Author: Jeroen

References for data activist research

Please find below a preliminary list with references to reading material relevant to data activist research.
If you have a link that needs adding: please send an email to jeroen@data-activism.net

 

Heller, C., & Pezzani, L. (2014). The Left-to-Die Boat. http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

Heller, C., & Pezzani, L. (2016). Death by Rescue. https://deathbyrescue.org

Heller, C., & Pezzani, L. (2017). Blaming the Rescuers. https://blamingtherescuers.org

Heller, C., Pezzani, L., & Stierl, M. (2017). Disobedient Sensing and Border Struggles at the Maritime Frontier of EUrope. Spheres, (#4 Media and Migration). http://spheres-journal.org/disobedient-sensing-and-border-struggles-at-the-maritime-frontier-of-europe/

Hintz, A., & Milan, S. (2010). Social Science is Police Science: Researching Grass-Roots Activism. International Journal of Communication, 4, 837–844.

Milan, S., & Velden, L. van der. (2016). The Alternative Epistemologies of Data Activism. Digital Culture & Society, 2(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2016-0205

Milan, S. (2014). The ethics of social movement research. In Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research (pp. 446–464). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Milan, S. (2010). Toward an epistemology of engaged research. International Journal of Communication, 4, 856–858.

 

Connecting to the Masses – 100 Years from the Russian Revolution @IIHS with Stefania & Lonneke

Internetional Institute for Social History in Amsterdam

Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 9:00 AM –
Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 6:00 PM

Together with Athina Karatzogianni and Andrey Rezaev, Stefania Milan organises ‘Connecting to the Masses – 100 Years from the Russion Revolution: From Agitprop to the Attention Economy’. The two-day event will be helt November 13th to the 14th at the International Institute for Social History and the University of Amsterdam. Lonneke van der Velden will be present ‘Daguerrotypes of protest: the Paris Commune’s media activism and present-day ‘social media revolutions’ on Day two. For more information about the schedule and tickets, check the eventbrite page.

About the two-day event

The relationship between governments and the people they govern has been always hostage to rhetoric, propaganda, and strategic public relations, as well as aggressive marketing and the influence of contemporary media industries, altering the dynamics of healthy political communications. Often, this relationship has thrived on charismatic leaders, the “avant-garde”, who could feel the pulse of their population’s grievances, demands and hopes for the future. Whether the Russian revolution of 1917 is interpreted as a product of class struggle, as an event governed by historic laws predetermined by the alienation of the masses by monopoly industrial capitalism, or as a violent coup by a proto-totalitarian Bolshevik party, the Russian revolutionaries understood and connected to the masses in a way that the autocracy, bourgeois elites and reformists alike failed to do.

In the midst of rage, desperation and harsh everyday life conditions, due to the pressure and failures of WW1 against Germany, food shortages, growing poverty, inequality and alienation, the Bolsheviks felt the undercurrents in the seas of history and spoke to the people, exactly when the relationship between the Tsar and the population, and between the Provisional government and the Soviets were at a crucial tipping point. The Bolsheviks grasped the opportunity to change the world for themselves in the here and now, rather than waiting to reform in the future for their children. They did so violently and unapologetically with the effects of their move running through the Cold War and the confrontation with the West, all the way to the complex and intense relations between Russia and the United States, in terms of failed engagements of the past 25 years since the fall of the USSR, the first socialist state in the world.

About the organisers

The conference is organised through a collaboration between Athina Karatzogianni from the School of Media, Communication and Sociology of the University of Leicester; Stefania Milan from the DATACTIVE research group at the Media Studies department of the University of Amsterdam; Andrey Rezaev from the Department of Sociology at St. Petersburg State University; the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam; and the State Museum of Contemporary Art, Thessaloniki.

 

logo (1)asca-logo-hippo-m uol logo logo-en

 

 

 

Comunidades de base y datos: un ejemplo desde el Valle de México

Guillén Torres y Maylí Sepúlveda

In this short piece, Guillén Torres and Maylí Sepúlveda reflect on information’s power to bring people together, creating communities around issues that need the cooperation of diverse actors to be tackled. They briefly draw from their own experience working for Controla Tu Gobierno, a Méxican NGO who is currently developing a social accountability process with a focus on water management in the Valley of Mexico.

En este pequeño texto, Guillén Torres y Maylí Sepúlveda reflexionan en torno al poder de la información para crear comunidades alrededor de problemas que necesitan resolverse a través de la colaboración de diversos actores. Los autores retoman brevemente su experiencia trabajando en Controla Tu Gobierno, una ONG Mexicana que se encuentra desarrollando un proceso de auditoría social enfocado al manejo del Agua en el Valle de México.

Ser un activista de datos es un proceso complejo. Hay que buscar o producir los datos, procesarlos, convertirlos en infografías o textos de análisis, y socializarlos, ya sea para denunciar problemáticas o influir en procesos políticos. En ese camino, también ocurre otra cosa que a veces pasa desapercibida: quienes buscaron la información, la discutieron y la tradujeron, desarrollan nuevos lazos durante el proceso. Los datos los asociaron con nuevos actores, sucesos y componentes del entorno, exhibieron conexiones entre problemas y soluciones, y convirtieron asuntos que parecían ser individuales o que se sentían lejanos, en cuestiones comunes, compartidas, relacionales y cercanas. Más allá del poder que tienen los datos para fomentar el involucramiento de la ciudadanía en los asuntos públicos, su característica más importante nos parece esa, la posibilidad que brindan de generar discusiones públicas, articular comunidades, construir identidades colectivas y alimentar programas políticos.

Sin embargo, para sacar provecho de estas posibilidades es necesario pensar los datos menos como una mercancía  -que es la misma narrativa que constantemente empuja a entenderlos como el nuevo petróleo- y más como un recurso cargado de significado. Esta visión crítica es relativamente reciente, pero ha empezado a ganar fuerza en el Sur Global. Sin embargo, en países como México, por ejemplo, donde los activistas de datos aún son principalmente jóvenes educados de áreas urbanas, todavía ocurre con frecuencia que los proyectos que pretenden tener impacto social reproducen inadvertidamente prácticas excluyentes: los hackatones retoman por unas horas problemáticas que afectan profundamente la vida de miembros de la sociedad que no participan activamente en los eventos, y generan soluciones que permiten a gobiernos promocionar apps y hacer marketing. Y luego se van. Las poblaciones sobre las cuales se produjeron los datos -que de hecho son datos sobre sus vidas y sobre lo buenas o malas que son-, reciben pocos beneficios (o ninguno), pero su información se incorpora al stock masivo de datos que permite a empresas y al estado tomar decisiones y crear valor. En este sentido, ocurre una exclusión doble; la mayoría de los productores de datos quedan fuera del procesamiento de la información y también quedan fuera de la repartición de los beneficios.

¿Cómo puede establecerse una relación distinta entre activistas, comunidades y datos? ¿Una relación que no alimente dinámicas jerárquicas o de explotación, y que vuelva protagonistas a las comunidades productoras de datos? Dentro de la organización sin fines de lucro ControlaTuGobierno (CTG), dedicamos bastante energía a buscar una respuesta a esa pregunta.

Schermafdruk van 2017-11-06 15.08.22

Los ciudadanos organizados que conocen el derecho de acceso a la información, lo utilizan como herramienta para ejercer otros derechos.

Desde 2013, CTG se ha enfocado en desarrollar modelos alternativos de contraloría social de la acción gubernamental, que buscan ir más allá de convertir a los ciudadanos en agentes fiscalizadores. Ahora que reflexionamos a la distancia en torno a los proyectos que la organización desarrolla, creemos que uno de los aciertos de su metodología ha sido el énfasis en el trabajo con comunidades de base. Construyendo sobre procesos en marcha, en los que una comunidad se ha organizado para enfrentar problemas comunes, CTG muestra a los ciudadanos cómo el uso de la información pública y los datos abiertos puede fortalecer sus actividades. Si la comunidad acepta recibir asesoría de CTG, se inicia un proceso colectivo a través del cual, a partir de información pública, los ciudadanos traducen la problemática que los afecta en a) un problema colectivo; b) un problema relacionado con alguna dimensión de la acción gubernamental; c) un problema conectado con derechos humanos.

Al centro de este acercamiento se encuentra una visión de la información pública y los datos abiertos como una especie de mapa, que además de comunicar el resultado de las decisiones tomadas por los agentes gubernamentales, también visibiliza claramente los elementos y los procesos internos que las componen. En este sentido, a través de la información pública se pueden reconstruir mecanismos e idiosincrasias institucionales que usualmente quedan fuera de la idea de la rendición de cuentas, y cuya visibilización es crucial para desarrollar activismo con un impacto real. Así, la información gubernamental no sólo permite entender cuáles decisiones se tomaron, sino también por  qué, cómo y quién las tomó, lo cual abre la posibilidad de que la ciudadanía influya (y no sólo vigile) procesos que de otra manera permanecen en la sombras.

Durante los últimos dos años, ControlaTuGobierno ha estado probando este modelo de contraloría social sobre el Programa de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales (PROTAR), una política pública a nivel federal en México, cuyo objetivo es garantizar el acceso al derecho al agua de calidad para los habitantes del país. Aunque el proyecto también implica utilizar la información pública para evaluar el desempeño del PROTAR, el objetivo principal de CTG es involucrar a los ciudadanos en el manejo de los recursos hídricos cercanos a su lugar de residencia. En este sentido, la información pública se está usando como una fuente para entender la problemática local del agua tanto en su dimensión medioambiental (analizando información sobre el agua y las comunidades que la necesitan), como en su dimensión institucional (procesando y compartiendo información sobre cómo se administra). A través de este análisis doble es posible mapear a los actores públicos y privados involucrados, así como los vínculos que establecen entre sí , el marco legal, y las oportunidades de apropiación de otros derechos.

Schermafdruk van 2017-11-06 15.09.03

Las sesiones de trabajo colectivo generan procesos de intercambio de conocimientos y fortalecen los lazos comunitarios

Uno de los objetivos principales del proyecto es el fortalecimiento de la Comisión de la Subcuenca de Xochimilco y sus Afluentes, un organismo formado por habitantes de la región, que funcionará como intermediario entre las necesidades locales y las instituciones encargadas de la gestión del agua a nivel federal. Pero para lograr la subsistencia de este organismo a largo plazo, es necesario que todos los actores relevantes, sean gubernamentales o no gubernamentales, trabajen en conjunto. Durante el desarrollo de proyectos anteriores hemos aprendido que la información pública y los datos abiertos tienen la capacidad de aglutinar distintos tipos de actores y alinear sus intereses, que usualmente parecen encontrados. Esto se debe a que la descoordinación que ocurre al interior de las instituciones, y también entre gobierno y ciudadanos organizados, se origina en falta de información. Por ejemplo, en el proyecto actual de contraloría social del agua descubrimos que no son sólo los ciudadanos quienes no están al tanto del presupuesto público, de cómo se ejerce, quiénes son los encargados de ejercerlo y en qué puede gastarse, sino que los mismos actores institucionales lo ignoran también. Lo mismo sucede respecto a los datos abiertos relacionados con el servicio de aguas; aunque podrían eficientar su gestión, los niveles locales de gobierno desconocen su existencia.

En términos generales, nuestra experiencia indica que cuando ciudadanos, instituciones públicas, academia y actores privados, convergen dentro de una misma comunidad organizada en torno a un problema, y recaban y analizan en conjunto información pública, las diferencias de poder e información se reducen y las interacciones entre ellos se vuelven menos accidentadas. Además, las personas involucradas se escuchan unos a otros, lo cual fomenta la creación de lazos comunitarios a largo plazo.

Si quieres saber más sobre las metodologías de ControlaTuGobierno, puedes visitar su página web: ControlaTuGobierno.com

 

guillen

Guillén Torres es estudiante de doctorado dentro del proyecto DATACTIVE, en la Universidad de Ámsterdam. Su investigación está enfocada en las reacciones institucionales frente al uso que la sociedad civil hace de los datos abiertos y la información pública.

 

Schermafdruk van 2017-11-06 15.09.25Maylí Sepúlveda es directora general de Controla Tu Gobierno. Ha sido consultora de la William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, International Budget Partnership, Banco Mundial, Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency y el PNUD.

DATACTIVE presents… ‘Data for the Social Good’ (Amsterdam, 16-17 Nov)

As every aspect of our daily lives becomes susceptible of turning into data being collected, analyzed and repurposed, the question arises what kind of consequences this process will bring for society. The goal of this event is to reflect upon how activism, data, and research may be mobilized for social good. The speakers (see below) are experts developing projects related to topics such as human rights, environmental justice, and international law, from an approach located at the crossroads of academia and civil society.

The event is in two parts: an evening session on November 16 open to the public and organized in collaboration with SPUI25 and a day-long session on November 17 with restricted participation, and a combination of talks (in the morning) and moderated sessions in the afternoon.

 

Please find the report on this event here.

 

DAY 1: Data for the Social Good (SOLD OUT)

16 November 2017, 8pm-9.30pm, @ SPUI25, Spui 25, 1012 XA, Amsterdam
This event is fully booked, but tickets might become available just before the start. Also, a live-stream will be set up by Spui25 here at 8pm.

Join us for an evening about ‘research that matters’, exploring ways of collecting and processing data for social causes. Just as socioeconomic data about us are used by institutions to decide upon the allocation of budgets for public health, housing or urban planning, and behavioural data helps businesses to determine their location or set their prices, digital data are also mobilised by activists to legitimize their struggles against poverty, racism or injustice. Recently, as every aspect of our daily lives has turned into data susceptible of being quantified, processed and repurposed, it is not only the metrics created about us that are used as input for all kinds of decision-making, but those generated by us through the daily use of different types of technologies.

Although we hear a lot about the risks of (personal) data being used by corporations and states, there are also many examples of usage by organisations or individuals with the goal of improving society. From crowd-sourced maps about the ‘femicide’ epistemic in Latin America to the analysis of videos and photos to reconstruct drone attacks, data produced by people is mobilised for social good. The goal of this event is to reflect upon the possibilities for research and activism (and potential combinations) brought about by the massive production, collection and availability of data.

With the help of Charlotte Ryan (Media Research and Action Project/ MRAP, University of Massachusetts Lowell), Lorenzo Pezzani (Forensic Architecture, Goldsmiths), and Jeff Deutch and Niko Para (The Syrian Archive), the event will focus on discussing different dimensions of activist research. Fieke Jansen will be moderating the evening.

 

DAY 2: Data for the Social Good: A Focused Encounter

17 November 2017 9am-4pm, @E-Lab, Turfdraagsterpad 9 (room 0.16*), 1012 XT Amsterdam
* turn right after the entrance, room 0.16 is located at the end.

Should you want to participate, please drop an email to jeroen@data-activism.net. Seating is limited but we particularly welcome scholars interested in exploring the relationship between academia, action and policy.

DATACTIVE: Focused Encounter will be an exploration into ‘data activist research’ through a one-day workshop. The event will be the first in a series of seminars organized by DATACTIVE as an attempt to bridge theory and praxis, as well as to establish a network of activist-researchers and researching-activists working on themes of mutual interest around the politics of datafication.

DATACTIVE explores the responses to datafication and massive data collection, as they are implemented by citizens and organized civil society. As part of this program, we have adopted an ‘engaged’ approach to research by virtue of which we produce scientifically sound knowledge, while simultaneously paying attention to the impact this process might have on people and communities (see Milan, 2010). Furthermore, since we want to contribute to empower activists and citizens to think critically about datafication, empowerment and surveillance, we are currently exploring experimental research methods capable of bringing together activist communities and academia to develop joint research questions and/or projects. In this sense, on a more practical level, the goal of this first Focused Encounter is to start charting out a ‘data activist’ research agenda that takes into account this community building, mutual learning and knowledge-sharing mission. On a theoretical level the goal of the Focused Encounter is to discuss different aspects of inclusion and democracy, evidence and knowledge production, and the promises and perils of data activism and datafication more in general.

The event will consist of a morning program (9:15 – 12:30) featuring three speakers who will showcase ways of doing engaged research as well as the related challenges, followed by a moderated discussion. After lunch there is room for discussion and knowledge exchange in small moderated groups, for those who are interested (highly recommended), followed by about an hour of focused discussion and brainstorming. We will work together until approximately 16:00 and then have drinks.

 

Schedule

Morning:
9:15 -9:30 Welcome by Stefania Milan.
9:30 -10:00 Charlotte Ryan. “Building sustained research collaborations.”
10:00 – 10:30 Lorenzo Pezzani (Forensic Architecture). “Forensic Oceanography: Documenting the violence of the EU’s Maritime Frontier.”
10:30 – 10:45 COFFEE BREAK
10:45 – 11:15 Jeff Deutch and Niko Para (Syrian Archive). “Archiving for accountability: Collaboratively preserving, verifying and investigating open-source documentation of rights abuses in Syria.”
11:15 – 12:30 Discussion on ‘Data activist research’, moderated by Lonneke van der Velden.

Afternoon:
The afternoon session will provide space to reflect and look forward. What is needed, for us as a data-activist community, is to accelerate and expand our engaged and action-oriented research practices? Based on the diverse expert insights we gained during the morning session we will collectively start crafting an engaged research agenda for data activist research.

13:30 -14:00 Collective brainstorm. Moderator: Kersti Wissenbach.
14:00 – 16:00 Break- out sessions
15:30 – 16:00 Reporting back.
16:00 Closure

After 16:00 Drinks @Cafe de Jaren (Nieuwe Doelenstraat 20 – 22, 1012 CP / Amsterdam)

 

About the speakers

The speakers are invited to present their research projects, experiences and results, and to discuss with DATACTIVE members and attendees questions relating to research ethics, engaged research as well as data activism, its problems and outcomes.

Charlotte Ryan is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, and the co-founder (with Bill Gamson) of the Movement/Media Research and Action Project (a research group that aims to strengthen progressive social movements working toward social justice and inclusive and participatory democracy). Ryan worked also as an organizer in labor, community, health and anti-intervention movements, and has extensive experience with collaborative work between academia and activism. She is also a member of the DATACTIVE Ethics Board.

Lorenzo Pezzani is an architect and researcher. He is currently Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, where he leads the MA studio in Forensic Architecture. His work deals with the spatial politics and visual cultures of migration, with a particular focus on the geography of the ocean. Since 2011, he has been working on Forensic Oceanography, a collaborative project that critically investigate the militarized border regime in the Mediterranean Sea, and has co-founded the WatchTheMed platform. Together with a wide network of NGOs, scientists, journalists, and activist groups, he has produced maps, videos and human right reports that attempt to document and challenge the ongoing death of migrants at sea.

Jeff Deutch & Niko Para are members of The Syrian Archive, a Syrian-led collective of human rights activists dedicated to preserving open-source visual documentation relating to human rights violations committed by all sides during the Syrian conflict. Through collecting, curating, verifying and investigating digital content, the Syrian Archive aims to preserve data as a digital memory, to establish a verified database of human rights violations for reporting and advocacy purposes, and to act as an evidence tool for legally implementing justice and accountability efforts as concept and practice in Syria. Jeff Deutch is a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Human Rights and a PhD candidate at the Humboldt-University in Berlin. He has developed workflows and methodologies for open-source investigations of human rights violations. Niko Para is The Syrian Archive’s lead technologist, where he develops the Sugarcube sequential data investigation pipeline for secure collection, preservation, transformation of user-generated content. He has worked with Tactical Technology Collective, Global Witness, as well as numerous smaller agricultural, artistic, and musical organisations and collectives. He unapologetically plays the banjo.

Fieke Jansen is an independent researcher. Until recently, she worked on the Politics of Data programme for Tactical Tech. Previous to that, she helped set up and manage the digital emergency programme for human rights defenders and activists at Hivos. She also co-authored the book Digital AlterNatives.

 

Guillén at The Expert Session on Human Rights Defenders

Author: Guillén Torres

On Monday 9th of October, I was very happy to participate in the Expert Session on Human Rights Defenders, organized by Justice and Peace Netherlands. The goal of the event was to reflect upon the role that Data (Big and Small) can play in the defense of Human Rights around the world.

The workshop was also a platform for the presentation of the Index of Human Rights Defenders, developed jointly by Justice and Peace and the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands. This new index aims to facilitate the identification of tangible actions that are needed to improve precarious situations for human rights defenders worldwide.

My intervention was centered on strategies to turn (Big) Data into policy recommendations, which is one of the interests of the DATACTIVE project. Since there is currently no general agreement on a specific methodology to achieve this goal, I decided to prepare an exploratory talk to share recent findings in academic research on the topics of evidence-informed public policy and Big Data. In addition, I proposed the participants to colonize the field of Business Analytics, which has been very productive in developing various frameworks for the production of Actionable Insights out of Big Data but focuses almost exclusively on the creation of economic value.

I was lucky enough to present next to Hisham Almirat, a research associate at Datactive, and Hyeong-sik Yoo, from HURIDOCS, who shared with the participants of the workshop thoughts and techniques on ethical data collection.

Miren Gutiérrez will be our in-house visiting scholar in October and November

Miren Gutierrez will be in Amsterdam on October 3-14 and November 6-18. She hopes to engage with the Datactive team in exploring new research venues and opportunities, and to participate in the events, conferences and activities in which the team is involved.

About Miren
Miren is a Research Associate at Datactive. She is also a professor of Communication, director of the postgraduate programme “Data analysis, research and communication”, and member of the research team of the Communication Department at the University of Deusto, Spain. Miren’s main interest is proactive data activism, or how the data infrastructure can be utilized for social change in areas such as development, climate change and the environment. She is a Research Associate at the Overseas Development Institute of London, where she leads and participates in data-based projects exploring the intersection between biodiversity loss, environmental crime and development.

She holds a PhD in Communication Sciences. Her dissertation “Bit and Atoms: Proactive data activism and social change from a critical theory perspective” explores the relationship between people, data and technologies.

Kersti on political participation and data activism in a sub-Sahara African context (Bonn)

VHS Bonn (VolksHochSchule), Adult Education Centre
Monday, September 25, 2017, 18: 00-19: 30

Kersti Wissenbach will give a public lecture about political participation and data activism in a sub-Sahara African context. The talk is part of the ‘Afrikanische Aspekte’ lecture series, organizing every semester by the German African Center together with the adult education center with the aim to open up these issues to a wider audience. Other speakers this year are from the German Development Bank, The German Institute for Development (DIE), Uni Bonn, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Germanwatch e. V.

On the talk

New technological developments offer more and more opportunities for citizen participation. New civil society actors, such as Civic Tech, and Open Data activists are taking advantage of this opportunity. They demand greater transparency from governments, public authorities to take responsibility, and open doors for direct political participation.

But what does involvement of the citizens in the digital age really look like when the power dynamics and socio-political contexts determine which data are collected and used for political decision-making? How can new technologies and new actors positively influence such dynamics and relationships in the African context?

Find more information on the talk here (in German).

DATACTIVE lecture series: Daniel Trottier

Save the date! On Tuesday 19 September from 3 until 5 pm, room 0.16 (BG1) we will host the first of this year’s DATACTIVE Speakers Series. This time we team up with the rMA and Thomas Poell for a session on digital vigilantism and data activism. We have invited Daniel Trottier (EUR) and our own Lonneke van der Velden (UvA) to share their thoughts. You can find the abstracts of their talks below.

 

Digital vigilantism – Daniel Trottier
Digital media enable citizens to hold fellow citizens accountable, often resulting in shaming and harassment. This project examines digital vigilantism (DV) in a global context. DV is a process where citizens are collectively offended by other citizen activity, and respond through coordinated retaliation on digital media, including mobile devices and social media platforms. The offending acts range from mild breaches of social protocol to terrorist acts and participation in riots. In addition to shaming the targeted individual, participants may also share additional information about the target, resulting in a harmful and lasting mediated visibility.

Digital vigilantism is an interdisciplinary concern that requires both conceptual and empirical advancement. Drawing upon existing research on digital media cultures, online policing and surveillance, this five-year project considers the cultural factors surrounding DV, in contradistinction to embodied vigilantism. It also considers the social impact on the various actors involved, as well as how this complicates conventional policing and state power. While online shaming and coordination can transcend borders, this project will remain attentive to national contexts in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, China and Russia. This project will develop a theoretical framework that advances the frontier of knowledge of DV in relation to key disciplines and interdisciplinary fields. Next, the research will deliver a comprehensive analysis of news media as well as other sources of public discourse that render DV meaningful. This will be followed by an account of DV from the perspectives of those who encountered or contributed to it in a personal or professional context. These theoretical and empirical findings will inform a conceptually rigorous and nuanced understanding of the motivations and practices that surround DV, alongside recommendations for key stakeholders.

 

OSINT and data activism – Lonneke van der Velden
This presentation discusses instances of Open Source Intelligence in the context of “data activism”. As datafication progressively invades all spheres of contemporary society, citizens grow increasingly aware of the critical role of information as the new fabric of social life. This awareness triggers new forms of civic engagement and political action. “Data activism” indicates the range of sociotechnical practices that interrogate the fundamental paradigm shift brought about by datafication. This includes ways of affirmative engagement with data (“proactive data activism”, e.g. data-based advocacy) and tactics of resistance to massive data collection (“reactive data activism”, e.g. encryption practices), understood as a continuum along which activists position and reposition themselves and their tactics.

Becky at 4S conference in Boston

Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), 2017
Boston, Massachusetts, August 30 – September 2, 2017

 

STS (In)Sensibilities

If sensibility is the ability to grasp and to respond, how might we articulate the (in)sensibilities of contemporary technoscience? How, similarly, can we reflect on the extent and limits of our own sensibilities as STS scholars, teachers, and activists? The conference theme invites an open reading and exploration of how the world is made differently sense-able through multiple discourses and practices of knowledge-making, as well as that which evades the sensoria of technoscience and STS. Our aim is that the sense of ‘sense’ be read broadly, from mediating technologies of perception and apprehension to the discursive and material practices that render worlds familiar and strange, real and imagined, actual and possible, politically (in)sensitive and ethically sensible. Find the detailed program here.

 

Becky presents ‘Calculating & Countering Surveillance Risks: Translations in Practice’

With the proliferation of digital surveillance, how to act under the presumption of monitoring and tracking has become a central subject of concern to civil society. The responsibility of the ‘surveillance subject’ extends to the ability to anticipate the likelihood of one kind of security threat over another; to apply risk management strategies to determine the appropriate course of action in fearful and uncertain circumstances; and to own responsibility for the impacts of any ensuing threats. With the risks of emerging phenomena like the ‘internet of things’, ‘smart cities’, intelligent autonomous systems, and preemptive security, the responsibilities placed on chronically under-resourced civil society actors are greater than ever. This paper investigates the practices civil society actors and affiliated technical communities turn to in order to calculate and counter these emerging risks, using translations and boundary objects as an analytical lens to understand security in practice.

The paper draws upon my doctoral research, which bridges surveillance studies and STS approaches to the study of risk, security, and information infrastructures, including the work of Michel Callon and John Law (2005) on calculative practices and Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star on ‘boundary objects’ and ‘boundary infrastructures’(1989; 1999), with the work of critical data and critical security scholars such as Louise Amoore and Claudia Aradau.

The research is done through participant observation, document analysis, and extensive semi-structured interviewing, crossing national boundaries in order to trace transnational interactions. The paper draws upon document analysis of different risk and threat modeling frameworks, and data from interviews conducted with privacy engineers, human rights defenders, activists, and security industry professionals.

 

About 4S

The Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) is an international, nonprofit scholarly society founded in 1975. 4S fosters interdisciplinary and engaged scholarship in social studies of science, technology, and medicine (a field often referred to as STS). Membership in the society is open to anyone interested in understanding developments in science, technology, or medicine in relation to their social contexts.

[blog] Hopes and Fears at SHA2017

Authors: Davide & Jeroen

A few weeks ago, a contingent of the DATACTIVE team attended SHA (Still Hacking Anyway), the periodic worldwide hacker camp hosted in the Netherlands. The great variety of people hanging around included IT pen-testers, system administrators, activists, developers, advocacy groups, journalists -and, of course, hackers. Around 3.300 attendants, 100 gigabit (!) of bandwidth, 320 talks, mixed with lights, music, artifacts of all kind -and a fair amount of drinks- contributed to characterize the gathering as a concrete embodiment of the hackers’ ethos of ‘work&play’.

We had the chance to attend dozens of talks and debates; to participate in the activity of the Technopolitics village TSJA; to interview dozens of participants; to give our own talk on mailing list analysis; to engage in chats, activities, and drinks with plenty of people.

Eager to trigger discussion, we asked ourselves: with this great group of people, why not conduct a small informal survey in the evening hours, exploiting the generally relaxed atmosphere characterizing this moment of the day?

Assisted by a bottle of vodka (to lure into the discussion the more reluctant ;-), we walked around in order to harvest peoples’ “hopes and fears” related to the inexorable process of datafication. After Jonathan Gray, we understand datafication as “[a way] of seeing and engaging with the world by means of digital data” (2016). Its political relevance descends by the fact that “data can also actively participate in the shaping of the world around us” (ibid.). Activists, advocates, techies, hackers and interested citizens are more and more concerned both with the threats and the opportunities that the transformation of every aspect of reality into data brings along. What do people fear the most? What is (if any) their biggest hope?

It is interesting to notice that quite often people would at first have a puzzled reaction: ‘What do you exactly mean?’ and ‘isn’t there a neutral-answer option?’ were frequent instinctive responses. However, while not yet completely fleshed out for the purpose of a poll, the question worked well as a trigger for small discussion and, in many cases, people would then start to recognize quite some fears and hopes they bring, engaging in animated conversations with us.

The fears of SHA participants seem to circulate very much around the general topic of control, and that of prediction mechanisms in relation to algorithms. Pessimistic answers include the recognition that “[those] who control communication (infrastructure) control society”, denote a strict concern for “[people] predicting the wrong answer (or the wrong things)” and the fear “to be categorized” and a to experience a “lack of control over data collection”. The hopes, instead, largely insisted on how blockchain technologies, open data, and hacking might contribute to a more decentralized (and thus controllable-from-below) world.

It must be said that (quite unexpectedly), the hopes outnumbered the fears. To be fair, whereas blunt optimism doesn’t seem to find roots in this community, we have to register some hopeless reactions, as the one whose only hope is that we run out of metal on our planet (and whose fear is that the mining industry might outsource to Mars…).

Overall, the theme of (lack of) control over peoples’ own lives seems to be the red thread. Data (as Kranzberg’s law on technology reminds us) are not good nor bad in themselves -but neither neutral, since who, when, how, and for what purposes gain control over them determines their oppressive or liberating potential. In other words, ‘big data’ are political issues, and people at SHA are much aware of that.

To conclude, two methodological notes. The term ‘datafication’, despite sometimes obscure to the respondents and overly-general for the quite structured question, worked well as a floating signifier to trigger people into discussion about the topic. The vodka, instead, would have worked better with some orange juice next to it -lesson learned.

 

If you wanna look it up yourself, here is a transcript of both fears and hopes:

Fears on datafication:

  • who controls the communication (infrastructure) controls society
  • centralization will limit knowledge and sharing until control over the population is complete
    lack of control over data collection
  • fascism
  • even if algorithms are neutral, the data they work with are biased
  • to be categorized → filter bubble
  • predict the wrong answer (or the wrong things)
  • self-fulfilling prophecy as a service
  • advancement of face recognition techniques
  • people do not question algorithms
  • they start mining metals on Mars
  • genocide

Hopes on datafication:

  • we run out of metal atoms to share all the data
  • 42
  • blockchain as a technology of socialism
  • societies move in waves like everything in life. Future will require revolution
  • the democratization of mapping data
  • balancing power through open data
  • people learn to question algorithms like they do with politicians
  • new generations will be more aware and hack more
  • It will prove mankind is hopeless
  • helps with daily life
  • that the data is used to solve problems of society
  • it’s just a hype
  • they (doing it) notice they are themselves getting fucked by categorization and negative impact on their lives
  • decentralization through blockchain tech will give us the freedom to reclaim control over communication infrastructures

 

References

Gray, Jonathan (2016), “Datafication anddemocracy: Recalibrating digital information systems to address broader societal interests”, Juncture, Volume 23, ISSUE 3