Privacy Is Power: How Tech Policy Can Bolster Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Andrew Imbrie, Daniel Baer, Andrew Trask, Anna Puglisi, Erik Brattberg, and Helen Toner: “…History is rarely forgiving, but as we adopt the next phase of digital tools, policymakers can avoid the errors of the past. Privacy-enhancing technologies, or PETs, are a collection of technologies with applications ranging from improved medical diagnostics to secure voting systems and messaging platforms. PETs allow researchers to harness big data to solve problems affecting billions of people while also protecting privacy. …

PETs are ripe for coordination among democratic allies and partners, offering a way for them to jointly develop standards and practical applications that benefit the public good. At an AI summit last July, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted the United States’ interest in “increasing access to shared public data sets for AI training and testing, while still preserving privacy,” and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan pointed to PETs as a promising area “to overcome data privacy challenges while still delivering the value of big data.” Given China’s advantages in scale, the United States and like-minded partners should foster emerging technologies that play to their strengths in medical research and discovery, energy innovation, trade facilitation, and reform around money laundering. Driving innovation and collaboration within and across democracies is important not only because it will help ensure those societies’ success but also because there will be a first-mover advantage in the adoption of PETs for governing the world’s private data–sharing networks.

Accelerating the development of PETs for the public good will require an international approach. Democratic governments will not be the trendsetters on PETs; instead, policymakers for these governments should focus on nurturing the ecosystems these technologies need to flourish. The role for policymakers is not to decide the fate of specific protocols or techniques but rather to foster a conducive environment for researchers to experiment widely and innovate responsibly.    

Democracies should identify shared priorities and promote basic research to mature the technological foundations of PETs. The underlying technologies require greater investment in algorithmic development and hardware to optimize the chips and mitigate the costs of network overhead. To support the computational requirements for PETs, for example, the National Science Foundation could create an interface through CloudBank and provide cloud compute credits to researchers without access to these resources. The United States could also help incubate an international network of research universities collaborating on these technologies.

Second, science-funding agencies in democracies should host competitions to incentivize new PETs protocols and standards—the collaboration between the United States and the United Kingdom announced in early December is a good example. The goal should be to create free, open-source protocols and avoid the fragmentation of the market and the proliferation of proprietary standards. The National Institute of Standards and Technology and other similar bodies should develop standards and measurement tools for PETs; governments and companies should form public-private partnerships to fund open-source protocols over the long term. Open-source protocols are especially important in the early days of PET development, because closed-source PET implementations by profit-seeking actors can be leveraged to build data monopolies. For example, imagine a scenario where all U.S. cancer data could be controlled by a single company because all the hospitals are running their proprietary software. And you have to become a customer to join the network…(More)”.

The 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Edelman: “The world is failing to meet the unprecedented challenges of our time because it is ensnared in a vicious cycle of distrust. Four interlocking forces drive this cycle, thwarting progress on climate change, global pandemic management, racism and mounting tensions between China and the U.S. Left unchecked, the following four forces, evident in the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer, will undermine institutions and further destabilize society:  

  • Government-media distrust spiral. Two institutions people rely on for truth are doing a dangerous tango of short-term mutual advantage, with exaggeration and division to gain clicks and votes.
  • Excessive reliance on business. Government failure has created an over-reliance on business to fill the void, a job that private enterprise was not designed to deliver.
  • Mass-class divide. The global pandemic has widened the fissure that surfaced in the wake of the Great Recession. High-income earners have become more trusting of institutions, while lower-income earners remain wary.
  • Failure of leadership. Classic societal leaders in government, the media and business have been discredited. Trust, once hierarchical, has become local and dispersed as people rely on my employer, my colleagues, my family. Coinciding with this upheaval is a collapse of trust within democracies and a trust surge within autocracies.

The media business model has become dependent on generating partisan outrage, while the political model has become dependent on exploiting it. Whatever short-term benefits either institution derives, it is a long-term catastrophe for society. Distrust is now society’s default emotion, with nearly 60 percent inclined to distrust…(More)”.

From Poisons to Antidotes: Algorithms as Democracy Boosters

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Paolo Cavaliere and Graziella Romeo: “Under what conditions can artificial intelligence contribute to political processes without undermining their legitimacy? Thanks to the ever-growing availability of data and the increasing power of decision-making algorithms, the future of political institutions is unlikely to be anything similar to what we have known throughout the last century, possibly with Parliaments deprived of their traditional authority and public decision-making processes largely unaccountable. This paper discusses and challenges these concerns by suggesting a theoretical framework under which algorithmic decision-making is compatible with democracy and, most relevantly, can offer a viable solution to counter the rise of populist rhetoric in the governance arena. Such a framework is based on three pillars: a. understanding the civic issues that are subjected to automated decision-making; b. controlling the issues that are assigned to AI; and c. evaluating and challenging the outputs of algorithmic decision-making….(More)”.

The new machinery of government: using machine technology in administrative decision-making

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by New South Wales Ombudsman: “There are many situations in which government agencies could use appropriately-designed machine technologies to assist in the exercise of their functions, which would be compatible with lawful and appropriate conduct. Indeed, in some instances machine technology may improve aspects of good administrative conduct – such as accuracy and consistency in decision-making, as well as mitigating the risk of individual human bias.

However, if machine technology is designed and used in a way that does not accord with administrative law and associated principles of good administrative practice, then its use could constitute or involve maladministration. It could also result in legal challenges, including a risk that administrative decisions or actions may later be held by a court to have been unlawful or invalid.

The New South Wales Ombudsman was prompted to prepare this report after becoming aware of one agency (Revenue NSW) using machine technology for the performance of a discretionary statutory function (the garnisheeing of unpaid fine debts from individuals’ bank accounts), in a way that was having a significant impact on individuals, many of whom were already in situations of financial vulnerability.

The Ombudsman’s experience with Revenue NSW, and a scan of the government’s published policies on the use of artificial intelligence and other digital technologies, suggests that there may be inadequate attention being given to fundamental aspects of public law that are relevant to machine technology adoption….(More)”

Navigating Trust in Society,

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Coeuraj: “This report provides empirical evidence of existing levels of trust, among the US population, with regard to institutions, and philanthropy—all shaped during a time of deep polarization and a global pandemic.

The source of the data is two-fold. Firstly, a year-over-year analysis of institutional trust, as measured by Global Web Index USA from more than 20,000 respondents and, secondly, an ad-hoc nationally representative survey, conducted by one of Coeuraj’s data partners AudienceNet, in the two weeks immediately preceding the 2021 United Nations General Assembly. This report presents the core findings that emerged from both research initiatives….(More)”.

The Biden Administration Embraces “Democracy Affirming Technologies”

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Marc Rotenberg: “…But amidst the ongoing struggle between declining democracies and emerging authoritarian governments, the Democracy Summit was notable for at least one new initiative – the support for democracy affirming technology. According to the White House, the initiative “aims to galvanize worldwide a new class of technologies” that can support democratic values.  The White House plan is to bring together innovators, investors, researchers, and entrepreneurs to “embed democratic values.”  The President’s top science advisor Eric Lander provided more detail. Democratic values, he said, include “privacy, freedom of expression, access to information, transparency, fairness, inclusion, and equity.”

In order to spur more rapid technological progress the White House Office of Science and Technology announced three Grand Challenges for Democracy-Affirming Technologies. They are:

  • A collaboration between U.S. and UK agencies to promote “privacy enhancing technologies” that “harness the power of data in a secure manner that protects privacy and intellectual property, enabling cross-border and cross-sector collaboration to solve shared challenges.”
  • Censorship circumvention tools, based on peer-to-peer techniques that enable content-sharing and communication without an Internet or cellular connection. The Open Technology Fund, an independent NGO, will invite international participants to compete on promising P2P technologies to counter Internet shutdowns.
  • A Global Entrepreneurship Challenge will seek to identify entrepreneurs who build and advance democracy-affirming technologies through a set of regional startup and scaleup competitions in countries spanning the democratic world. According to the White House, specific areas of innovation may include: data for policymaking, responsible AI and machine learning, fighting misinformation, and advancing government transparency and accessibility of government data and services.

USAID Administrator Samantha Powers said her agency would spend 20 million annually to expand digital democracy work. “We’ll use these funds to help partner nations align their rules governing the use of technology with democratic principles and respect for human rights,” said the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Notably, Powers also said the U.S. will take a closer look at export practices to “prevent technologies from falling into hands that would misuse them.” The U.S., along with Denmark, Norway, and Australia, will launch a new Export Controls and Human Rights Initiative. Powers also seeks to align surveillance practices of democratic nations with the Universal Declaration for Human Rights….(More)”.

A Framework for Open Civic Design: Integrating Public Participation, Crowdsourcing, and Design Thinking

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Brandon Reynante, Steven P. Dow, Narges Mahyar: “Civic problems are often too complex to solve through traditional top-down strategies. Various governments and civic initiatives have explored more community-driven strategies where citizens get involved with defining problems and innovating solutions. While certain people may feel more empowered, the public at large often does not have accessible, flexible, and meaningful ways to engage. Prior theoretical frameworks for public participation typically offer a one-size-fits-all model based on face-to-face engagement and fail to recognize the barriers faced by even the most engaged citizens. In this article, we explore a vision for open civic design where we integrate theoretical frameworks from public engagement, crowdsourcing, and design thinking to consider the role technology can play in lowering barriers to large-scale participation, scaffolding problem-solving activities, and providing flexible options that cater to individuals’ skills, availability, and interests. We describe our novel theoretical framework and analyze the key goals associated with this vision: (1) to promote inclusive and sustained participation in civics; (2) to facilitate effective management of large-scale participation; and (3) to provide a structured process for achieving effective solutions. We present case studies of existing civic design initiatives and discuss challenges, limitations, and future work related to operationalizing, implementing, and testing this framework…(More)”.

Technology and the Global Struggle for Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Manuel Muniz: “The commemoration of the first anniversary of the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump showed that the extreme political polarization that fueled the riot also frames Americans’ interpretations of it. It would, however, be gravely mistaken to view what happened as a uniquely American phenomenon with uniquely American causes. The disruption of the peaceful transfer of power that day was part of something much bigger.

As part of the commemoration, President Joe Biden said that a battle is being fought over “the soul of America.” What is becoming increasingly clear is that this is also true of the international order: its very soul is at stake. China is rising and asserting itself. Populism is widespread in the West and major emerging economies. And chauvinistic nationalism has re-emerged in parts of Europe. All signs point to increasing illiberalism and anti-democratic sentiment around the world.

Against this backdrop, the US hosted in December a (virtual) “Summit for Democracy” that was attended by hundreds of national and civil-society leaders. The message of the gathering was clear: democracies must assert themselves firmly and proactively. To that end, the summit devoted numerous sessions to studying the digital revolution and its potentially harmful implications for our political systems.

Emerging technologies pose at least three major risks for democracies. The first concerns how they structure public debate. Social networks balkanize public discourse by segmenting users into ever smaller like-minded communities. Algorithmically-driven information echo chambers make it difficult to build social consensus. Worse, social networks are not liable for the content they distribute, which means they can allow misinformation to spread on their platforms with impunity…(More)”.

Citizen Power Europe. The Making of a European Citizens’ Assembly

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alberto Alemanno and Kalypso Nicolaïdis: “This article argues that if the EU is to recover its dented popularity among European publics, we need to build a European democratic ecosystem to nurture, scale and ultimate accommodate the daily competing claims of Europe’s citizens. To attain this objective, it presents and discusses three big ideas that are at the heart of the renewed EU ecosystem that we are calling for. These are: participation beyond voting; a transnational and inclusive public space; and, a democratic panopticon for greater accountability. Promisingly enough, these ideas already find reflection in the first batch of the citizens’ recommendations emerging from the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE). Even if these recommendations still need to be refined through deliberation by the plenary of the CoFoE, they add up a clear and urgent message: let’s tap into our collective intelligence and democratic imagination to construct a pan-European public sphere by enhancing mutual connections, knowledge and empowerment between citizens across borders…(More)”.

A time for humble governments

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Juha Leppänen: “Let’s face it. During the last decade, liberal democracies have not been especially successful in steering societies through our urgent, collective problems. This is reflected in the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer Spring Update: A World in Trauma: Democratic governments are less trusted in general by their own citizens. While some governments have fared better than others, the trend is clear…

Humility entails both a willingness to listen to different opinions, and a capacity to review one’s own actions in light of new insights. True humility does not need to be deferential. But embracing humility legitimises leadership by cultivating stronger relationships and greater trust among other political and societal stakeholders — particularly with those with different perspectives. In doing so, it can facilitate long-term action and ensure policies are much more resilient in the face of uncertainty.

There are several core steps to establishing humble governance:

  • Some common ground is better than none, so strike a thin consensus with the opposition around a broad framework goal. For example, consider carbon neutrality targets. To begin with, forging consensus does not require locking down on the details of how and what. Take emissions in agriculture. In this case all that is needed is general agreement that significant cuts in CO2 emissions in this sector are necessary in order to hit our national net zero goal. While this can be harder in extremely polarised environments, a thin consensus of some sort usually can be built on any problem that is already widely recognised — no matter how small. This is even the case in political environments dominated by populist leaders.
  • Devolve problem-solving systemically. First, set aside hammering out blueprints and focus on issuing a broad launch plan, backed by a robust process for governmental decision-making. Look for intelligent incentives to prompt collaboration. In the carbon neutrality example, this would begin by identifying where the most critical potential tensions or jurisdictional disputes lie. Since local stakeholders tend to want to resolve tensions locally, give them a clear role in the planning. Divide up responsibility for achieving goals across sectors of the economy, identify key stakeholders needed at the table in each sector, and create a procedure for reviewing progress. Collaboration can be incentivised by offering those who participate the ability, say, to influence future regulations, or by penalising those who refuse to take part.
  • Revise framework goals through robust feedback mechanisms. A truly humble government’s steering documents should be seen as living documents, rather than definitive blueprints. There should be regular consultation with stakeholders on progress, and elected representatives should review the progress on the original problem statement and how success is defined. Where needed, the government in power can use this process to decide whether to reopen discussions with the opposition about how to revise the current goals…(More)”.