Big data report from the White House

Another big data review, this time from the White House - "Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values" (pdf). The report explains what big data is (large, diverse, complex, longitudinal, distributed, making possible unexpected discoveries and creating an asymmetry of power between those who hold the data and those who intentionally or inadvertently supply it) and describes implications of big data for public and private sectors. In addition to many known and less known examples of how big data can be good or bad, the report provides initial thoughts on recommendations for big data governance. It divided its approach to policy framework into four overlapping core areas:

1. Big data and citizens - improve public services while preventing the government from accruing unlimited power by using increased surveillance, algorithmic profiling, and metadata tracking.

2. Big data and consumers - reduce cost of commercial services and personalize them while mitigating security breaches and risks of discrimination based on consumer profiles and lack of consumer awareness and data transparency.

3. Big data and discrimination - do less harm and prevent discriminatory uses of identification and re-identification techniques.

4. Big data and privacy - get used to less privacy while reconsidering the notice and consent framework.

In the concluding section the report had the following recommendations:

• Advance the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.
• Pass National Data Breach Legislation.
• Extend Privacy Protections to non-U.S. Persons.
• Ensure Data Collected on Students in School is Used for Educational Purposes.
• Expand Technical Expertise to Stop Discrimination.
• Amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

It's a thorough report and is definitely worth a read, but similarly to my and my colleagues big data review (pre-print), it's just the beginning of studying implications and governance of big data.

Chomsky on intellectuals, power, understanding and public engagement

Some notes from Chomsky's conversation with Michael Albert (co-developer of the idea of participatory economy (parecon), writer and speaker with leftist, socialist ideas).

Intellectuals - those who think about things, try to understand things, to work things out, maybe articulate and express that understanding to others and so on. Society gave them the opportunity to think (they have time, money, job security, etc. to do so). Chomsky distinguishes the task of intellectuals from their moral responsibility. Their task, based on why social institutions grant them this opportunity to do intellectual work, is to support existing authority and power. Their moral responsibility is the opposite, to try to understand the truth, convey it to other people and lay ground for constructive action. There is a conflict and society usually tries to control intellectuals and eliminate those who follow their moral responsibility too much.

In the social sciences (economics) intellectuals provide ground for ideology (e.g., free market), which is used to control population and prevent social spending, but the actual economic practice doesn’t have to correspond to ideology. Chomsky gives an example of the US steel industry, where not free market but mostly planning exists.

For “honest intellectuals”, e.g. those who are committed to enlightenment values, values of truth, liberty and justice, and don’t want to submit to power, it’s hard to remain within the system. The institutions are not going to welcome serious critics.

Another important point: there are different ways of reacting to societal problems. Activism is one of them, but Chomsky chose a different one. Speaking, writing, commenting on issues. Contributing intellectual activity is important, but there is a danger of it transforming into the quest for power. Chomsky also talks about motivations to engage in what he does - not very convincing.

Chomsky's view on the legitimacy of power and authority: Every form of domination and hierarchy, every authoritarian structure has to justify itself. And we have to constantly ask questions about authority, about how things work in the hierarchical relations, particularly with regard to those who are in the lower positions (workers, animals, etc.). Chomsky is very suspicious about the claim that people don't have knowledge, skills or desire to make decisions (in economics, politics, science). He argues that we can get understanding about our own nature not from reading books (or doing research I should add), but through experience, historical and personal because we’re embedded in our own culture. This means that people have more understanding than authorities are willing to acknowledge. In the situation when somebody says that people don’t have knowledge, etc., they have to prove it. The burden of proof is on those who make those claims. With regard to science, it is obvious that people don't have specialized knowledge. Then my question is - does it inevitably imply that they can't participate in decision-making? How can you prove that?

My "Taming the butterfly" speech

This week I'm participating in the "Taming the butterfly" game. It's a community-wide game organized by folks from SociaLens, a Bloomington start-up that promotes digital fluency.

The goal of the game is to "tame the butterfly", which wing flaps will affect our future, by proposing a vision of the future and a plan to realize this vision. Participants get some training in digital tools, communicate in small groups, solve puzzles, etc. At the end each group will present their vision in the Ignite format.

My role in this game is to be an expert in the area of mindset, which includes ethics, culture and expression of self. To stimulate participants thoughts on these issues, I wrote a short speech and delivered it via video at the opening session of the game. I'm re-posting my speech here on a separate page TTB speech.

Alternatives to economic growth: re-use, recycle and focus on communities

A very interesting review article by Barry Smart "Another ‘Great Transformation’ or Common Ruin?" in Theory, Culture & Society, 2011, vol. 28, pp. 131-151. The article considers critical responses to economic growth and examines three alternatives to the model of capitalist economic growth: de-growth, regeneration of "the communist hypothesis", and transition to a sustainable economy. They are very similar and basically have literal meanings, i.e., not focusing on growth, re-thinking communism in positive terms, and work on sustainability. Still, a few details below:

De-growth (Latouche) is a response to evidence on the negative consequences of capitalist economic growth and the detrimental impact of increasing rates of production and consumption. The idea that everything (jobs, pensions, public spending) should depend on economic growth is incompatible with the finite world.

De-growth is based on eight processes: re-evaluation, reconceptualization, restructuring, redistribution, re-localization, reduction, re-use and recycling. First three question the values of constant growth and wealth accumulation. Redistribution calls for a reduction in disparity of wealth and income. Re-localization refers to organization of local production and distribution. Reduction - lower consumption of goods, resources, and services (e.g., tourism). All this would reduce labor time and free people's time for self-development and other forms of activities, such as micro-social activities and civic labor.

Since global capitalism is based on consumerism and is ridden with crises, attempts to repair it with state interventions or environmental ideas won't work. Zizek proposed another alternative - to re-think communism, i.e., to disconnect it from pathologies and perversions of the 20th century and imagine it in a context where the working class can be divided into intellectual workers, manual laborers and unemployed ‘outcasts’, each with their own way of life and conceptions of the others.

There is a lot that can be thought or said about this, but unfortunately, the article doesn't do that. Wouldn't the distinctions between intellectual and labor workers lead to the same wealth and income disparities that exist in capitalist societies now? How can social and financial hierarchies be reconciled with ideas of equality, shared benefits, and sustainability? For somebody who shares ideas of sustainability and de-growth (to some extent), arguments in the article make perfect sense. But can skeptics and non-believers be somehow convinced that this is what should be done? Where is the minimal common ground that can serve as a starting point of a conversation about change and transformation? Haven't seen it so far...

Paper > Changes in science

Science 2.0 (change will happen ...) by Jean–Claude Burgelman, David Osimo, and Marc Bogdanowicz. First Monday, Volume 15, Number 7 - 5 July 2010:

As we have tried to show in this paper, science will undergo deep changes in the years leading up to 2030, and the speed of change is likely to accelerate. In particular, we envisage that the proliferation of scientific authorship, fragmentation of research output, and increased availability of data will lead to:
* A more unequal distribution of influence, with increased resources being concentrated on a few world–class and star researchers and research centres;
* A disruption of the value chain of scientific production, with a particular difficulty for publishers to maintain their role as “gate–keepers”;
* A blurring of the boundaries between scientific and cultural production;
* A new model of science, thanks to unprecedented data availability, where correlation supersedes causation;
* An increased importance of reputation, and the adoption of more open reputation management systems for scientific careers; and,
* An increased need for scientists to communicate to diverse audiences.