Introducing RegBox: using serious games in regulatory development

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Toolkit by UK Policy Lab: “…enabling policymakers to convene stakeholders and work together to make decisions affecting regulation, using serious games. The toolkit will consist of game patterns for different use cases, a collection of case studies, guidance, and a set of tools to help policymakers to decide which approach to take. Work on RegBox is still in progress but in the spirit of being open and iterative we wanted to share and communicate it early. Our overarching challenge question is:  

How can we provide engaging and participatory tools that help policymakers to develop and test regulations and make effective decisions? …  

Policy Lab has worked on a range of projects that intersect with regulation and we’ve noticed a growing demand for more anticipatory and participatory approaches in this area. Regulators are having to respond to emerging technologies which are disrupting markets and posing new risks to individuals and institutions. Additionally, the government has just launched the Smarter Regulation programme, which is encouraging officials to use regulations only where necessary, and ensure their use is proportionate and future-proof. Because a change in regulation can have significant effects on businesses, organisations, and individuals it is important to understand the potential effects before deciding. We hypothesise that serious games can be used to understand regulatory challenges and stress-test solutions at pace..(More)”.

Representative Bodies in the Age of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by POPVOX: “The report tracks current developments in the U.S. Congress and internationally, while assessing the prospects for future innovations. The report also serves as a primer for those in Congress on AI technologies and methods in an effort to promote responsible use and adoption. POPVOX endorses a considered, step-wise strategy for AI experimentation, underscoring the importance of capacity building, data stewardship, ethical frameworks, and insights gleaned from global precedents of AI in parliamentary functions. This ensures AI solutions are crafted with human discernment and supervision at their core.

Legislatures worldwide are progressively embracing AI tools such as machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision to refine the precision, efficiency, and, to a small extent, the participatory aspects of their operations. The advent of generative AI platforms, such as ChatGPT, which excel in interpreting and organizing textual data, marks a transformative shift for the legislative process, inherently a task of converting rules into language.

While nations such as Brazil, India, Italy, and Estonia lead with applications ranging from the transcription and translation of parliamentary proceedings to enhanced bill drafting and sophisticated legislative record searches, the U.S. Congress is prudently venturing into the realm of Generative AI. The House and Senate have initiated AI working groups and secured licenses for platforms like ChatGPT. They have also issued guidance on responsible use…(More)”.

Privacy-Enhancing and Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Understanding the Role of PETs and PPTs in the Digital Age

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by the Centre for Information Policy Leadership: “The paper explores how organizations are approaching privacy-enhancing technologies (“PETs”) and how PETs can advance data protection principles, and provides examples of how specific types of PETs work. It also explores potential challenges to the use of PETs and possible solutions to those challenges.

CIPL emphasizes the enormous potential inherent in these technologies to mitigate privacy risks and support innovation, and recommends a number of steps to foster further development and adoption of PETs. In particular, CIPL calls for policymakers and regulators to incentivize the use of PETs through clearer guidance on key legal concepts that impact the use of PETs, and by adopting a pragmatic approach to the application of these concepts.

CIPL’s recommendations towards wider adoption are as follows:

  • Issue regulatory guidance and incentives regarding PETs: Official regulatory guidance addressing PETs in the context of specific legal obligations or concepts (such as anonymization) will incentivize greater investment in PETs.
  • Increase education and awareness about PETs: PET developers and providers need to show tangible evidence of the value of PETs and help policymakers, regulators and organizations understand how such technologies can facilitate responsible data use.
  • Develop industry standards for PETs: Industry standards would help facilitate interoperability for the use of PETs across jurisdictions and help codify best practices to support technical reliability to foster trust in these technologies.
  • Recognize PETs as a demonstrable element of accountability: PETs complement robust data privacy management programs and should be recognized as an element of organizational accountability…(More)”.

Testing the Assumptions of the Data Revolution

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by TRENDS: “Ten years have passed since the release of A World that Counts and the formal adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This seems an appropriate time for national governments and the global data community to reflect on where progress has been made so far. 

This report supports this objective in three ways: it evaluates the assumptions that underpin A World that Counts’ core hypothesis that the data revolution would lead to better outcomes across the 17 SDGs, it summarizes where and how we have made progress, and it identifies knowledge gaps related to each assumption. These knowledge gaps will serve as the foundation for the next phase of the SDSN TReNDS research program, guiding our exploration of emerging data-driven paradigms and their implications for the SDGs. By analyzing these assumptions, we can consider how SDSN TReNDs and other development actors might adapt their activities to a new set of circumstances in the final six years of the SDG commitments.

Given that the 2030 Agenda established a 15-year timeframe for SDG attainment, it is to be expected that some of A World that Counts’ key assumptions would fall short or require recalibration along the way. Unforeseen events such as the COVID-19 pandemic would inevitably shift global attention and priorities away from the targets set out in the SDG framework, at least temporarily…(More)”.

Tackling Today’s Data Dichotomy: Unveiling the Paradox of Abundant Supply and Restricted Access in the Quest for Social Equity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan Verhulst: “…One of the ironies of this moment, however, is that an era of unprecedented supply is simultaneously an era of constricted access to data. Much of the data we generate is privately “owned,” hidden away in private or public sector silos, or otherwise inaccessible to those who are most likely to benefit from it or generate valuable insights. These restrictions on access are grafted onto existing socioeconomic inequalities, driven by broader patterns of exclusion and marginalization, and also exacerbating them. Critically, restricted or unequal access to data does not only harm individuals: it causes untold public harm by limiting the potential of data to address social ills. It also limits attempts to improve the output of AI both in terms of bias and trustworthiness.

In this paper, we outline two potential approaches that could help address—or at least mitigate—the harms: social licensing and a greater role for data stewards. While not comprehensive solutions, we believe that these represent two of the most promising avenues to introduce greater efficiencies into how data is used (and reused), and thus lead to more targeted, responsive, and responsible policymaking…(page 22-25)”.

Digital Self-Determination

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

New Website and Resource by the International Network on Digital Self Determination: “Digital Self-Determination seeks to empower individuals and communities to decide how their data is managed in ways that benefit themselves and society. Translating this principle into practice requires a multi-faceted examination from diverse perspectives and in distinct contexts.

Our network connects different actors from around the world to consider how to apply Digital Self-Determination in real-life settings to inform both theory and practice.

Our main objectives are the following:

  • Inform policy development;
  • Accelerate the creation of new DSD processes and technologies;
  • Estabilish new professions that can help implement DSD (such as data stewards);
  • Contribute to the regulatory and policy debate;
  • Raise awareness and build bridges between the public and private sector and data subjects…(More)”.

The Global Cooperation Barometer 2024

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

WEF Report: “From 2012 up until the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in cooperation across four of the five pillars, with peace and security being the only exception. Innovation and technology saw the biggest increase in cooperation – at more than 30%.

The report shows a “stark deterioration” in the peace and security pillar due to a rapid rise in the number of forcibly displaced people and deaths from conflict. However, there has been “continued growth” in the climate and nature pillar due to increased commitments from countries.

Cooperation trends by pillar.

How cooperation has developed over the past decade, by pillar Image: World Economic Forum

Here’s what you need to know about cooperation across the five pillars.

  • Trade and capital

Global trade and capital flows rose moderately between 2012 and 2022. During the pandemic, these areas experienced volatility, with labour migration patterns dropping. But metrics such as goods trade, development assistance and developing countries’ share of foreign direct investment, and manufacturing exports have returned to strong growth in the post-pandemic period, says the report.

  • Innovation and technology

In the eight years until the pandemic, innovation and technology cooperation “maintained strong and significant growth” across most indicators, especially cross-border data flows and IT services trade. But this has plateaued since 2020, with some key metrics, including cross-border patent applications and international student flows, falling.

Discover

How is the World Economic Forum creating guardrails for Artificial Intelligence?

  • Climate and natural capital

This is the only pillar that has seen the majority of indicators rise across the whole decade, with financial commitments to mitigation and adaptation and a significant expansion of marine protected areas. However, emissions continue to rise and “progress towards ecological outcomes is stagnant”, says the report.

  • Health and wellness

Between 2012 and 2020, cooperation on health and wellness rose consistently and was “essential” to navigating the COVID-19 pandemic, says the report, citing vaccine development, if not necessarily distribution, as an example. But cooperation has dipped slightly since its peak in 2020.

  • Peace and security

Trends in peace and security cooperation have declined considerably since 2016, driven by a rise in forcibly displaced people and cyberattacks, as well as a recent increase in the number of conflicts and conflict-related deaths. The report notes these metrics suggest an “increasingly unstable global security environment and increased intensity of conflicts”…(More)”.

Power to the standards

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Gergana Baeva, Michael Puntschuh and Matthieu Binder: “Standards and norms will be of central importance when it comes to the practical implementation of legal requirements for developed and deployed AI systems.

Using expert interviews, our study “Power to the standards” documents the existing obstacles on the way to the standardization of AI. In addition to practical and technological challenges, questions of democratic policy arise. After all, requirements such as fairness or transparency are often regarded as criteria to be determined by the legislator, meaning that they are only partially susceptible to standardization.

Our study concludes that the targeted and comprehensive participation of civil society actors is particularly necessary in order to compensate for existing participation deficits within the standardization process…(More)”.

Navigating the Metrics Maze: Lessons from Diverse Domains for Federal Chief Data Officers

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by the CDO Council: “In the rapidly evolving landscape of government, Federal Chief Data Officers (CDOs) have emerged as crucial leaders tasked with harnessing the power of data to drive organizational success. However, the relative newness of this role brings forth unique challenges, particularly in the realm of measuring and communicating the value of their efforts.

To address this measurement conundrum, this paper delves into lessons from non-data domains such as asset management, inventory management, manufacturing, and customer experience. While these fields share common ground with CDOs in facing critical questions, they stand apart in possessing established performance metrics. Drawing parallels with domains that have successfully navigated similar challenges offers a roadmap for establishing metrics that can transcend organizational boundaries.

By learning from the experiences of other domains and adopting a nuanced approach to metrics, CDOs can pave the way for a clearer understanding of the impact and value of their vital contributions to the data-driven future…(More)”.

Technology, Data and Elections: An Updated Checklist on the Election Cycle

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Checklist by Privacy International: “In the last few years, electoral processes and related activities have undergone significant changes, driven by the development of digital technologies.

The use of personal data has redefined political campaigning and enabled the proliferation of political advertising tailor-made for audiences sharing specific characteristics or personalised to the individual. These new practices, combined with the platforms that enable them, create an environment that facilitate the manipulation of opinion and, in some cases, the exclusion of voters.

In parallel, governments are continuing to invest in modern infrastructure that is inherently data-intensive. Several states are turning to biometric voter registration and verification technologies ostensibly to curtail fraud and vote manipulation. This modernisation often results in the development of nationwide databases containing masses of personal, sensitive information, that require heightened safeguards and protection.

The number and nature of actors involved in the election process is also changing, and so are the relationships between electoral stakeholders. The introduction of new technologies, for example for purposes of voter registration and verification, often goes hand-in-hand with the involvement of private companies, a costly investment that is not without risk and requires robust safeguards to avoid abuse.

This new electoral landscape comes with many challenges that must be addressed in order to protect free and fair elections: a fact that is increasingly recognised by policymakers and regulatory bodies…(More)”.