Facial Recognition Technology: Responsible Use Principles and the Legislative Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by James Lewis: “…Criticism of FRT is too often based on a misunderstanding about the technology. A good starting point to change this is to clarify the distinction between FRT and facial characterization. FRT compares two images and asks how likely it is that one image is the same as the other. The best FRT is more accurate than humans at matching images. In contrast, “facial analysis” or “facial characterization” examines an image and then tries to characterize it by gender, age, or race. Much of the critique of FRT is actually about facial characterization. Claims about FRT inaccuracy are either out of date or mistakenly talking about facial characterization. Of course, accuracy depends on how FRT is used. When picture quality is poor, accuracy is lower but often still better than the average human. A 2021 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that accuracy had improved dramatically and that more accurate systems were less likely to make errors based on race or gender. This confusion hampers the development of effective rules.

Some want to ban FRT, but it will continue to be developed and deployed because of the convenience for consumers and the benefits to public safety. Continued progress in sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) will increase availability and performance of the technologies used for facial recognition. Stopping the development of FRT would require stopping the development of AI, and that is neither possible nor in the national interest. This report provides a list of guardrails to guide the development of law and regulation for civilian use….(More)”.

Citizen Science Project Builder 2.0

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About by Citizen Science Center Zurich: “The Citizen Science Project Builder allows the implementation of Citizen Science projects, specifically in the area of data analysis. In such projects volunteers (“citizens”) collaborate with researchers in different kinds of scientific endeavors, from labeling images of snakes to transcribing handwritten Swiss German dialect, or classifying insects and plants. The Project Builder facilitates the implementation of such projects, supporting the collaborative analysis of large sets of digital data, including images and texts (i.e. satellite pictures, social media posts, etc.), as well as videos, audios, and scanned documents.

What makes the tool so special?

The Citizen Science Project Builder features a web interface that requires limited technical knowledge, and ideally little or no coding skills. It is a simple modular “step-by-step” system where a project can be created in just a few clicks. Once the project is set up, many people can easily be involved and start contributing to the analysis of data as well as providing feedback that will help you to improve your project!

What is new?

The new release of the Citizen Science Project Builder allows the building of full-fledged questionnaires for media analysis (including conditions and multiple formats for questions). A brand new functionality allows the geolocation of content on Open Street Map (e.g. mark the location of the content of an image) and also the delimitation of an area of interest (e.g. delimitate green areas). The interface still includes an “expert path” for developers, so if you can code (vue.js) the sky is the limit!…(More)”

Impact Evidence and Beyond: Using Evidence to Drive Adoption of Humanitarian Innovations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Learning paper by DevLearn: “…provides guidance to humanitarian innovators on how to use evidence to enable and drive adoption of innovation.

Innovation literature and practice show time and time again that it is difficult to scale innovations. Even when an innovation is demonstrably impactful, better than the existing solution and good value for money, it does not automatically get adopted or used in mainstream humanitarian programming.

Why do evidence-based innovations face difficulties in scaling and how can innovators best position their innovation to scale?

This learning paper is for innovators who want to effectively use evidence to support and enable their journey to scale. It explores the underlying social, organisational and behavioural factors that stifle uptake of innovations.

It also provides guidance on how to use, prioritise and communicate evidence to overcome these barriers. The paper aims to help innovators generate and present their evidence in more tailored and nuanced ways to improve adoption and scaling of their innovations….(More)”.

Data governance: Enhancing access to and sharing of data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Recommendation: “Access to and sharing of data are increasingly critical for fostering data-driven scientific discovery and innovations across the private and public sectors globally and will play a role in solving societal challenges, including fighting COVID-19 and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But restrictions to data access, sometimes compounded by a reluctance to share, and a growing awareness of the risks that come with data access and sharing, means economies and societies are not harnessing the full potential of data.


Adopted in October 2021, the OECD Recommendation on Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data (EASD) is the first internationally agreed upon set of principles and policy guidance on how governments can maximise the cross-sectoral benefits of all types of data – personal, non-personal, open, proprietary, public and private – while protecting the rights of individuals and organisations.


The Recommendation intends to help governments develop coherent data governance policies and frameworks to unlock the potential benefits of data across and within sectors, countries, organisations, and communities. It aims to reinforce trust across the data ecosystem, stimulate investment in data and incentivise data access and sharing, and foster effective and responsible data access, sharing, and use across sectors and jurisdictions.


The Recommendation is a key deliverable of phase 3 of the OECD’s Going Digital project, focused on data governance for frowth and well-being. It was developed by three OECD Committees (Digital Economy Policy, Scientific and Technological Policy, and Public Governance) and acts as a common reference for existing and new OECD legal instruments related to data in areas such as research, health and digital government. It will provide a foundation stone for ongoing OECD work to help countries unlock the potential of data in the digital era….(More)”.

How do we ensure anonymisation is effective?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Chapter by the Information Commissioner’s Office (UK): “Effective anonymisation reduces identifiability risk to a sufficiently remote level.
• Identifiability is about whether someone is “identified or identifiable”. This doesn’t just concern someone’s name, but other information and factors that can distinguish them from someone else.
• Identifiability exists on a spectrum, where the status of information can change depending on the circumstances of its processing.
• When assessing whether someone is identifiable, you need to take account of the “means reasonably likely to be used”. You should base this on objective factors such as the costs and time required to identify, the available technologies, and the state of technological development over time.
• However, you do not need to take into account any purely hypothetical or theoretical chance of identifiability. The key is what is reasonably likely relative to the circumstances, not what is conceivably likely in absolute.
• You also need to consider both the information itself as well as the environment in which it is processed. This will be impacted by the type of data release (to the public, to a defined group, etc) and the status of the information in the other party’s hands.
• When considering releasing anonymous information to the world at large, you may have to implement more robust techniques to achieve effective anonymisation than when releasing to particular groups or individual organisations.
• There are likely to be many borderline cases where you need to use careful judgement based on the specific circumstances of the case.
• Applying a “motivated intruder” test is a good starting point to consider identifiability risk.
• You should review your risk assessments and decision-making processes at appropriate intervals. The appropriate time for, and frequency of, any reviews depends on the circumstances…(More)”.

The Case For Exploratory Social Sciences

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Discussion Paper by Geoff Mulgan: “…Here I make the case for a new way of organising social science both in universities and beyond through creating sub-disciplines of ‘exploratory social science’ that would help to fill this gap. In the paper I show:
• how in the 18th and 19th centuries social sciences attempted to fuse interpretation and change
• how a series of trends – including quantification and abstraction – delivered advances but also squeezed out this capacity for radical design
• how these also encouraged some blind alleys for social science, including what I call ‘unrealistic realism’ and the futile search for eternal laws

I show some of the more useful counter-trends, including evolutionary thinking, systems models and complexity that create a more valid space for conscious design. I argue that now, at a time when we badly need better designs and strategies for the future, we face a paradoxical situation where the people with the deepest knowledge of fields are discouraged from systematic and creative exploration of the future, while those with the appetite and freedom to explore often lack the necessary knowledge…(More)”.

Keeping labour data flowing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by ILO: “The availability of data tends to be taken for granted by the vast majority of people. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates this vividly: estimates of case numbers and deaths have been widely quoted throughout and assumed by most to be available on demand.

However, those responsible for compiling official statistics know all too well that, even at the best of times, providing high-quality data to meet even just a small part of user needs is incredibly challenging and, on the whole, very resource-intensive. That said, the world has, in general, been steadily moving in the right direction, with more and better data being produced over time.

At the end of 2019, most users and producers of statistics would have predicted, with good reason, that the trend of increasing data availability would continue in the new decade, not least in the field of labour statistics. What no one could foresee then is that one of the cornerstones of data collection for surveys, namely the ability to visit and interview respondents, could be undermined so rapidly and drastically as was the case in 2020 owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Various organizations and specialized agencies in the United Nations system, including the ILO and collectively through the Intersecretariat Working Group on Household Surveys, have sought to track the impact of COVID-19 on data collection. In March 2021, the ILO launched a global survey to understand better the extent to which the crisis had affected the compilation of official labour market statistics. Information was received from 110 countries, of which 97 had planned to complete a labour force survey (LFS) in 2020. The findings point to both the tremendous challenges faced and the remarkable efforts undertaken to provide information on the world of work during the pandemic.

Nearly half of countries had to suspend interviewing at some point in 2020

Close to half (46.4 per cent) of the countries with plans to conduct a LFS in 2020 had to suspend interviews at some point in the year.The highest levels of suspensions were reported by countries in Africa and the Arab States (70.6 per cent) and in the Americas (66.7 per cent). While some countries were able to attempt to recover those interviews later on, the majority were not, which means they completely lost data that had been expected to be available, creating a risk of gaps in data series for key labour market indicators, among others…(More)”

Licensure as Data Governance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Frank Pasquale: “…A licensure regime for data and the AI it powers would enable citizens to democratically shape data’s scope and proper use, rather than resigning ourselves to being increasingly influenced and shaped by forces beyond our control.To ground the case for more ex ante regulation, Part I describes the expanding scope of data collection, analysis, and use, and the threats that that scope poses to data subjects. Part II critiques consent-based models of data protection, while Part III examines the substantive foundation of licensure models. Part IV addresses a key challenge to my approach: the free expression concerns raised by the licensure of large-scale personal data collection, analysis, and use. Part V concludes with reflections on the opportunities created by data licensure frameworks and potential limitations upon them….(More)”.

Building Consumer Confidence Through Transparency and Control

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Cisco 2021 Consumer Privacy Survey: “Protecting privacy continues to be a critical issue for individuals, organizations, and governments around the world. Eighteen months into the COVID-19 pandemic, our health information and vaccination status are needed more than ever to understand the virus, control the spread, and enable safer environments for work, learning, recreation, and other activities. Nonetheless, people want privacy protections to be maintained, and they expect organizations and governments to keep their data safe and used only for pandemic response. Individuals are also increasingly taking action to protect themselves and their data. This report, our third annual review of consumer privacy, explores current trends, challenges, and opportunities in privacy for consumers.

The report draws upon data gathered from a June 2021 survey where respondents were not informed of who was conducting the study and respondents were anonymous to the researchers. Respondents included 2600 adults (over the age of 18) in 12 countries (5 Europe, 4 Asia Pacific, and 3 Americas). Participants were asked about their attitudes and activities regarding companies’ use of their personal data, level of support for COVID-19 related information sharing, awareness and reaction to privacy legislation, and attitudes regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision making.

The findings from this research demonstrates the growing importance of privacy to the individual and its implications on the businesses and governments that serve them. Key highlights of this report

  1. Consumers want transparency and control with respect to business data practices – an increasing number will act to protect their data
  2. Privacy laws are viewed very positively around the world, but awareness of these laws remains low
  3. Despite the ongoing pandemic, most consumers want little or no reduction in privacy protections, while still supporting public health and safety efforts
  4. Consumers are very concerned about the use of their personal information in AI and abuse has eroded trust…(More)”.

GovTech Maturity Index : The State of Public Sector Digital Transformation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the World Bank: “Governments have been using technology to modernize the public sector for decades. The World Bank Group (WBG) has been a partner in this process, providing both financing and technical assistance to facilitate countries’ digital transformation journeys since the 1980s. The WBG launched the GovTech Initiative in 2019 to support the latest generation of these reforms. Over the past five years, developing countries have increasingly requested WBG support to design even more advanced digital transformation programs. These programs will help to increase government efficiency and improve the access to and the quality of service delivery, provide more government-to-citizen and government-to-business communications, enhance transparency and reduce corruption, improve governance and oversight, and modernize core government operations. The GovTech Initiative appropriately responds to this growing demand.

The GovTech Maturity Index (GTMI) measures the key aspects of four GovTech focus areas—supporting core government systems, enhancing service delivery, mainstreaming citizen engagement, and fostering GovTech enablers—and assists advisers and practitioners in the design of new digital transformation projects. Constructed for 198 economies using consistent data sources, the GTMI is the most comprehensive measure of digital transformation in the public sector. Several similar indices and indicators are available in the public domain to measure aspects of digital government—including the United Nations e-Government Development Index, the WBG’s Digital Adoption Index, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Digital Government Index.

These indices, however, do not fully capture the aspects of emphasis in the GovTech approach—the whole-of-government approach and citizen centricity—as key when assessing the use of digital solutions for public sector modernization. The GTMI is not intended to be an assessment of readiness or performance; rather, it is intended to complement the existing tools and diagnostics by providing a baseline and a benchmark for GovTech maturity and by offering insights to those areas that have room for improvement. The GTMI is designed to be used by practitioners, policy makers, and task teams involved in the design of digital transformation strategies and individual projects, as well as by those who seek to understand their own practices and learn from those of others….(More)”.