor of your preferences, and perhaps more importantly, against.

IssueVoter.us is similar to Countable in that you give your opinions to your representatives. But IssueVoter puts a different spin on it by giving you a “scorecard” highlighting how closely your representatives votes align to your preferences. The site is still new, so the functionality is not as great as it could be, but the concept is worth note.

Bang the Table focuses on engagement at a local level. They create civic engagement dashboards for cities that allow residents to stay informed and share opinions about city projects. They offer several levels of engagement, from simply dispensing information for the city to engaging citizens in collective discussions and decision making. Fayetteville, AR used them to make the engagement page Speak Up Fayetteville, which informed citizens about projects such as the Cultural Arts Corridor.

While none of these are driving massive change just yet, it’s easy to imagine how they could be enormously impactful if embraced at scale. First, they will all have to figure out how to design websites which are appealing enough to bring the masses, yet meaningful enough to benefit decision-makers. We’re stuck in the in-between phase where the internet is the most powerful communication medium, but we haven’t learned to utilize it for productive democratic purposes….(More)”.

How Much Is Data Privacy Worth? A Preliminary Investigation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Angela G. Winegar and Cass R. Sunstein: “Do consumers value data privacy? How much? In a survey of 2,416 Americans, we find that the median consumer is willing to pay just $5 per month to maintain data privacy (along specified dimensions), but would demand $80 to allow access to personal data. This is a “superendowment effect,” much higher than the 1:2 ratio often found between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. In addition, people demand significantly more money to allow access to personal data when primed that such data includes health-related data than when primed that such data includes demographic data. We analyze reasons for these disparities and offer some notations on their implications for theory and practice.

A general theme is that because of a lack of information and behavioral biases, both willingness to pay and willingness to accept measures are highly unreliable guides to the welfare effects of retaining or giving up data privacy. Gertrude Stein’s comment about Oakland, California may hold for consumer valuations of data privacy: “There is no there there.” For guidance, policymakers should give little or no attention to either of those conventional measures of economic value, at least when steps are not taken to overcome deficits in information and behavioral biases….(More)”.

Google and the University of Chicago Are Sued Over Data Sharing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Daisuke Wakabayashi in The New York Times: “When the University of Chicago Medical Center announced a partnership to share patient data with Google in 2017, the alliance was promoted as a way to unlock information trapped in electronic health records and improve predictive analysis in medicine.

On Wednesday, the University of Chicago, the medical center and Google were sued in a potential class-action lawsuit accusing the hospital of sharing hundreds of thousands of patients’ records with the technology giant without stripping identifiable date stamps or doctor’s notes.

The suit, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, demonstrates the difficulties technology companies face in handling health data as they forge ahead into one of the most promising — and potentially lucrative — areas of artificial intelligence: diagnosing medical problems.

Google is at the forefront of an effort to build technology that can read electronic health records and help physicians identify medical conditions. But the effort requires machines to learn this skill by analyzing a vast array of old health records collected by hospitals and other medical institutions.

That raises privacy concerns, especially when is used by a company like Google, which already knows what you search for, where you are and what interests you hold.

In 2016, DeepMind, a London-based A.I. lab owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, was accused of violating patient privacy after it struck a deal with Britain’s National Health Service to process medical data for research….(More)”.

Open Mobility Foundation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Press Release: “The Open Mobility Foundation (OMF) – a global coalition led by cities committed to using well-designed, open-source technology to evolve how cities manage transportation in the modern era – launched today with the mission to promote safety, equity and quality of life. The announcement comes as a response to the growing number of vehicles and emerging mobility options on city streets. A new city-governed non-profit, the OMF brings together academic, commercial, advocacy and municipal stakeholders to help cities develop and deploy new digital mobility tools, and provide the governance needed to efficiently manage them.

“Cities are always working to harness the power of technology for the public good. The Open Mobility Foundation will help us manage emerging transportation infrastructures, and make mobility more accessible and affordable for people in all of our communities,” said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who also serves as Advisory Council Chair of Accelerator for America, which showcased the MDS platform early on.

The OMF convenes a new kind of public-private forum to seed innovative ideas and govern an evolving software platform. Serving as a forum for discussions about pedestrian safety, privacy, equity, open-source governance and other related topics, the OMF has engaged a broad range of city and municipal organizations, private companies and non-profit groups, and experts and advocates to ensure comprehensive engagement and expertise on vital issues….

The OMF governs a platform called “Mobility Data Specification” (MDS) that the Los Angeles Department of Transportation developed to help manage dockless micro-mobility programs (including shared dockless e-scooters). MDS is comprised of a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that create standard communications between cities and private companies to improve their operations. The APIs allow cities to collect data that can inform real-time traffic management and public policy decisions to enhance safety, equity and quality of life. More than 50 cities across the United States – and dozens across the globe – already use MDS to manage micro-mobility services.

Making this software open and free offers a safe and efficient environment for stakeholders, including municipalities, companies, experts and the public, to solve problems together. And because private companies scale best when cities can offer a consistent playbook for innovation, the OMF aims to nurture those services that provide the highest benefit to the largest number of people, from sustainability to safety outcomes….(More)”

Seize the Data: Using Evidence to Transform How Federal Agencies Do Business

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Partnership for Public Service: “The use of data analysis, rigorous evaluation and a range of other credible strategies to inform decision-making is becoming more common across government. Even so, the movement is nascent, with leading practices implemented at some agencies, but not yet widely adopted. Much more progress is necessary. In fact, the recently enacted Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, as well as the recently released draft Federal Data Strategy Action Plan, both prioritize broader adoption of leading practices.

To support that effort, this report highlights practical steps that agencies can take to become more data-driven and evidence-based. The findings emerged from a series of workshops and interviews conducted between April 2018 and May 2019 by the Partnership for Public Service and Grant Thornton. From these sessions, we learned that the most forward-thinking agencies rely on multiple approaches, including:
• Using top-down and bottom-up approaches to build evidence-based organizations.
• Driving longer-term and shorter-term learning.
• Using existing data and new data.
• Strengthening internal capacity and creating external research practitioner partnerships.
This report describes what these strategies look like in practice, and shares real-world and replicable examples of how leading agencies have become more data-driven and evidence-based….(More)”.

Modernizing Congress: Bringing Democracy into the 21st Century

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Lorelei Kelly: “Congress represents a national cross section of civic voice. It is potentially the most diverse market for ideas in government and should be reaping the benefits of America’s creativity and knowledge. During our transition into the 21st century, this civic information asset — from lived experience to structured data — should fuel the digital infrastructure of a modern representative system. Yet Congress has thus far failed to tap this resource on behalf of its legislative and deliberative functions.

Today’s Congress can’t compete on digital infrastructure or modern data methods with the executive branch, the media or the private sector. To be sure, information weaponization, antique technology and Congress’ stubborn refusal to fund itself has arrested its development of a digital infrastructure. Congress is knowledge incapacitated, physically disconnected and technologically obsolete. In this condition, it cannot fulfill its First Branch duties as laid out in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

Fortunately, changing the direction of Congress is now in sight. Before the end of January 2019, (1) the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act became law, (2) the House created a Select Committee on Modernization, and (3) Congress began to restore its internal science and technology capacity.

Modernizing Congress lays out a plan to accelerate this institutional progress. It scopes out the challenge of including civic voice in the legislative and deliberative process. It then identifies trusted local information intermediaries who could act as key components of a modern knowledge commons in Congress. With three case studies, the report illustrates how members and staff are finding new ways to build connection and gather useful constituent input at the district level. The report explores an urban, rural and suburban district. It concludes that while individual members are leveraging technology to connect and use new forms of civic voice from constituents, what Congress needs most is a systemwide digital infrastructure and updated institutional standards for data collection….(More)”.