Paper by Ann Fitz-Gerald and Jenn Hennebry: “This article examines the realities of modern day warfare, including a rising trend in hybrid threats and irregular warfare which employ emerging technologies supported by digital and data-driven processes. The way in which these technologies become applied generates a widened battlefield and leads to a greater number of civilians being caught up in conflict. Humanitarian groups mandated to protect civilians have adapted their approaches to the use of new emerging technologies. However, the lack of international consensus on the use of data, the public and private nature of the actors involved in conflict, the transnational aspects of the widened battlefield, and the heightened security risks in the conflict space pose enormous challenges for the protection of civilians agenda. Based on the dual-usage aspect of emerging technologies, the challenges associated with regulation and the need for those affected by conflict to demonstrate resilience towards, and knowledge of, digital media literacy, this paper proposes the development of guidance for a “minimum basic technology infrastructure” which is supported by technology, regulation, and public awareness and education…(More)”.
Direct democracy in the digital age: opportunities, challenges, and new approaches
Article by Pattharapong Rattanasevee, Yared Akarapattananukul & Yodsapon Chirawut: “This article delves into the evolving landscape of direct democracy, particularly in the context of the digital era, where ICT and digital platforms play a pivotal role in shaping democratic engagement. Through a comprehensive analysis of empirical data and theoretical frameworks, it evaluates the advantages and inherent challenges of direct democracy, such as majority tyranny, short-term focus, polarization, and the spread of misinformation. It proposes the concept of Liquid democracy as a promising hybrid model that combines direct and representative elements, allowing for voting rights delegation to trusted entities, thereby potentially mitigating some of the traditional drawbacks of direct democracy. Furthermore, the article underscores the necessity for legal regulations and constitutional safeguards to protect fundamental rights and ensure long-term sustainability within a direct democracy framework. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on democratic innovation and highlights the need for a balanced approach to integrating digital tools with democratic processes…(More)”.
The politics of data justice: exit, voice, or rehumanisation?
Paper by Azadeh Akbari: “Although many data justice projects envision just datafied societies, their focus on participatory ‘solutions’ to remedy injustice leaves important discussions out. For example, there has been little discussion of the meaning of data justice and its participatory underpinnings in authoritarian contexts. Additionally, the subjects of data justice are treated as universal decision-making individuals unaffected by the procedures of datafication itself. To tackle such questions, this paper starts with studying the trajectory of data justice as a concept and reflects on both its data and justice elements. It conceptualises data as embedded within a network of associations opening up a multi-level, multi-actor, intersectional understanding of data justice. Furthermore, it discusses five major conceptualisations of data justice based on social justice, capabilities, structural, sphere transgression, and abnormality of justice approaches. Discussing the limits and potentials of each of these categories, the paper argues that many of the existing participatory approaches are formulated within the neoliberal binary of choice: exit or voice (Hirschman, Citation1970). Transcending this binary and using postcolonial theories, the paper discusses the dehumanisation of individuals and groups as an integral part of datafication and underlines the inadequacy of digital harms, data protection, and privacy discourses in that regard. Finally, the paper reflects on the politics of data justice as an emancipatory concept capable of transforming standardised concepts such as digital literacy to liberating pedagogies for reclaiming the lost humanity of the oppressed (Freire, Citation1970) or evoking the possibility for multiple trajectories beyond the emerging hegemony of data capitalism…(More)”.
Citizen science as an instrument for women’s health research
Paper by Sarah Ahannach et al: “Women’s health research is receiving increasing attention globally, but considerable knowledge gaps remain. Across many fields of research, active involvement of citizens in science has emerged as a promising strategy to help align scientific research with societal needs. Citizen science offers researchers the opportunity for large-scale sampling and data acquisition while engaging the public in a co-creative approach that solicits their input on study aims, research design, data gathering and analysis. Here, we argue that citizen science has the potential to generate new data and insights that advance women’s health. Based on our experience with the international Isala project, which used a citizen-science approach to study the female microbiome and its influence on health, we address key challenges and lessons for generating a holistic, community-centered approach to women’s health research. We advocate for interdisciplinary collaborations to fully leverage citizen science in women’s health toward a more inclusive research landscape that amplifies underrepresented voices, challenges taboos around intimate health topics and prioritizes women’s involvement in shaping health research agendas…(More)”.
Changing Behaviour by Adding an Option
Paper by Lukas Fuchs: “Adding an option is a neglected mechanism for bringing about behavioural change. This mechanism is distinct from nudges, which are changes in the choice architecture, and instead makes it possible to pursue republican paternalism, a unique form of paternalism in which choices are changed by expanding people’s set of options. I argue that this is truly a form of paternalism (albeit a relatively soft one) and illustrate some of its manifestations in public policy, specifically public options and market creation. Furthermore, I compare it with libertarian paternalism on several dimensions, namely respect for individuals’ agency, effectiveness, and efficiency. Finally, I consider whether policymakers have the necessary knowledge to successfully change behaviour by adding options. Given that adding an option has key advantages over nudges in most if not all of these dimensions, it should be considered indispensable in the behavioural policymaker’s toolbox…(More)”.
My Voice, Your Voice, Our Voice: Attitudes Towards Collective Governance of a Choral AI Dataset
Paper by Jennifer Ding, Eva Jäger, Victoria Ivanova, and Mercedes Bunz: “Data grows in value when joined and combined; likewise the power of voice grows in ensemble. With 15 UK choirs, we explore opportunities for bottom-up data governance of a jointly created Choral AI Dataset. Guided by a survey of chorister attitudes towards generative AI models trained using their data, we explore opportunities to create empowering governance structures that go beyond opt in and opt out. We test the development of novel mechanisms such as a Trusted Data Intermediary (TDI) to enable governance of the dataset amongst the choirs and AI developers. We hope our findings can contribute to growing efforts to advance collective data governance practices and shape a more creative, empowering future for arts communities in the generative AI ecosystem…(More)”.
Synthetic Data, Synthetic Media, and Surveillance
Paper by Aaron Martin and Bryce Newell: “Public and scholarly interest in the related concepts of synthetic data and synthetic media has exploded in recent years. From issues raised by the generation of synthetic datasets to train machine learning models to the public-facing, consumer availability of artificial intelligence (AI) powered image manipulation and creation apps and the associated increase in synthetic (or “deepfake”) media, these technologies have shifted from being niche curiosities of the computer science community to become topics of significant public, corporate, and regulatory import. They are emblematic of a “data-generation revolution” (Gal and Lynskey 2024: 1091) that is already raising pressing questions for the academic surveillance studies community. Within surveillance studies scholarship, Fussey (2022: 348) has argued that synthetic media is one of several “issues of urgent societal and planetary concern” and that it has “arguably never been more important” for surveillance studies “researchers to understand these dynamics and complex processes, evidence their implications, and translate esoteric knowledge to produce meaningful analysis.” Yet, while fields adjacent to surveillance studies have begun to explore the ethical risks of synthetic data, we currently perceive a lack of attention to the surveillance implications of synthetic data and synthetic media in published literature within our field. In response, this Dialogue is designed to help promote thinking and discussion about the links and disconnections between synthetic data, synthetic media, and surveillance…(More)”
Privacy guarantees for personal mobility data in humanitarian response
Paper by Nitin Kohli, Emily Aiken & Joshua E. Blumenstock: “Personal mobility data from mobile phones and other sensors are increasingly used to inform policymaking during pandemics, natural disasters, and other humanitarian crises. However, even aggregated mobility traces can reveal private information about individual movements to potentially malicious actors. This paper develops and tests an approach for releasing private mobility data, which provides formal guarantees over the privacy of the underlying subjects. Specifically, we (1) introduce an algorithm for constructing differentially private mobility matrices and derive privacy and accuracy bounds on this algorithm; (2) use real-world data from mobile phone operators in Afghanistan and Rwanda to show how this algorithm can enable the use of private mobility data in two high-stakes policy decisions: pandemic response and the distribution of humanitarian aid; and (3) discuss practical decisions that need to be made when implementing this approach, such as how to optimally balance privacy and accuracy. Taken together, these results can help enable the responsible use of private mobility data in humanitarian response…(More)”.
Digital surveillance capitalism and cities: data, democracy and activism
Paper by Ashish Makanadar: “The rapid convergence of urbanization and digital technologies is fundamentally reshaping city governance through data-driven systems. This transformation, however, is largely controlled by surveillance capitalist entities, raising profound concerns for democratic values and citizen rights. As private interests extract behavioral data from public spaces without adequate oversight, the principles of transparency and civic participation are increasingly threatened. This erosion of data sovereignty represents a critical juncture in urban development, demanding urgent interdisciplinary attention. This comment proposes a paradigm shift in urban data governance, advocating for the reclamation of data sovereignty to prioritize community interests over corporate profit motives. The paper explores socio-technical pathways to achieve this goal, focusing on grassroots approaches that assert ‘data dignity’ through privacy-enhancing technologies and digital anonymity tools. It argues for the creation of distributed digital commons as viable alternatives to proprietary data silos, thereby democratizing access to and control over urban data. The discussion extends to long-term strategies, examining the potential of blockchain technologies and decentralized autonomous organizations in enabling self-sovereign data economies. These emerging models offer a vision of ‘crypto-cities’ liberated from extractive data practices, fostering environments where residents retain autonomy over their digital footprints. By critically evaluating these approaches, the paper aims to catalyze a reimagining of smart city technologies aligned with principles of equity, shared prosperity, and citizen empowerment. This realignment is essential for preserving democratic values in an increasingly digitized urban landscape…(More)”.
Predictability, AI, And Judicial Futurism: Why Robots Will Run The Law And Textualists Will Like It
Paper by Jack Kieffaber: “The question isn’t whether machines are going to replace judges and lawyers—they are. The question is whether that’s a good thing. If you’re a textualist, you have to answer yes. But you won’t—which means you’re not a textualist. Sorry.
Hypothetical: The year is 2030. AI has far eclipsed the median federal jurist as a textual interpreter. A new country is founded; it’s a democratic republic that uses human legislators to write laws and programs a state-sponsored Large Language Model called “Judge.AI” to apply those laws to facts. The model makes judicial decisions as to conduct on the back end, but can also provide advisory opinions on the front end; if a citizen types in his desired action and hits “enter,” Judge.AI will tell him, ex ante, exactly what it would decide ex post if the citizen were to perform the action and be prosecuted. The primary result is perfect predictability; secondary results include the abolition of case law, the death of common law, and the replacement of all judges—indeed, all lawyers—by a single machine. Don’t fight the hypothetical, assume it works. This article poses the question: Is that a utopia or a dystopia?
If you answer dystopia, you cannot be a textualist. Part I of this article establishes why: Because predictability is textualism’s only lodestar, and Judge.AI is substantially more predictable than any regime operating today. Part II-A dispatches rebuttals premised on positive nuances of the American system; such rebuttals forget that my hypothetical presumes a new nation and take for granted how much of our nation’s founding was premised on mitigating exactly the kinds of human error that Judge.AI would eliminate. And Part II-B dispatches normative rebuttals, which ultimately amount to moral arguments about objective good—which are none of the textualist’s business.
When the dust clears, you have only two choices: You’re a moralist, or you’re a formalist. If you’re the former, you’ll need a complete account of the objective good—which has evaded man for his entire existence. If you’re the latter, you should relish the fast-approaching day when all laws and all lawyers are usurped by a tin box. But you’re going to say you’re something in between. And you’re not…(More)”