UNCTAD calls on countries to make digital data flow for the benefit of all

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Press Release: “The world needs a new global governance approach to enable digital data to flow across borders as freely as necessary and possible, says UNCTAD’s Digital Economy Report 2021 released on 29 September.

The UN trade and development body says the new approach should help maximize development gains, ensure those gains are equitably distributed and minimize risks and harms.

It should also enable worldwide data sharing, develop global digital public goods, increase trust and reduce uncertainty in the digital economy.

The report says the new global system should also help avoid further fragmentation of the internet, address policy challenges emerging from the dominant positions of digital platforms and narrow existing inequalities.

“It is more important than ever to embark on a new path for digital and data governance,” says UN Secretary-General António Guterres in his preface to the report.

“The current fragmented data landscape risks us failing to capture value that could accrue from digital technologies and it may create more space for substantial harms related to privacy breaches, cyberattacks and other risks.”

UNCTAD Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan said: “We urgently need a renewed focus on achieving global digital and data governance, developing global digital public goods, increasing trust and reducing uncertainty in the digital economy. The pandemic has shown the critical importance of sharing health data globally – the issue of digital governance can no longer be postponed.”

Pandemic underscores need for new governance

Digital data play an increasingly important role as an economic and strategic resource, a trend reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic has shown the importance of sharing health data globally to help countries cope with its consequences, and for research purposes in finding vaccines.

“The increased interconnection and interdependence challenges in the global data economy call for moving away from the silo approach towards a more holistic, coordinated global approach,” UNCTAD Deputy Secretary-General Isabelle Durant said.

“Moreover, new and innovative ways of global governance are urgently needed, as the old ways may not be well suited to respond to the new context,” she added.

New UN data-related body proposed

UNCTAD proposes the formation of a new United Nations coordinating body, with a focus on, and with the skills for, assessing and developing comprehensive global digital and data governance. Its work should be multilateral, multi-stakeholder and multidisciplinary.

It should also seek to remedy the current underrepresentation of developing countries in global and regional data governance initiatives.

The body should also function as a complement to and in coherence with national policies and provide sufficient policy space to ensure countries with different levels of digital readiness and capacities can benefit from the data-driven digital economy…(More)”.

Pathways to Digital Justice

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

White Paper by The World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Data Policy who “… liaised with the Global Future Council on Media, Entertainment and Sport and the Global Future Council on AI for Humanity to make the case for a new policy framework that effectively addresses issues of justice arising in a range of digital contexts. This white paper, produced in collaboration with an advisory committee consisting of experts from around the world, is intended to guide policy efforts towards combating data-driven harms. The hope is that legal and judicial systems can then evolve to embed redress mechanisms that enable the creation of a data ecosystem which protects individuals and is accountable to them….(More)”.

New USAID Digital Ecosystem Framework for International Development

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by ICTWorks: “USAID’s Digital Strategy explains that a digital ecosystem comprises stakeholders, systems, and an enabling environment that, together, empower people and communities to use digital technology to access services, engage with each other, and pursue economic opportunities. Building on this concept, the Agency created a framework that refines the ecosystem into a practical structure for development practitioners.

USAID’s Digital Ecosystem framework is distinct from the concept of a digital economy – and the distinction is an important one that USAID has iterated and worked to define. It is an environment, system, and culture all at once; it is the starting point for any digital interaction, and understanding it is crucial for development practitioners.

The Digital Ecosystem Framework is organized around three separate, overlapping pillars:

  • Digital Infrastructure and Adoption: the resources that make digital systems possible and how individuals and organizations access and use these resources.
  • Digital Society, Rights, and Governance: how digital technology intersects with government, civil society, and the media.
  • Digital Economy: the role digital technology plays in increasing economic opportunity and efficiency

USAID’s Digital Ecosystem framework encompasses four cross-cutting topics:

  • Inclusion: reducing disparities in access and the “digital divide”
  • Cybersecurity: protecting information against damage, unauthorized use or modification, or exploitation.
  • Emerging Technologies: encompassing artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, blockchain, 5G and other new technologies.
  • Geopolitical Positioning: the influence of authoritarian states that are actively working to shape the global digital space….(More)”.

Statement of Principles to support proactive disclosure of government-held information

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Statement of principles by the  Australian information commissioners and ombudsmen: “Information commissioners and ombudsmen across Australia oversight and promote citizens’ rights to access government-held information and have powers to review agency decisions under the applicable right to information (RTI) legislation. Beyond formal rights of access, the proactive disclosure of government-held information promotes open government and advances our system of representative democracy.

All Australian governments (Commonwealth, state, territory, and local) and public institutions are strongly encouraged to commit to being Open by Design by building a culture of transparency and by prioritising, promoting and resourcing proactive disclosure.

These Principles recognise that:

  1. information held by government and public institutions is a public resource and, to the greatest extent possible, should be published promptly and proactively at the lowest reasonable cost, without the need for a formal access request, and
  2. a culture of transparency within government is everyone’s responsibility requiring action by all public sector leaders and officers to encourage and support the proactive disclosure of information, and
  3. appropriate, prompt and proactive disclosure of government-held information:
  • informs community – proactive disclosure leads to a more informed community, and awareness raising of government and public institutions’ strategic intentions and initiatives, driving innovation and improving standards. Transparent and coherent public communication can also address misinformation
  • increases participation and enhances decision-making – proactive disclosure increases citizen participation in government processes and promotes better informed decision-making through increased scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of government and public institutions’ decisions
  • builds trust and confidence – proactive disclosure enhances public sector accountability and integrity, builds public trust and confidence in decision-making by government and public institutions and strengthens principles of liberal democracy
  • improves service delivery – proactive disclosure improves service delivery by providing access to information faster and more easily than formal access regimes, providing the opportunity to decide when and how information is provided, and to contextualise and explain information
  • is required or permitted by law – proactive disclosure is mandated, permitted, or protected by law in all Australian states and territories and the Commonwealth
  • improves efficiency – proactive disclosure reduces the administrative burden on departments and agencies and the need for citizens to make a formal information access request.

 Australian information commissioners and ombudsmen recommend that public sector agencies:

  1. Embed a proactive disclosure culture in all public sector agencies and public institutions by…(More)”.

Secondary use of health data in Europe

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Mark Boyd, Dr Milly Zimeta, Dr Jeni Tennison and Mahad Alassow: “Open and trusted health data systems can help Europe respond to the many urgent challenges facing its society and economy today. The global pandemic has already altered many of our societal and economic systems, and data has played a key role in enabling cross-border and cross-sector collaboration in public health responses.

Even before the pandemic, there was an urgent need to optimise healthcare systems and manage limited resources more effectively, to meet the needs of growing, and often ageing, populations. Now, there is a heightened need to develop early-diagnostic and health-surveillance systems, and more willingness to adopt digital healthcare solutions…

By reusing health data in different ways, we can increase the value of this data and help to enable these improvements. Clinical data, such as incidences of healthcare and clinical trials data, can be combined with data collected from other sources, such as sickness and insurance claims records, and from devices and wearable technologies. This data can then be anonymised and aggregated to generate new insights and optimise population health, improve patients’ health and experiences, create more efficient healthcare systems, and foster innovation.

This secondary use of health data can enable a wide range of benefits across the entire healthcare system. These include opportunities to optimise service, reduce health inequalities by better allocating resources, and enhance personalised healthcare –for example, by comparing treatments for people with similar characteristics. It can also help encourage innovation by extending research data to assess whether new therapies would work for a broader population….(More)”.

Who takes part in Citizen Science projects & why?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

CS Track: “Citizen Science in Europe, as elsewhere, continues to manifest itself in a variety of different ways. While attracting interest across multiple sectors of society, its definition remains unclear. The first CS Track White Paper on Themes, objectives and participants of citizen science activities has just been published and, along with the initial results of the first large scale survey into participation in citizen science, provides an important overview of who participates in citizen science projects and what motivates them. This short report focuses on one aspect that emerges in this white paper.

Citizen Science Participants – who are they? 

Participants and who they are, have a significant impact on the objectives and outcomes of citizen science projects. However, existing information on the demographics of participants in citizen science projects is very limited and most studies have focused on a single project or programme. Furthermore, certain groups, like young people, are underrepresented in the available data.

What our research team has gathered from the literature and the initial results of the CS Track large-scale survey is the following:

  • Well-educated, affluent participants outnumber less affluent participants,
  • More men than women take part in many of the programmes that have been analysed.
  • Citizen scientists seem to be white, middle-aged, scientifically literate or generally interested in science or scientific topics.
  • Scientists, academics, teachers, science students and people who have a passion for the outdoors are among the groups of people most likely to take part in citizen science.
  • In agricultural, biological and environmental science-based programmes, participants are often scientists themselves, science teachers or students, conservation group members, backpackers or hikers or other outdoor enthusiasts – in other words people who care about nature.
  • Community and youth citizen science projects are underrepresented in the available data….(More)“.

Where Is Everyone? The Importance of Population Density Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Data Artefact Study by Aditi Ramesh, Stefaan Verhulst, Andrew Young and Andrew Zahuranec: “In this paper, we explore new and traditional approaches to measuring population density, and ways in which density information has frequently been used by humanitarian, private-sector and government actors to advance a range of private and public goals. We explain how new innovations are leading to fresh ways of collecting data—and fresh forms of data—and how this may open up new avenues for using density information in a variety of contexts. Section III examines one particular example: Facebook’s High-Resolution Population Density Maps (also referred to as HRSL, or high resolution settlement layer). This recent initiative, created in collaboration with a number of external organizations, shows not only the potential of mapping innovations but also the potential benefits of inter-sectoral partnerships and sharing. We examine three particular use cases of HRSL, and we follow with an assessment and some lessons learned. These lessons are applicable to HRSL in particular, but also more broadly. We conclude with some thoughts on avenues for future research….(More)”.

Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) 2021 Study Panel Report: “In the five years since we released the first AI100 report, much has been written about the state of artificial intelligence and its influences on society. Nonetheless, AI100 remains unique in its combination of two key features. First, it is written by a Study Panel of core multi-disciplinary researchers in the field—experts who create artificial intelligence algorithms or study their influence on society as their main professional activity, and who have been doing so for many years. The authors are firmly rooted within the field of AI and provide an “insider’s” perspective. Second, it is a longitudinal study, with reports by such Study Panels planned once every five years, for at least one hundred years.

This report, the second in that planned series of studies, is being released five years after the first report.  Published on September 1, 2016, the first report was covered widely in the popular press and is known to have influenced discussions on governmental advisory boards and workshops in multiple countries. It has also been used in a variety of artificial intelligence curricula.   

In preparation for the second Study Panel, the Standing Committee commissioned two study-workshops held in 2019. These workshops were a response to feedback on the first AI100 report. Through them, the Standing Committee aimed to engage a broader, multidisciplinary community of scholars and stakeholders in its next study. The goal of the workshops was to draw on the expertise of computer scientists and engineers, scholars in the social sciences and humanities (including anthropologists, economists, historians, media scholars, philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists), law and public policy experts, and representatives from business management as well as the private and public sectors…(More)”.

Designing geospatial data portals

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Guidance by The Geospatial Commission: “…for developers and designers to increase the discoverability and usefulness of geospatial data through user-focused data portals….Data portals differ by the data they provide and the audiences they serve. ‘Data portals’ described within this guidance are web-based interfaces designed to help users find and access datasets. Optimally, they should be built around metadata records which describe datasets, provide pointers to where they can be located and explain any restrictions or limitations in their use.

Although more and more geospatial data is being made available online, there are users who are confused about where to go, who to trust and which datasets are most relevant to answering their questions.

In 2018 user researchers and designers across the Geo6 came together to explore the needs and frustrations experienced by users of data portals containing geospatial data.

Throughout 2019 and 2020 the Geo6 have worked on solutions to address pain points identified by the user research conducted for the Data Discoverability project. This guidance provides high-level general recommendations, however, exact requirements for any given portal will vary depending on the needs of your target audience and according to the data volumes and subject matters covered. This resource is not a replacement for portal-specific user research and design work…(More)”.

The Global Drive to Control Big Tech

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Freedom House: “In the high-stakes battle between states and technology companies, the rights of internet users have become the main casualties. A growing number of governments are asserting their authority over tech firms, often forcing the businesses to comply with online censorship and surveillance. These developments have contributed to an unprecedented assault on free expression online, causing global internet freedom to decline for an 11th consecutive year.

Global norms have shifted dramatically toward greater government intervention in the digital sphere. Of the 70 states covered by this report, a total of 48 pursued legal or administrative action against technology companies. While some moves reflected legitimate attempts to mitigate online harms, rein in misuse of data, or end manipulative market practices, many new laws imposed excessively broad censorship and data-collection requirements on the private sector. Users’ online activities are now more pervasively moderated and monitored by companies through processes that lack the safeguards featured in democratic governance, such as transparency, judicial oversight, and public accountability.

The drive toward national regulation has emerged partly due to a failure to address online harms through self-regulation. The United States played a leading role in shaping early internet norms around free speech and free markets, but its laissez-faire approach to the tech industry created opportunities for authoritarian manipulation, data exploitation, and widespread malfeasance. In the absence of a shared global vision for a free and open internet, governments are adopting their own approaches to policing the digital sphere. Policymakers in many countries have cited a vague need to retake control of the internet from foreign powers, multinational corporations, and in some cases, civil society.

This shift in power from companies to states has come amid a record-breaking crackdown on freedom of expression online. In 56 countries, officials arrested or convicted people for their online speech. Governments suspended internet access in at least 20 countries, and 21 states blocked access to social media platforms, most often during times of political turmoil such as protests and elections. As digital repression intensifies and expands to more countries, users understandably lack confidence that government initiatives to regulate the internet will lead to greater protection of their rights…(More)”.