Scientific American: “Here’s a fun experiment: Try counting the electronic sensors surrounding you right now. There are cameras and microphones in your computer. GPS sensors and gyroscopes in your smartphone. Accelerometers in your fitness tracker. If you work in a modern office building or live in a newly renovated house, you are constantly in the presence of sensors that measure motion, temperature and humidity.
Sensors have become abundant because they have, for the most part, followed Moore’s law: they just keep getting smaller, cheaper and more powerful. A few decades ago the gyroscopes and accelerometers that are now in every smartphone were bulky and expensive, limited to applications such as spacecraft and missile guidance. Meanwhile, as you might have heard, network connectivity has exploded. Thanks to progress in microelectronics design as well as management of energy and the electromagnetic spectrum, a microchip that costs less than a dollar can now link an array of sensors to a low-power wireless communications network….”
A New Way to Look at Law, With Data Viz and Machine Learning
“On TV, being a lawyer is all about dazzling jurors with verbal pyrotechnics. But for many lawyers–especially young ones–the job is about research. Long, dry, tedious research.
It’s that less glamorous side of the profession that Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed are trying to upend with Ravel. Using data visualization, language analysis, and machine learning, the Stanford Law grads are aiming to reinvent legal research–and perhaps give young lawyers a deeper understanding of their field in the process.
Lawyers have long relied on subscription services like LexisNexis and WestLaw to do their jobs. These services offer indispensable access to vast databases of case documents. Lewis remembers seeing the software on the computers at his Dad’s law firm when he used to hang out there as a kid. You’d put in a keyword, say, securities fraud, and get back a long, rank-ordered list of results relevant to that topic.
Years later, when Lewis was embarking on his own legal career as a first year at Stanford Law, he was struck by how little had changed. “The tools and technologies were the same,” he says. “It was surprising and disconcerting.” Reed, his classmate there, was also perplexed, especially having spent some time in the finance industry working with its high-powered tools. “There was all this cool stuff that everyone else was using in every other field, and it just wasn’t coming to lawyers,” he says.
Early users have reported that Ravel cut their overall research time by up to two thirds….
Ravel’s most ambitious features, however, are intended to help with the analysis of cases. These tools, saved for premium subscribers, are designed to automatically surface the key passages in whatever case you happen to be looking at, sussing out instances when they’ve been cited or reinterpreted in cases that followed.
To do this, Ravel effectively has to map the law, an undertaking that involves both human insight and technical firepower. The process, roughly: Lewis and Reed will look at a particular case, pinpoint the case it’s referencing, and then figure out what ties them together. It could be a direct reference, or a glancing one. It might show up as three paragraphs in that later ruling, or just a sentence.
Once those connections have been made, they’re handed off to Ravel’s engineers. The engineers, which make up more than half of the company’s ten-person team, are tasked with building models that can identify those same sorts of linkages in other cases, using natural language processing. In effect, Ravel’s trying to uncover the subtle linguistic patterns undergirding decades of legal rulings.
That all goes well beyond visual search, and the idea of future generations of lawyers learning from an algorithmic analysis of the law seems quietly dangerous in its own way (though a sterling conceit for a near-future short story!)
Still, compared to the comparatively primitive tools that still dominate the field today, Lewis and Reed see Ravel as a promising resource for young lawyers and law students. “It’s about helping them research more confidently,” Lewis says. “It’s about making sure they understand the story in the right way.” And, of course, about making all that research a little less tedious, too.”
Behavioural Sciences in Practice: Lessons for EU Policymakers
Chapter by Di Porto, Fabiana and Rangone, Nicoletta, for the book by Anne-Lise Sibony and Alberto Alemanno (eds), on Nudging and the Law. What can EU Learn from Behavioural Sciences? (Forthcoming): “This chapter establishes how the regulatory process should change in order to bring out and use evidence from cognitive sciences. It further discusses the impact of cognitive sciences on the regulatory toolkit, positing that, on the one hand, traditional tools should be rethought about; and, on the other, that the regulatory toolkit should be enriched by two more strategies: empowerment and nudging (where the first eases the overcoming of cognitive and behavioural limitations, while the second exploits them).“
A brief history of open data
Article by Luke Fretwell in FCW: “In December 2007, 30 open-data pioneers gathered in Sebastopol, Calif., and penned a set of eight open-government data principles that inaugurated a new era of democratic innovation and economic opportunity.
“The objective…was to find a simple way to express values that a bunch of us think are pretty common, and these are values about how the government could make its data available in a way that enables a wider range of people to help make the government function better,” Harvard Law School Professor Larry Lessig said. “That means more transparency in what the government is doing and more opportunity for people to leverage government data to produce insights or other great business models.”
The eight simple principles — that data should be complete, primary, timely, accessible, machine-processable, nondiscriminatory, nonproprietary and license-free — still serve as the foundation for what has become a burgeoning open-data movement.
In the seven years since those principles were released, governments around the world have adopted open-data initiatives and launched platforms that empower researchers, journalists and entrepreneurs to mine this new raw material and its potential to uncover new discoveries and opportunities. Open data has drawn civic hacker enthusiasts around the world, fueling hackathons, challenges, apps contests, barcamps and “datapaloozas” focused on issues as varied as health, energy, finance, transportation and municipal innovation.
In the United States, the federal government initiated the beginnings of a wide-scale open-data agenda on President Barack Obama’s first day in office in January 2009, when he issued his memorandum on transparency and open government, which declared that “openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.” The president gave federal agencies three months to provide input into an open-government directive that would eventually outline what each agency planned to do with respect to civic transparency, collaboration and participation, including specific objectives related to releasing data to the public.
In May of that year, Data.gov launched with just 47 datasets and a vision to “increase public access to high-value, machine-readable datasets generated by the executive branch of the federal government.”
When the White House issued the final draft of its federal Open Government Directive later that year, the U.S. open-government data movement got its first tangible marching orders, including a 45-day deadline to open previously unreleased data to the public.
Now five years after its launch, Data.gov boasts more than 100,000 datasets from 227 local, state and federal agencies and organizations….”
How Long Is Too Long? The 4th Amendment and the Mosaic Theory
Law and Liberty Blog: “Volume 8.2 of the NYU Journal of Law and Liberty has been sent to the printer and physical copies will be available soon, but the articles in the issue are already available online here. One article that has gotten a lot of attention so far is by Steven Bellovin, Renee Hutchins, Tony Jebara, and Sebastian Zimmeck titled “When Enough is Enough: Location Tracking, Mosaic Theory, and Machine Learning.” A direct link to the article is here.
The mosaic theory is a modern corollary accepted by some academics – and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Maynard v. U.S. – as a twenty-first century extension of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches of seizures. Proponents of the mosaic theory argue that at some point enough individual data collections, compiled and analyzed together, become a Fourth Amendment search. Thirty years ago the Supreme Court upheld the use of a tracking device for three days without a warrant, however the proliferation of GPS tracking in cars and smartphones has made it significantly easier for the police to access a treasure trove of information about our location at any given time.
It is easy to see why this theory has attracted some support. Humans are creatures of habit – if our public locations are tracked for a few days, weeks, or a month, it is pretty easy for machines to learn our ways and assemble a fairly detailed report for the government about our lives. Machines could basically predict when you will leave your house for work, what route you will take, when and where you go grocery shopping, all before you even do it, once it knows your habits. A policeman could observe you moving about in public without a warrant of course, but limited manpower will always reduce the probability of continuous mass surveillance. With current technology, a handful of trained experts could easily monitor hundreds of people at a time from behind a computer screen, and gather even more information than most searches requiring a warrant. The Supreme Court indicated a willingness to consider the mosaic theory in U.S. v. Jones, but has yet to embrace it…”
The article in Law & Liberty details the need to determine at which point machine learning creates an intrusion into our reasonable expectations of privacy, and even discusses an experiment that could be run to determine how long data collection can proceed before it is an intrusion. If there is a line at which individual data collection becomes a search, we need to discover where that line is. One of the articles’ authors, Steven Bollovin, has argued that the line is probably at one week – at that point your weekday and weekend habits would be known. The nation’s leading legal expert on criminal law, Professor Orin Kerr, fired back on the Volokh Conspiracy that Bollovin’s one week argument is not in line with previous iterations of the mosaic theory.
Estonian plan for 'data embassies' overseas to back up government databases
Graeme Burton in Computing: “Estonia is planning to open “data embassies” overseas to back up government databases and to operate government “in the cloud“.
The aim is partly to improve efficiency, but driven largely by fear of invasion and occupation, Jaan Priisalu, the director general of Estonian Information System Authority, told Sky News.
He said: “We are planning to actually operate our government in the cloud. It’s clear also how it helps to protect the country, the territory. Usually when you are the military planner and you are planning the occupation of the territory, then one of the rules is suppress the existing institutions.
“And if you are not able to do it, it means that this political price of occupying the country will simply rise for planners.”
Part of the rationale for the plan, he continued, was fear of attack from Russia in particular, which has been heightened following the occupation of Crimea, formerly in Ukraine.
“It’s quite clear that you can have problems with your neighbours. And our biggest neighbour is Russia, and nowadays it’s quite aggressive. This is clear.”
The plan is to back up critical government databases outside of Estonia so that affairs of state can be conducted in the cloud, even if the country is invaded. It would also have the benefit of keeping government information out of invaders’ hands – provided it can keep its government cloud secure.
According to Sky News, the UK is already in advanced talks about hosting the Estonian government databases and may make the UK the first of Estonia’s data embassies.
Having wrested independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Estonia has experienced frequent tension with its much bigger neighbour. In 2007, for example, after the relocation of the “Bronze Soldier of Tallinn” and the exhumation of the soldiers buried in a square in the centre of the capital to a military cemetery in April 2007, the country was subject to a prolonged cyber-attack sourced to Russia.
Russian hacker “Sp0Raw” said that the most efficient of the online attacks on Estonia could not have been carried out without the approval of Russian authorities and added that the hackers seemed to act under “recommendations” from parties in government. However, claims by Estonia that the Russian government was directly involved in the attacks were “empty words, not supported by technical data”.
Mike Witt, deputy director of the US Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), suggested that the distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks, while crippling to the Estonian government at the time, were not significant in scale from a technical standpoint. However, the Estonian government was forced to shut down many of its online operations in response.
At the same time, the Estonian government has been accused of implementing anti-Russian laws and discriminating against its large ethnic Russian population.
Last week, the Estonian government unveiled a plan to allow anyone in the world to apply for “digital citizenship“ of the country, enabling them to use Estonian online services, open bank accounts, and start companies without having to physically reside in the country.”
ShouldWe
About ShouldWe.org: “ShouldWe is about all of us. We believe people deserve to know not just what decisions are being taken in their name but why. Our vision is of a world where everyone is able to interrogate policymakers’ arguments by accessing simple information about issues of public policy, and the evidence that supports it.
ShouldWe.org is a non-partisan, crowd-sourced, online guide to policy debates and the evidence which informs them. We serve journalists, analysts and advocates by aggregating the most authoritative policy information, from both sides, in one place. Our mission is to improve democratic scrutiny by resourcing journalists and other active citizens to learn more about the causes and consequences of the decisions which affect our lives.
We are a not-for-profit organisation. Please help us by contributing and editing content, telling your colleagues and friends, and letting us know how we can make ShouldWe.org better.
Learn how to create a ShouldWe page here
Find out how to help ShouldWe in other ways here.
Watch the ShouldWe video here
Transparency Trumps Technology: Reconciling Open Meeting Laws with Modern Technology
Note by Cassandra B. Roeder in Wm. & Mary L. Rev: “As technological advances revolutionize communication patterns in the private and public sectors, government actors must consider their reactions carefully. Public representatives may take advantage of modern technology to improve communications with constituents and to operate more efficiently. However, this progress must be made with an eye to complying with certain statutory restrictions placed on public bodies…
This Note will argue that, in order to comply with the spirit and the letter of open meeting laws, public bodies should limit use of modern technology to: (1) providing information and soliciting public feedback through noninteractive websites, and (2) enabling remote participation of public body members at meetings. This Note will then contend that public bodies should not utilize interactive online forums or group e-mails. Although these technologies may offer certain obvious benefits, this Note argues that: (1) they do not comply with current open meeting law requirements, and (2) legislatures should not alter open meeting laws to allow for their use.8 It concludes that although more permissive statutes might lead to an increase in civic participation and government efficiency, these potential gains must be sacrificed in order to preserve transparency, the primary purpose of open meeting laws…”
This Note will argue that, in order to comply with the spirit and the letter of open meeting laws, public bodies should limit use of modern technology to: (1) providing information and soliciting public feedback through noninteractive websites, and (2) enabling remote participation of public body members at meetings. This Note will then contend that public bodies should not utilize interactive online forums or group e-mails. Although these technologies may offer certain obvious benefits, this Note argues that: (1) they do not comply with current open meeting law requirements, and (2) legislatures should not alter open meeting laws to allow for their use.8 It concludes that although more permissive statutes might lead to an increase in civic participation and government efficiency, these potential gains must be sacrificed in order to preserve transparency, the primary purpose of open meeting laws…”
Obama Signs Nation's First 'Open Data' Law
William Welsh in Information Week: “President Barack Obama enacted the nation’s first open data law, signing into law on May 9 bipartisan legislation that requires federal agencies to publish their spending data in a standardized, machine-readable format that the public can access through USASpending.gov.
The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (S. 994) amends the eight-year-old Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act to make available to the public specific classes of federal agency spending data “with more specificity and at a deeper level than is currently reported,” a White House statement said….
Advocacy groups applauded the bipartisan legislation, which is being heralded the nation’s first open data law and furnishes a legislative mandate for Obama’s one-year-old Open Data Policy.
“The DATA Act will unlock a new public resource that innovators, watchdogs, and citizens can mine for valuable and unprecedented insight into federal spending,” said Hudson Hollister, executive director of the Data Transparency Coalition. “America’s tech sector already has the tools to deliver reliable, standardized, open data. [The] historic victory will put our nation’s open data pioneers to work for the common good.”
The DATA Act requires agencies to establish government-wide standards for financial data, adopt accounting approaches developed by the Recovery Act’s Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (RATB), and streamline agency reporting requirements.
The DATA Act empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a data analytics center, which is modeled on the successful Recovery Operations Center. The new center will support inspectors general and law enforcement agencies in criminal and other investigations, as well as agency program offices in the prevention of improper payments. Assets of the RATB related to the Recovery Operations Center would transfer to the Treasury Department when the board’s authorization expires.
The treasury secretary and the Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget are jointly tasked with establishing the standards required to achieve the goals and objectives of the new statute.
To ensure that agencies comply with the reporting requirements, agency inspectors general will report on the quality and accuracy of the financial data provided to USASpending.gov. The Government Accountability Office also will report on the data quality and accuracy and create a Government-wide assessment of the financial data reported…”
Is Your City’s Crime Data Private Property?
Adam Wisnieski at the Crime Report: “In February, the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) announced it was moving into a new era of transparency and openness with the launch of a new public crime map.
“Crime analysis and mapping data is now in the hands of the city’s citizens,” reads the first line of the press release.
According to the release, the MPD will feed incident report data to RAIDS (Regional Analysis and Information Data Sharing) Online, a nationwide crime map operated by crime analysis software company BAIR Analytics.
Since the announcement, Minneapolis residents have used RAIDS to look at reports of murder, robbery, burglary, assault, rape and other crimes reported in their neighborhoods on a sleek, easy-to-use map, which includes data as recent as yesterday.
On the surface, it’s a major leap forward for transparency in Minneapolis. But some question why the data feed is given exclusively to a single private company.
Transparency advocates argue in fact that the data is not truly in the hands of the city’s residents until citizens can download the raw data so they can analyze, chart or map it on their own.
“For it to actually be open data, it needs to be available to the public in machine readable format,” said Lauren Reid, senior public affairs manager for Code for America, a national non-profit that promotes participation in government through technology.
“Anybody should be able to go download it and read it if they want. That’s open data.”
The Open Knowledge Foundation, a national non-profit that advocates for more government openness, argues open data is important so citizens can participate and engage government in a way that was not possible before.
“Much of the time, citizens are only able to engage with their own governance sporadically — maybe just at an election every 4 or 5 years,” reads the Open Knowledge website. “By opening up data, citizens are enabled to be much more directly informed and involved in decision-making.
“This is more than transparency: it’s about making a full ‘read/write’ society — not just about knowing what is happening in the process of governance, but being able to contribute to it.”.
Minneapolis is not alone.
As Americans demand more information on criminal activity from the government, police departments are flocking to private companies to help them get the information into the public domain.
For many U.S. cities, hooking up with these third-party mapping vendors is the most public their police department has ever been. But the trend has started a messy debate about how “public” the public data actually is.
Outsourcing Makes It Easy
For police departments, outsourcing the presentation of their crime data to a private firm is an easy decision.
Most of the crime mapping sites are free or cost very little. (The Omega Group’s CrimeMapping.com charges between $600 and $2,400 per year, depending on the size of the agency.)
The department chooses what information it wants to provide. Once the system is set up, the data flows to the companies and then to the public without a lot of effort on behalf of the department.
For the most part, the move doesn’t need legislative approval, just a memorandum of understanding. A police department can even fulfill a new law requiring a public crime map by releasing report data through one of these vendors.
Commander Scott Gerlicher of the MPD’s Strategic Information and Crime Analysis Division says the software has saved the department time.
“I don’t think we are entertaining quite as many requests from the media or the public,” he told The Crime Report. “Plus the price was right: it was free.”
The companies that run some of the most popular sites — The Omega Group’s CrimeMapping.com, Public Engines’ CrimeReports and BAIR Analytics’ RAIDS — are in the business of selling crime analysis and mapping software to police departments.
Some departments buy internal software from these companies; though some cities, like Minneapolis, just use RAIDS’ free map and have no contracts with BAIR for internal software.
Susan Smith, director of operations at BAIR Analytics, said the goal of RAIDS is to create one national map that includes all crime reports from across all jurisdictions and departments (state and local police).
For people who live near or at the edge of a city line, finding relevant crime data can be hard.
The MPD’s Gerlicher said that was one reason his department chose RAIDS — because many police agencies in the Minneapolis area had already hooked up with the firm.
The operators of these crime maps say they provide a community service.
“We try to get as many agencies as we possibly can. We truly believe this is a good service for the community,” says Gabriela Coverdale, a marketing director at the Omega Group.
Raw Data ‘Off Limits’
However, the sites do not allow the public to download any of the raw data and prohibit anyone from “scraping,” using a program to automatically pull the data from their maps.
In Minneapolis, the police department continues to post PDFs and excel spreadsheets with data, but only RAIDS gets a feed with the most recent data.
Alan Palazzolo, a Code for America fellow who works as an interactive developer for the online non-profit newspaper MinnPost, used monthly reports from the MPD to build a crime application with a map and geographic-oriented chart of crime in Minneapolis.
Nevertheless, he finds the new tool limiting.
“[The MPD’s] ability to actually put out more data, and more timely data, really opens things up,” he said. “It’s great, but they are not doing that with us.”
According to Palazzolo, the arrangement gives BAIR a market advantage that effectively prevents its data from being used for purposes it cannot control.
“Having granular, complete, and historical data would allow us to do more in-depth analysis,” wrote Palazzolo and Kaeti Hinck in an article in MinnPost last year.
“Granular data would allow us to look at smaller areas,” reads the article. “[N]eighborhoods are a somewhat arbitrary boundary when it comes to crime. Often high crime is isolated to a couple of blocks, but aggregated data does not allow us to explore this.
“More complete data would allow us to look at factors like exact locations, time of day, demographic issues, and detailed categories (like bike theft).”
The question of preference gets even messier when looking at another national crime mapping website called SpotCrime.
Unlike the other third-party mapping sites, SpotCrime is not in the business of selling crime analysis software to police departments. It operates more like a newspaper — a newspaper focused solely on the police blotter pages — and makes money off advertising.
Years ago, SpotCrime requested and received crime report data via e-mail from the Minneapolis Police Department and mapped the data on its website. According to SpotCrime owner Colin Drane, the MPD stopped sending e-mails when terminals were set up in the police department for the public to access the data.
So he instead started going through the painstaking process of transferring data from PDFs the MPD posted online and mapping them.
When the MPD hooked up with RAIDS in February, Drane asked for the same feed and was denied. He says more and more police departments around the country are hooking up with one of his competitors and not giving him the same timely data.
The MPD said it prefers RAIDS over SpotCrime and criticized some of the advertisements on SpotCrime.
“We’re not about supporting ad money,” said Gerlicher.
Drane believes all crime data in every city should be open to everyone, in order to prevent any single firm from monopolizing how the information is presented and used.
“The onus needs to be on the public agencies,” he adds. “They need to be fair with the data and they need to be fair with the public.” he said.
Transparency advocates worry that the trend is going in the opposite direction.
Ohio’s Columbus Police Department, for example, recently discontinued its public crime statistic feed and started giving the data exclusively to RAIDS.
The Columbus Dispatch wrote that the new system had less information than the old…”