What is the value of data? A review of empirical methods

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Policy brief by Diane Coyle and Annabel Manley: “The economy has been transformed by data in recent years. Data-driven firms made up seven of the global top 10 firms by stock market capitalisation in 2021; and across the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) economies there has been a growing gap in terms of productivity and profitability between firms that use data intensively and the rest (e.g. Brynjolfsson et al 2019; Bajgar et al 2022; Coyle et al 2022). The widespread availability of data and analytics has also begun to extend into the public sector and policymaking, for example with ‘following the science’ – implying intense use of data – becoming a tagline for the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK and elsewhere.

It is therefore obvious that data has value in an economically meaningful sense. The sources of its value and characteristics of data as an economic asset are discussed at length in our earlier Value of Data report (Coyle et al 2020a). We concluded that there is potential value to the economy as a whole from having the ability to use data, and not just to the organisations that control specific data sets. This appreciation is increasingly reflected in many policy statements of data strategy and the broader debate about the governance of data (e.g. European Parliament 2022). The value of data is also explicitly and implicitly acknowledged by firms that sell data services, and investors who take dataset assets into account in stock market valuations or mergers and acquisitions.

However, despite the broad recognition of its value, and the need to develop appropriate policy frameworks, there is still no consensus method for empirically determining the value of data. Without this, the full potential will not be realised (Verhulst 2018). There are not even many examples of markets for data that would indicate a private valuation (although not the wider social value). Yet estimates of the value of data are needed to determine an appropriate level of investment, as well as a better understanding of how data can contribute value to the economy and how to govern the collection and use of different types of data.

This brief presents an overview of a range of alternative methods for data valuation, including those proposed in the existing literature. This includes some relatively widely used methods and others that are more specialist or preliminary…(More)”.

Localising AI for crisis response

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Aleks Berditchevskaia and Kathy Peach, Isabel Stewart: “Putting power back in the hands of frontline humanitarians and local communities.

This report documents the results of a year-long project to design and evaluate new proof-of-concept Collective Crisis Intelligence tools. These are tools that combine data from crisis-affected communities with the processing power of AI to improve humanitarian action.

The two collective crisis intelligence tool prototypes developed were:

  • NFRI-Predict: a tool that predicts which non-food aid items (NFRI) are most needed by different types of households in different regions of Nepal after a crisis.
  • Report and Respond: a French language SMS-based tool that allows Red Cross volunteers in Cameroon to check the accuracy of COVID-19 rumours or misinformation they hear from the community while they’re in the field, and receive real-time guidance on appropriate responses.

Both tools were developed using Nesta’s Participatory AI methods, which aimed to address some of the risks associated with humanitarian AI by involving local communities in the design, development and evaluation of the new tools.

The project was a partnership between Nesta’s Centre for Collective Intelligence Design (CCID) and Data Analytics Practice (DAP), the Nepal Red Cross and Cameroon Red Cross, IFRC Solferino Academy, and Open Lab Newcastle University, and it was funded by the UK Humanitarian Innovation Hub.

We found that collective crisis intelligence:

  • has the potential to make local humanitarian action more timely and appropriate to local needs.
  • can transform locally-generated data to drive new forms of (anticipatory) action.

We found that participatory AI:

  • can overcome several critiques and limitations of AI – as well as helping to improve model performance.
  • helps to surface tensions between the assumptions and standards set by AI gatekeepers versus the pragmatic reality of implementation.
  • creates opportunities for building and sharing new capabilities among frontline staff and data scientists.

We also validated that collective crisis intelligence and participatory AI can help increase trust in AI tools, but more research is needed to untangle the factors that were responsible…(More)”.

Protecting Children in Cyberconflicts

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Eleonore Pauwels: “Just as digital technologies have transformed myriad aspects of daily life, they are now transforming war, politics and the social fabric.

This rapid analysis examines the ways in which cyberconflict adversely affects children and offers actions that could strengthen safeguards to protect them.

Cyberconflict can impact children directly or indirectly. Harms range from direct targeting for influence and recruitment into armed forces and armed groups, to personal data manipulation and theft, to cyber attacks on infrastructure across sectors critical to child well-being such as education and health facilities.

Many experts believe that the combination of existing international humanitarian law, international criminal law, human rights law, and child rights law is adequate to address the emerging issues posed by cyberconflict. Nevertheless, several key challenges persist. Attribution of cyber attacks to specific actors and ensuring accountability has proven challenging, particularly in the so-called grey zone between war and peace.

There is an urgent need to clarify how child rights apply in the digital space and for Member States to place these rights at the centre of regulatory frameworks and legislation on new technologies…(More)”.

Use of Data in Public Sector Human Resources and Workforce Management: Solutions and Challenges

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

White Paper by Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene: “Across the U.S., a growing number of cities, counties, and states are using data across agencies to improve management and make decisions—and HR and payroll professionals in particular stand to gain much from this data to help drive staffing and other strategic decisions. In this white paper, industry experts Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene take a deep dive into both the benefits and challenges of using data with real-life examples of how data has been instrumental in building a resilient HR apparatus.

Data can be used for positive change that includes shorter new-hire onboarding, fairer overtime distribution, and even improved employee safety. However, obstacles to using data in an optimal way to improve HR management, such as insufficient funding, lack of training, and lack of software access, can keep government organizations from making the most of all it can offer.

Despite barriers, many organizations are moving toward creating a culture that is conducive to the use of the data their computers can create. Examples of how data and data analysis can transform workforce management practices include:

  • Studying existing hiring and onboarding data to facilitate more effective and efficient administration
  • Tracking turnover data to document employee departures and reveal information about those most at risk of sudden departure
  • Reducing overtime by using the data to ensure fairer distribution of overtime
  • Uncovering equity issues by assessing and comparing the demographic makeup of a workforce to see how closely it matches their population…(More)”

Energy Data Sharing: The Case of EV Smart Charging

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sean Ennis and Giuseppe Colangelo: “The green and digital transitions are concomitantly underway. In its upcoming Action Plan on Digitalisation of Energy, the European Commission aims to develop a digital-driven “European energy data space” to allow for data sharing and system integration between the energy sector and other sectors, e.g. mobility.

CERRE  has begun working at the intersection of digital and energy with a new, cross-sector research initiative aimed at identifying the business case and governance principles for the development of a European energy data space, using the concrete example of smart electric vehicle charging points, which will play an important role in increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the energy sector.

Key research questions to be addressed as part of the project are:

  • What property rights are included within the smart charging data?
  • What is the business case for industry players and customers to share their data?
  • What should be the overarching principles governing a European energy data space?
  • What government interventions or data standards are required to make specific use cases successful for achieving green transition goals?..(More)”.

Confronting Reality in Cyberspace: Foreign Policy for a Fragmented Internet

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Council on Foreign Affairs Task Force: “…The Task Force proposes three pillars to a foreign policy that should guide Washington’s adaptation to today’s more complex, variegated, and dangerous cyber realm.

First, Washington should confront reality and consolidate a coalition of allies and friends around a vision of the internet that preserves—to the greatest degree possible—a trusted, protected international communication platform.

Second, the United States should balance more targeted diplomatic and economic pressure on adversaries, as well as more disruptive cyber operations, with clear statements about self-imposed restraint on specific types of targets agreed to among U.S. allies.

Third, the United States needs to put its own proverbial house in order. That requirement calls for Washington to link more cohesively its policy for digital competition with the broader enterprise of national security strategy.

The major recommendations of the Task Force are as follows:

  • Build a digital trade agreement among trusted partners.
  • Agree to and adopt a shared policy on digital privacy that is interoperable with Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
  • Resolve outstanding issues on U.S.-European Union (EU) data transfers.
  • Create an international cybercrime center.
  • Launch a focused program for cyber aid and infrastructure development.
  • Work jointly across partners to retain technology superiority.
  • Declare norms against destructive attacks on election and financial systems.
  • Negotiate with adversaries to establish limits on cyber operations directed at nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems.
  • Develop coalition-wide practices for the Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP).
  • Adopt greater transparency about defend forward actions.
  • Hold states accountable for malicious activity emanating from their territories.
  • Make digital competition a pillar of the national security strategy.
  • Clean up U.S. cyberspace by offering incentives for internet service providers (ISPs) and cloud providers to reduce malicious activity within their infrastructure.
  • Address the domestic intelligence gap.
  • Promote the exchange of and collaboration among talent from trusted partners.
  • Develop the expertise for cyber foreign policy.

A free, global, and open internet was a worthy aspiration that helped guide U.S. policymakers for the internet’s first thirty years. The internet as it exists today, however, demands a reconsideration of U.S. cyber and foreign policies to confront these new realities. The Task Force believes that U.S. goals moving forward will be more limited and thus more attainable, but the United States needs to act quickly to design strategies and tactics that can ameliorate an urgent threat…(More)”.

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Congressional Research Service:Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have become popular as unique and non-interchangeable units of data that signify ownership of associated digital items, such as images, music, or videos. Token “ownership” is recorded and tracked on a blockchain (a digital database that records data on a decentralized network of computers without the use of a central authority). In the future, supporters believe NFTs will be used as digital representations of physical items, such as a deed to a house or title to a car. NFTs are commonly used to record and represent ownership of an item, verify authenticity, and enable exchange. However, they do not necessarily reflect the legal ownership of an asset or grant copyright to a digital or physical item. NFT owners purchase only the right to the NFT’s blockchain metadata or “token,” not the underlying asset, unless otherwise specified in external contracts or terms and conditions. NFTs share many similarities with cryptocurrencies, and they are commonly bought and traded using cryptocurrency. Both NFTs and cryptocurrencies are built and tracked on blockchains, and they share much of the same customer and community base. However, cryptocurrencies are fungible, meaning interchangeable, whereas NFTs are unique and therefore non-fungible. Most users create and buy NFTs on dedicated NFT marketplaces. For a typical NFT, it is created or “minted” on a blockchain, auctioned off or sold at a fixed price on an NFT marketplace, and “stored”in the buyer’s digital wallet. Smart contracts (self-executing contracts or lines of computer code on a blockchain) can mint NFTs or transfer them from one owner to another. In combination, blockchains and smart contracts are the backbone of the NFT ecosystem…

Report by the Congressional Research Service: “Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have become popular as unique and non-interchangeable units of data that signify ownership of associated digital items, such as images, music, or videos. Token “ownership” is recorded and tracked on a blockchain (a digital database that records data on a decentralized network of computers without the use of a central authority). In the future, supporters believe NFTs will be used as digital representations of physical items, such as a deed to a house or title to a car. NFTs are commonly used to record and represent ownership of an item, verify authenticity, and enable exchange. However, they do not necessarily reflect the legal ownership of an asset or grant copyright to a digital or physical item. NFT owners purchase only the right to the NFT’s blockchain metadata or “token,” not the underlying asset, unless otherwise specified in external contracts or terms and conditions. NFTs share many similarities with cryptocurrencies, and they are commonly bought and traded using cryptocurrency. Both NFTs and cryptocurrencies are built and tracked on blockchains, and they share much of the same customer and community base. However, cryptocurrencies are fungible, meaning interchangeable, whereas NFTs are unique and therefore non-fungible. Most users create and buy NFTs on dedicated NFT marketplaces. For a typical NFT, it is created or “minted” on a blockchain, auctioned off or sold at a fixed price on an NFT marketplace, and “stored”in the buyer’s digital wallet. Smart contracts (self-executing contracts or lines of computer code on a blockchain) can mint NFTs or transfer them from one owner to another. In combination, blockchains and smart contracts are the backbone of the NFT ecosystem…

Despite substantial market growth over the past two years, NFTs are still relatively nascent. In their current form, NFTs have implications in a variety of policy areas:
– Consumer protection. There are a number of risks to consumers in the NFT ecosystem, and some NFT marketplaces and digital wallets lack basic features to protect consumers from fraud and misleading or deceptive practices.
– Financial regulation. Depending on the purpose and use of NFTs, some NFTs and NFT platforms may fall under existing financial regulatory regimes and definitions.
– Copyright and intellectual property. The relationship between NFTs and the legal ownership of digital or physical property is unclear. Some existing regulations may impact NFT markets.
– Energy and environmental. Both minting and selling NFTs require substantial amounts of energy, which has raised concerns about their environmental impact…(More)”.

Global Data Governance Mapping Project: Year Two Report

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Thomas Struett, Adam Zable, and Susan Ariel Aaronson, Ph.D.: “…The Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub (the Hub) seeks to help policymakers and the public understand how governments around the world govern data. For many governments, governing various types of data has become an essential, albeit challenging, task, because government officials must justify and launch new strategies, structures, policies, and processes. In 2021 researchers at the Hub designed a new evidence-based metric to characterize a comprehensive approach to data governance at both the national and international levels. We hoped that by doing so, we could help create a broader understanding of data governance. 

The OECD defines data governance as principles and policy guidance on how governments can maximize the cross-sectoral benefits of all types of data (personal, non-personal, open, proprietary, public, and private) while protecting the rights of individuals and organizations.3 A comprehensive approach includes strategies, policies, processes, and organizational structure. A comprehensive approach also governs different types of data use and re-use. 

The Hub’s metric includes 6 attributes of data governance (strategies; laws and regulations; structural changes; human rights and ethical guidelines; involving their public; and mechanisms for international cooperation). We then use 26 indicators which provide evidence of comprehensive governance. 

Key Findings 

01. Consistent performance over the two year period The UK, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and France take the most comprehensive approach to data governance at the national and international levels. This finding is consistent with our first iteration, where these countries were also in the top five (See Chart 1). 

02. Income disparities in data governance Taking our attributes in sum, what the World Bank terms high income nations do more to govern data and in particular do more on the international and responsible attributes. In contrast, lower and middle income countries tend to focus their data governance efforts on structural or regulatory actions to govern data rather than develop strategies or put forward human rights/ethical guidelines (Chart 2 and 3). 

03. Shared evidence of key components of comprehensive data governance Most of our case studies have enacted or created a freedom of information law, an open data portal, a public data protection law, and a public consultation related to data governance or data driven sectors (Chart 4). 

04. Growing importance of digital trade agreements as a form of data governance We noted an increase in the number of nations adhering to a trade agreement with the free flow of data (with exceptions) as the default. 

05. Advice from experts Most nations have created advisory committees to govern data and data driven technologies, but these committees are mainly composed of representatives of business, government, and academia rather than representatives of the broad public. By including such representatives, policymakers may be better able to anticipate and understand data driven issues that could affect public trust.

06. Policymakers are generally not responsive to public concerns regarding data governance Although most countries seek public comment on proposed laws and regulations related to data, we have little evidence that policymakers revise their data governance policies in response to public concerns…(More)”.

Reimagining Data and Power: A roadmap for putting values at the heart of data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by The Data Values Project: “This paper sets out the key themes that emerged from the consultation and describes a collective vision for a fair data future with agency, accountability, and action as its core features. Agency in data refers to having power to shape personal and/or community data and deciding whether, when, and with whom to share it. Accountability in data means that people have access to mechanisms to shape data governance decisions and to hold the powerful accountable. Data in action refers to the imperative of data producers and decision makers to use and share data to improve lives.

Building on these themes, the Data Values Project will advocate for actions that shift power to the people most affected by data production and use. This paper captures examples and stories that show these actions are already being taken by pro-active governments, companies, and civil society organizations around the world. These examples show what’s possible and already happening, while pointing to the distance that remains to achieve a fair data future for all.

This paper is only the first step to changing power imbalances in data design, collection, use, and governance. A global campaign to advocate for the values laid out in this white paper will launch in September at the United Nations General Assembly. Alongside this global campaign, champions and changemakers will lead localized advocacy efforts by tailoring messages and recommendations for actions at the local, sectoral, and regional levels.

The Data Values Project envisions a world where people can be equal players in the production and use of data that impacts them. This vision is for a fair data future in which the power of data is harnessed and its benefits are shared equitably to improve lives and ensure no one is left behind…(More)”.

Social Noise: What Is It, and Why Should We Care?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Tara Zimmerman: “As social media, online relationships, and perceived social expectations on platforms such as Facebook play a greater role in people’s lives, a new phenomenon has emerged: social noise. Social noise is the influence of personal and relational factors on information received, which can confuse, distort, or even change the intended message. Influenced by social noise, people are likely to moderate their response to information based on cues regarding what behavior is acceptable or desirable within their social network. This may be done consciously or unconsciously as individuals strive to present themselves in ways that increase their social capital. For example, this might be seen as liking or sharing information posted by a friend or family member as a show of support despite having no strong feelings toward the information itself. Similarly, someone might refrain from liking, sharing, or commenting on information they strongly agree with because they believe others in their social network would disapprove.

This study reveals that social media users’ awareness of observation by others does impact their information behavior. Efforts to craft a personal reputation, build or maintain relationships, pursue important commitments, and manage conflict all influence the observable information behavior of
social media users. As a result, observable social media information behavior may not be an accurate reflection of an individual’s true thoughts and beliefs. This is particularly interesting in light of the role social media plays in the spread of mis- and disinformation…(More)”.