Open Data Beyond the Big City

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

at PBS MediaShift: “…Open data is the future — of how we govern, of how public services are delivered, of how governments engage with those that they serve. And right now, it is unevenly distributed. I think there is a strong argument to be made that data standards can provide a number of benefits to small and midsized municipal governments and could provide a powerful incentive for these governments to adopt open data.
One way we can use standards to drive the adoption of open data is to partner with companies like Yelp, Zillow, Google and others that can use open data to enhance their services. But how do we get companies with 10s and 100s of millions of users to take an interest in data from smaller municipal governments?
In a word – standards.

Why do we care about cities?

When we talk about open data, it’s important to keep in mind that there is a lot of good work happening at the federal, state and local levels all over the country — plenty of states and even counties doing good things on the open data front, but for me it’s important to evaluate where we are on open data with respect to cities.
States typically occupy a different space in the service delivery ecosystem than cities, and the kinds of data that they typically make available can be vastly different from city data. State capitals are often far removed from our daily lives and we may hear about them only when a budget is adopted or when the state legislature takes up a controversial issue.
In cities, the people that represent and serve us us can be our neighbors — the guy behind you at the car wash, or the woman who’s child is in you son’s preschool class. Cities matter.
As cities go, we need to consider carefully that importance of smaller cities — there are a lot more of them than large cities and a non-trivial number of people live in them….”

Beyond the “Good Governance” mantra

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Alan Hudson at Global Integrity: “…The invocation of “Good Governance” is something that happens a lot, including in ongoing discussions of whether and how governance – or governance-related issues – should be addressed in the post-2015 development framework. Rather than simply squirm uncomfortably every time someone invokes the “Good Governance” mantra, I thought it would be more constructive to explain – again (see here and here) – why I find the phrase problematic, and to outline why I think that “Open Governance” might be a more helpful formulation.
My primary discomfort with the “Good Governance” mantra is that it obscures and wishes away much of the complexity about governance. Few would disagree with the idea that: i) governance arrangements have distributional consequences; ii) governance arrangements play a role in shaping progress towards development outcomes; and iii) effective governance arrangements – forms of governance – will vary by context. But the “Good Governance” mantra, it seems to me, unhelpfully side-steps these key issues, avoiding, or at least postponing, a number of key questions: good from whose perspective, good for what, good for where?
Moreover, the notion of “Good Governance” risks giving the impression that “we” – which tends to mean people outside of the societies that they’re talking about – know what governance is good, and further still that “we” know what needs to happen to make governance good. On both counts, the evidence is that that is seldom the case.
These are not new points. A number of commentators including Merilee Grindle, Matt Andrews, Mushtaq Khan and, most recently, Brian Levy, have pointed out the problems with a “Good Governance” agenda for many years. But, despite their best efforts, in policy discussions, including around post-2015, their warnings are too rarely heeded.
However, rather than drop the language of governance entirely, I do think that there is value in a more flexible, perhaps less normative – or differently normative, more focused on function than form – notion of governance. One that centers on transparency, participation and accountability. One that is about promoting the ability of communities in particular places to address the governance challenges relating to the specific priorities that they face, and which puts people in those places – rather than outsiders – center-stage in improving governance in ways that work for them. Indeed, the targets in the Open Working Group’s Goal 16 includes important elements of this.
The “Good Governance” mantra may be hard to shake, but I remain hopeful that open governance – a more flexible framing which is about empowering people and governments with information so that they can work together to tackle problems they prioritize, in their particular places – may yet win the day. The sooner that happens, the better.”

The View From Your Window Is Worth Cash to This Company

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Eric Jaffe in Atlantic CityLab: “A city window overlooking the street has always been a score in its own right, what with so many apartments stuck opening onto back alleys and dumpsters and fire escapes. And now, a company wants to straight up monetize the view. New York startup Placemeter is paying city residents up to $50 a month for street views captured via old smartphones. The idea is to quantify sidewalk life in the service of making the city a more efficient place.

“Measuring data about how the city moves in real time, being able to make predictions on that, is definitely a good way to help cities work better,” says founder Alex Winter. “That’s the vision of Placemeter—to build a data platform where anyone at any time can know how busy the city is, and use that.”
Here’s how it works: City residents send Placemeter a little information about where they live and what they see from their window. In turn, Placemeter sends participants a kit (complete with window suction cup) to convert their unused smartphone into a street sensor, and agrees to pay cash so long as the device stays on and collects data. The more action outside—the more shops, pedestrians, traffic, and public space—the more the view is worth.
On the back end, Placemeter converts the smartphone images into statistical data using proprietary computer vision. The company first detects moving objects (the green splotches in the video below) and classifies them either as people or as 11 types of vehicles or other common urban elements, such as food carts. A second layer of analysis connects this movement with behavioral patterns based on the location—how many cars are speeding down a street, for instance, or how many people are going into a store….
Efforts to quantify city life with big data aren’t new, but where Placemeter’s clear advance is its ability to count pedestrians. Cities often track sidewalk traffic with little more than a hired hand and a manual clicker and spot locations. With its army of smartphone eyes, Placemeter promises a much wider net of real-time data dynamic enough to recognize not only that a person exists but also that person’s behavior, from walking speed to retail interest to general interaction with streets or public spaces…”

CaseCommons

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The vision of Case Commons is to support the transformation of public human services through innovative technology. In the 21st century, web-native, real time technology and analytics all have the potential to radically change how public human services agencies meet the needs of the country’s most vulnerable children and families.
To fulfill this vision, we have designed and built revolutionary software for child welfare. Called Casebook, our tool has been collaboratively developed with agencies and practitioners, uses intuitive design to meet the needs of human services caseworkers and administrators, and is centered on the person and their family rather than isolated “cases.” Casebook helps support child welfare workers and policy makers in their effort to make decisions based on data, rather than on anecdote.
The mission of our organization is to:
• Change Lives: above all, Case Commons seeks to better serve, and to improve outcomes and life opportunities for vulnerable children and their families;
• Help the Helpers: Case Commons believes that new technology can and must support – not hinder – the frontline workers who serve our nation’s most vulnerable children and families; and
• Measure Results: Case Commons uses the latest technology to improve the quality and timeliness of data and analytics so that everyone can make better decisions. Supervisors can better support their workers, policymakers can understand what works, and everyone can use greater knowledge to transform service delivery and improve lives.
…
Casebook is a powerful example of technology innovation at work, and Case Commons is helping to lead a growing movement to revolutionize how government puts technology to work for Americans.
Read our paper on Casebook and the future of government innovation.“

We Want Privacy, but Can’t Stop Sharing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Kate Murphy in the New York Times: “Well, that’s essentially the state of affairs on the Internet. There is no privacy. If those creepy targeted ads on Google hadn’t tipped you off, then surely Edward J. Snowden’s revelations, or, more recently, Jennifer Lawrence’s nude selfies, made your vulnerability to cybersnooping abundantly clear.

You need only read George Orwell’s “1984” or watch the film “Minority Report” to understand how surveillance is incompatible with a free society. And increasingly, people are coming to understand how their online data might be used against them. You might not get a job, a loan or a date because of an indiscreet tweet or if your address on Google Street View shows your brother-in-law’s clunker in the driveway. But less obvious is the psychic toll of the current data free-for-all.

“With all the focus on the legal aspects of privacy and the impact on global trade there’s been little discussion of why you want privacy and why it’s intrinsically important to you as an individual,” said Adam Joinson, professor of behavior change at the University of the West of England in Bristol, who coined the term “digital crowding” to describe excessive social contact and loss of personal space online.

Perhaps that’s because there is no agreement over what constitutes private information. It varies among cultures, genders and individuals. Moreover, it’s hard to argue for the value of privacy when people eagerly share so much achingly personal information on social media.

But the history of privacy (loosely defined as freedom from being observed) is one of status. Those who are institutionalized for criminal behavior or ill health, children and the impoverished have less privacy than those who are upstanding, healthy, mature and wealthy. Think of crowded tenements versus mansions behind high hedges.

“The implication is that if you don’t have it, you haven’t earned the right or aren’t capable or trustworthy,” said Christena Nippert-Eng, professor of sociology at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago and author of “Islands of Privacy.”

So it’s not surprising that privacy research in both online and offline environments has shown that just the perception, let alone the reality, of being watched results in feelings of low self-esteem, depression and anxiety. Whether observed by a supervisor at work or Facebook friends, people are inclined to conform and demonstrate less individuality and creativity. Their performance of tasks suffers and they have elevated pulse rates and levels of stress hormones.

An analogy in the psychological literature is that privacy is like sleep….”

Paris awaits result of referendum on how to spend €20m of city budget

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

in The Guardian: “Given €20m (£15.5m) of taxpayers’ money, what would Parisians do to improve their city? The final answer is expected after voting closes on Wednesday in the French capital’s first “participatory budget”.
City-dwellers of all ages and nationalities were given the chance to choose from 15 projects, including walls of vegetation, pop-up swimming pools and mini “learning gardens” in schools. The most popular will be included in the 2015 city’s spending plan. Work will begin on them in January.
The city’s mayor, Anne Hidalgo, said allowing people to decide the destination of 5% of the city hall investment budget every year from now until 2020 was “handing the keys of the budget to the citizens”.
Parisians were given a week to vote, either online or at mairies (council buildings) in each of the city’s 20 arrondissements.
As voting ended on Wednesday, the most popular choices reflected concern with the environment and the shortage of green spaces in the city centre, and a desire to breathe new life into its gloomiest corners.
A €2m project to cover at least 40 “blind” walls with plants to cheer up local areas and create a “microclimate and biodiversity” had received the most votes.
The second most popular was a €1.5m scheme to use derelict and abandoned areas around and under the périphérique – the city’s ring road – for concerts, exhibitions, film projections and other community events.
Third was a €1m project to introduce “learning gardens” in all infant and primary schools….
There are similar “participative democracy” schemes in hundreds of cities, including Toronto, Canada, and Porto Alegre in Brazil, which was the first to introduce it, in 1989, as well as in smaller communes in France. However, nowhere else is believed to have allotted such a significant sum of public money.
Hidalgo said the idea was “a new tool for citizens to participate allowing all Parisians to propose and choose projects that will make the Paris of tomorrow. They can have a real effect on local life. I see it as a major democratic innovation.”

MIT launches Laboratory for Social Machines with major Twitter investment

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

MIT Press Release: “The MIT Media Lab today announced the creation of the Laboratory for Social Machines (LSM), funded by a five-year, $10 million commitment from Twitter. As part of the new program, Twitter will also provide full access to its real-time, public stream of tweets, as well as the archive of every tweet dating back to the first.
The new initiative, based at the Media Lab, will focus on the development of new technologies to make sense of semantic and social patterns across the broad span of public mass media, social media, data streams, and digital content. Pattern discovery and data visualization will be explored to reveal interaction patterns and shared interests in relevant social systems, while collaborative tools and mobile apps will be developed to enable new forms of public communication and social organization.
A main goal for the LSM will be to create new platforms for both individuals and institutions to identify, discuss, and act on pressing societal problems. Though funded by Twitter, the LSM will have complete operational and academic independence. In keeping with the academic mission of LSM, students and staff will work across many social media and mass media platforms — including, but not limited to, Twitter.
“The Laboratory for Social Machines will experiment in areas of public communication and social organization where humans and machines collaborate on problems that can’t be solved manually or through automation alone,” says Deb Roy, an associate professor at the Media Lab who will lead the LSM, and who also serves as Twitter’s chief media scientist. “Social feedback loops based on analysis of public media and data can be an effective catalyst for increasing accountability and transparency — creating mutual visibility among institutions and individuals.”
“With this investment, Twitter is seizing the opportunity to go deeper into research to understand the role Twitter and other platforms play in the way people communicate, the effect that rapid and fluid communication can have and apply those findings to complex societal issues,” says Dick Costolo, CEO of Twitter…”

The Glass Cage: Automation and Us

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

New Book by Nicholas Carr: “What kind of world are we building for ourselves? That’s the question bestselling author Nicholas Carr tackles in this urgent, absorbing book on the human consequences of automation. At once a celebration of technology and a warning about its misuse, The Glass Cage will change the way you think about the tools you use every day.
GlassCage250Digging behind the headlines about factory robots and self-driving cars, wearable computers and digitized medicine, Carr explores the hidden costs of granting software dominion over our work and our leisure. Even as they bring ease to our lives, computer programs are stealing something essential from us.
Drawing on psychological and neurological studies that underscore how tightly people’s happiness and satisfaction are tied to performing meaningful work in the real world, Carr reveals something we already suspect: shifting our attention to computer screens can leave us disengaged and discontented.
From nineteenth-century textile mills to the cockpits of modern jets, from the frozen hunting grounds of Inuit tribes to the sterile landscapes of GPS maps, The Glass Cage explores the impact of automation from a deeply human perspective, examining the personal as well as the economic consequences of our growing dependence on computers.
With a characteristic blend of history and philosophy, poetry and science, Carr takes us on a journey from the work and early theory of Adam Smith and Alfred North Whitehead to the latest research into human attention, memory, and happiness, culminating in a moving meditation on how we can use technology to expand the human experience.
Nicholas Carr’s The Glass Cage: Automation and Us. Coming on September 29.”

UN Data Revolution Group

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Website: “UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has asked an Independent Expert Advisory Group to make concrete recommendations on bringing about a data revolution in sustainable development. Here you can find out more about the work of the group, and feed into the process by adding your comments to this site or sending a private consultation submission

Consultation Areas

Antidisciplinary

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Joi Ito at LinkedIn: “One of the first words that I learned when I joined the Media Lab was “antidisciplinary.” It was listed an a requirement in an ad seeking applicants for a new faculty position. Interdisciplinary work is when people from different disciplines work together. An antidisciplinary project isn’t a sum of a bunch of disciplines but something entirely new – the word defies easy definition. But what it means to me is someone or something that doesn’t fit within traditional academic discipline­­­–a field of study with its own particular words, frameworks, and methods. Most academics are judged by how many times they have published in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals. Peer review usually consists of the influential members of your field reviewing your work and deciding whether it is important and unique. This architecture often leads to a dynamic where researchers focus more on impressing a small number of experts in their own field than on taking the high risk of an unconventional approach. This dynamic reinforces the cliché of academics–learning more and more about less and less. It causes a hyper-specialization where people in different areas have a very difficult time collaborating–or even communicating–with people in different fields. For me, antidisciplinary research is akin to mathematician Stanislaw Ulam’s famous observation that the study of non-linear physics is like the study of “non-elephant animals.” Antidisciplinary is all about the non-elephant animals.
The Media Lab focuses on “uniqueness, impact and magic.” What our students and faculty do should be unique. We shouldn’t be doing something that someone else is doing. If someone else starts doing it, we should stop. Everything we do should have impact. Lastly, things should induce us to be passionate and should go beyond incremental thinking. “Magic” means that we take on projects that inspire us. In the Lifelong Kindergarten group, researchers often describe the “Four Ps of Creative Learning” as Projects, Peers, Passion and Play. Play is extremely important for creative learning. There is a great deal of research showing that rewards and pressure can motivate people to “produce,” but creative learning and thinking requires the “space” that play creates. Pressure and rewards can often diminish that space, and thus, squash creative thinking….”