Developing a Framework for Collective Data Rights

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Jeni Tennison: “Are collective data rights really necessary? Or, do people and communities already have sufficient rights to address harms through equality, public administration or consumer law? Might collective data rights even be harmful by undermining individual data rights or creating unjust collectivities? If we did have collective data rights, what should they look like? And how could they be introduced into legislation?

Data protection law and policy are founded on the notion of individual notice and consent, originating from the handling of personal data gathered for medical and scientific research. However, recent work on data governance has highlighted shortcomings with the notice-and-consent approach, especially in an age of big data and artificial intelligence. This special reports considers the need for collective data rights by examining legal remedies currently available in the United Kingdom in three scenarios where the people affected by algorithmic decision making are not data subjects and therefore do not have individual data protection rights…(More)”.

You Be the Judge: How Taobao Crowdsourced Its Courts

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Excerpt from Lizhi Liu’s new book, “From Click to Boom”: “When disputes occur, Taobao encourages buyers and sellers to negotiate with each other first. If the feuding parties cannot reach an agreement and do not want to go to court, they can use one of Taobao’s two judicial channels: asking a Taobao employee to adjudicate or using an online jury panel to arbitrate. This section discusses the second channel, a unique Chinese institutional innovation.

Alibaba’s Public Jury was established in 2012 to crowdsource justice. It uses a Western-style jury-voting mechanism to solve online disputes and controversial issues. These jurors are termed “public assessors” by Taobao. Interestingly, the name “public assessor” was drawn from the Chinese talent show “Super Girl” (similar to “American Idol”), which, after the authority shut down its mass voting system, transitioned to using a small panel of audience representatives (or “public assessors”) to vote for the show’s winner. The public jury was widely used by the main Taobao site by 2020 and is now frequently used by Xianyu, Taobao’s used-goods market.

Why did Taobao introduce the jury system? Certainly, as Taobao expanded, the volume of online disputes surged, posing challenges for the platform to handle all disputes by itself. However, according to a former platform employee responsible for designing this institution, the primary motivation was not the caseload. Instead, it was propelled by the complexity of online disputes that proved challenging for the platform to resolve alone. Consequently, they opted to involve users in adjudicating these cases to ensure a fairer process rather than solely relying on platform intervention.

To form a jury, Taobao randomly chooses each panel of 13 jurors from 4 million volunteer candidates; each juror may participate in up to 40 cases per day. The candidate needs to be an experienced Taobao user (i.e., those who have registered for more than a year) with a good online reputation (i.e., those who have a sufficiently high credit rating, as discussed below). This requirement is high enough to prevent most dishonest traders from manipulating votes, but low enough to be inclusive and keep the juror pool large. These jurors are unpaid yet motivated to participate. They gain experience points that can translate into different virtual titles or that can be donated to charity by Taobao as real money…(More)”

Un-Plateauing Corruption Research?Perhaps less necessary, but more exciting than one might think

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Dieter Zinnbauer: “There is a sense in the anti-corruption research community that we may have reached some plateau (or less politely, hit a wall). This article argues – at least partly – against this claim.

We may have reached a plateau with regard to some recurring (staid?) scholarly and policy debates that resurface with eerie regularity, tend to suck all oxygen out of the room, yet remain essentially unsettled and irresolvable. Questions aimed at arriving closure on what constitutes corruption, passing authoritative judgements  on what works and what does not and rather grand pronouncements on whether progress has or has not been all fall into this category.

 At the same time, there is exciting work often in unexpected places outside the inner ward of the anti-corruption castle,  contributing new approaches and fresh-ish insights and there are promising leads for exciting research on the horizon. Such areas include the underappreciated idiosyncrasies of corruption in the form of inaction rather than action, the use of satellites and remote sensing techniques to better understand and measure corruption, the overlooked role of short-sellers in tackling complex forms of corporate corruption and the growing phenomena of integrity capture, the anti-corruption apparatus co-opted for sinister, corrupt purposes.

These are just four examples of the colourful opportunity tapestry for (anti)corruption research moving forward, not in form of a great unified project and overarching new idea  but as little stabs of potentiality here and  there and somewhere else surprisingly unbeknownst…(More)”

Beware the Intention Economy: Collection and Commodification of Intent via Large Language Models

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Yaqub Chaudhary and Jonnie Penn: “The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) invites the possibility of a new marketplace for behavioral and psychological data that signals intent. This brief article introduces some initial features of that emerging marketplace. We survey recent efforts by tech executives to position the capture, manipulation, and commodification of human intentionality as a lucrative parallel to—and viable extension of—the now-dominant attention economy, which has bent consumer, civic, and media norms around users’ finite attention spans since the 1990s. We call this follow-on the intention economy. We characterize it in two ways. First, as a competition, initially, between established tech players armed with the infrastructural and data capacities needed to vie for first-mover advantage on a new frontier of persuasive technologies. Second, as a commodification of hitherto unreachable levels of explicit and implicit data that signal intent, namely those signals borne of combining (a) hyper-personalized manipulation via LLM-based sycophancy, ingratiation, and emotional infiltration and (b) increasingly detailed categorization of online activity elicited through natural language.

This new dimension of automated persuasion draws on the unique capabilities of LLMs and generative AI more broadly, which intervene not only on what users want, but also, to cite Williams, “what they want to want” (Williams, 2018, p. 122). We demonstrate through a close reading of recent technical and critical literature (including unpublished papers from ArXiv) that such tools are already being explored to elicit, infer, collect, record, understand, forecast, and ultimately manipulate, modulate, and commodify human plans and purposes, both mundane (e.g., selecting a hotel) and profound (e.g., selecting a political candidate)…(More)”.

Good government data requires good statistics officials – but how motivated and competent are they?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Worldbank Blog: “Government data is only as reliable as the statistics officials who produce it. Yet, surprisingly little is known about these officials themselves. For decades, they have diligently collected data on others –  such as households and firms – to generate official statistics, from poverty rates to inflation figures. Yet, data about statistics officials themselves is missing. How competent are they at analyzing statistical data? How motivated are they to excel in their roles? Do they uphold integrity when producing official statistics, even in the face of opposing career incentives or political pressures? And what can National Statistical Offices (NSOs) do to cultivate a workforce that is competent, motivated, and ethical?

We surveyed 13,300 statistics officials in 14 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to find out. Five results stand out. For further insights, consult our Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) report, Making National Statistical Offices Work Better.

1. The competence and management of statistics officials shape the quality of statistical data

Our survey included a short exam assessing basic statistical competencies, such as descriptive statistics and probability. Statistical competence correlates with data quality: NSOs with higher exam scores among employees tend to achieve better results in the World Bank’s Statistical Performance Indicators (r = 0.36).

NSOs with better management practices also have better statistical performance. For instance, NSOs with more robust recruitment and selection processes have better statistical performance (r = 0.62)…(More)”.

Nearly all Americans use AI, though most dislike it, poll shows

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Axios: “The vast majority of Americans use products that involve AI, but their views of the technology remain overwhelmingly negative, according to a Gallup-Telescope survey published Wednesday.

Why it matters: The rapid advancement of generative AI threatens to have far-reaching consequences for Americans’ everyday lives, including reshaping the job market, impacting elections, and affecting the health care industry.

The big picture: An estimated 99% of Americans used at least one AI-enabled product in the past week, but nearly two-thirds didn’t realize they were doing so, according to the poll’s findings.

  • These products included navigation apps, personal virtual assistants, weather forecasting apps, streaming services, shopping websites and social media platforms.
  • Ellyn Maese, a senior research consultant at Gallup, told Axios that the disconnect is because there is “a lot of confusion when it comes to what is just a computer program versus what is truly AI and intelligent.”

Zoom in: Despite its prevalent use, Americans’ views of AI remain overwhelmingly bleak, the survey found.

  • 72% of those surveyed had a “somewhat” or “very” negative opinion of how AI would impact the spread of false information, while 64% said the same about how it affects social connections.
  • The only area where a majority of Americans (61%) had a positive view of AI’s impact was regarding how it might help medical diagnosis and treatment…

State of play: The survey found that 68% of Americans believe the government and businesses equally bear responsibility for addressing the spread of false information related to AI.

  • 63% said the same about personal data privacy violations.
  • Majorities of those surveyed felt the same about combatting the unauthorized use of individuals’ likenesses (62%) and AI’s impact on job losses (52%).
  • In fact, the only area where Americans felt differently was when it came to national security threats; 62% of those surveyed said the government bore primary responsibility for reducing such threats…(More).”

Governing artificial intelligence means governing data: (re)setting the agenda for data justice

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Linnet Taylor, Siddharth Peter de Souza, Aaron Martin, and Joan López Solano: “The field of data justice has been evolving to take into account the role of data in powering the field of artificial intelligence (AI). In this paper we review the main conceptual bases for governing data and AI: the market-based approach, the personal–non-personal data distinction and strategic sovereignty. We then analyse how these are being operationalised into practical models for governance, including public data trusts, data cooperatives, personal data sovereignty, data collaboratives, data commons approaches and indigenous data sovereignty. We interrogate these models’ potential for just governance based on four benchmarks which we propose as a reformulation of the Data Justice governance agenda identified by Taylor in her 2017 framework. Re-situating data justice at the intersection of data and AI, these benchmarks focus on preserving and strengthening public infrastructures and public goods; inclusiveness; contestability and accountability; and global responsibility. We demonstrate how they can be used to test whether a governance approach will succeed in redistributing power, engaging with public concerns and creating a plural politics of AI…(More)”.

Why Canada needs to embrace innovations in democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Megan Mattes and Joanna Massie: “Although one-off democratic innovations like citizens’ assemblies are excellent approaches for tackling a big issue, more embedded types of innovations could be a powerful tool for maintaining an ongoing connection between public interest and political decision-making.

Innovative approaches to maintaining an ongoing, meaningful connection between people and policymakers are underway. In New Westminster, B.C., a standing citizen body called the Community Advisory Assembly has been convened since January 2024 to January 2025.

These citizen advisers are selected through random sampling to ensure the assembly’s demographic makeup is aligned with the overall population.

Over the last year, members have both given input on policy ideas initiated by New Westminster city council and initiated conversations on their own policy priorities. Notes from these discussions are passed on to council and city staff to consider their incorporation into policymaking.

The question is whether the project will live beyond its pilot.

Another similar and hopeful democratic innovation, the City of Toronto’s Planning Review Panel, ran for two terms before it was cancelled. In contrast, both the Paris city council and the state government of Ostbelgien (East Belgium) have convened permanent citizen advisory bodies to work alongside elected officials.

While public opinion is only one ingredient in government decision-making, ensuring democratic innovations are a standard component of policymaking could go a long way to enshrining public dialogue as a valuable governance tool.

Whether through annual participatory budgeting exercises or a standing citizen advisory body, democratic innovations can make public priorities a key focus of policy and restore government accountability to citizens…(More)”.

Information Ecosystems and Troubled Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Observatory on Information and Democracy: “This inaugural meta-analysis provides a critical assessment of the role of information ecosystems in the Global North and Global Majority World, focusing on their relationship with information integrity (the quality of public discourse), the fairness of political processes, the protection of media freedoms, and the resilience of public institutions.

The report addresses three thematic areas with a cross-cutting theme of mis- and disinformation:

  • Media, Politics and Trust;
  • Artificial Intelligence, Information Ecosystems and Democracy;
  • and Data Governance and Democracy.

The analysis is based mainly on academic publications supplemented by reports and other materials from different disciplines and regions (1,664 citations selected among a total corpus of over +2700 resources aggregated). The report showcases what we can learn from landmark research on often intractable challenges posed by rapid changes in information and communication spaces…(More)”.

What Could Citizens’ Assemblies Do for American Politics?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Nick Romeo: “Last July, an unusual letter arrived at Kathryn Kundmueller’s mobile home, in central Oregon. It invited her to enter a lottery that would select thirty residents of Deschutes County to deliberate for five days on youth homelessness—a visible and contentious issue in an area where the population and cost of living have spiked in recent years. Those chosen would be paid for their time—almost five hundred dollars—and asked to develop specific policy recommendations.

Kundmueller was being invited to join what is known as a citizens’ assembly. These gatherings do what most democracies only pretend to: trust normal people to make decisions on difficult policy questions. Many citizens’ assemblies follow a basic template. They impanel a random but representative cross-section of a population, give them high-quality information on a topic, and ask them to work together to reach a decision. In Europe, such groups have helped spur reform of the Irish constitution in order to legalize abortion, guided an Austrian pharmaceutical heiress on how to give away her wealth, and become a regular part of government in Paris and Belgium. Though still rare in America, the model reflects the striking idea that fundamental problems of politics—polarization, apathy, manipulation by special interests—can be transformed through radically direct democracy.

Kundmueller, who is generally frustrated by politics, was intrigued by the letter. She liked the prospect of helping to shape local policy, and the topic of housing insecurity had a particular resonance for her. As a teen-ager, following a falling-out with her father, she spent months bouncing between friends’ couches in Vermont. When she moved across the country to San Jose, after college, she lived in her car for a time while she searched for a stable job. She worked in finance but became disillusioned; now in her early forties, she ran a small housecleaning business. She still thought about living in a van and renting out her mobile home to save money…(More)”.