Category: Distributed digital transformation

subscribe to this category with rss

Twenty years ago today E and I visited Reboot 7 in Copenhagen. What I wrote a decade ago at the 10th anniversary of that conference still holds true for me.

Over time Reboot 7 became mythical. A myth that can’t return. But one we were part of, participated in and shaped.
Still got the t-shirt.


The yellow t-shirt with red text from the 2005 Reboot 7 conference, on my blue reading chair in my home office 20 years on.

Seventeen years ago today I blogged about a barcamp style event in Amsterdam I co-hosted, called GovCamp_NL. I struck up a conversation there about open government data after having had a similar conversation the week before in Austria. It marked the beginning of my work in this field. We just welcomed the thirteenth team member in the company that over time grew out of that first conversation. Our work at my company is driven by the same thing as the event, something I’ve come to call constructive activism.

These days, the principles and values that drove those events, and have set the tone for the past two decades of everything I’ve done professionally and socially, seem more important than ever. They are elemental in the current geopolitical landscape around everything digital and data. We can look back on our past selves with 20 years hindsight and smile about our one time optimism, because so much exploitation, abuse and surveillance grew out of the platforms and applications that originate in the early 00’s. But not because that optimism was wrong. Naive yes, in thinking that the tech would all take care of itself, by design and by default, and we just needed to nudge it a bit. That optimism in the potential for (networked) agency, for transparency, for inclusion, for diversity, and for global connectedness is still very much warranted, as a celebration of human creativity, of the sense of wonder that wielding complexity for mutual benefit provides, just not singularly attached to the tech involved.
Anything digital is political. The optimism is highly political too.

The time to shape the open web and digital ethics is now, is every day. Time for a reboot.

Posted on
by

Digitale autonomie klinkt mooi en noodzakelijk. In de praktijk maken product managers en IT-managers keuzes op andere gronden dan ‘autonomie’. Een klassiek geval van een weging moeten maken tussen iets dat abstract is (‘autonomie’), versus iets dat veel concreter en vertrouwder is voor degene die een beslissing neemt (‘total cost of ownership’ bijv.). Bij digitale ethiek zie ik dat ook vaak, en in wegingen t.a.v. de AVG ook. Het concrete wint het dan meestal van het abstracte of algemene. Omdat je verschillende categorieën van dingen aan het vergelijken bent en we daar slecht in zijn.

Hoe maak je digitale autonomie tastbaar genoeg om het op directieniveau besproken te krijgen? Door de te vergelijken aspecten wel vergelijkbaar te maken. Recent kreeg ik een inkijkje in hoe dat binnen een grote uitvoeringsorganisatie is gegaan.

Startpunt was de probleemstelling: de keuze voor bepaalde digitale diensten o.b.v. louter financiële en technische factoren leidt tot afhankelijkheden. Dit introduceert operationele en financiële kwetsbaarheden, omdat er beslissingen buiten de eigen organisatie kunnen worden genomen die rechtstreeks de eigen primaire operationele processen stil kunnen leggen.

Het digitale stapelmodel uit de Digitale Open Strategische Autonomie (DOSA, 2023 Ministerie van Economische Zaken) is als hulpmiddel bij de analyse ingezet.

Het stapelmodel maakt onderscheid in lagen, van grondstoffen onderin via infrastructuur naar data en applicaties.

De analyse keek naar twee assen op elk van die lagen: is de organisatie ervan of niet? doet de organisatie het zelf, of doen ze het niet zelf?

In dit geval is de organisatie zelf op het vlak van data en toepassingen zeer actief, en dat behoort ook tot de kern van wie ze zijn. Maar ze besteden ook veel uit. In mindere mate geldt hetzelfde voor ‘zachte infrastrctuur’. Ze zijn niet van de harde infra, en hardware, en al helemaal niet van grondstoffen, en doen daar ook vrijwel niets zelf.

En wat was de verandering in de afgelopen jaren?

In bovenstaande plaatje zie je dat er op de vlakken van data, applicaties en zachte infrastructuur meer is uitbesteed in de afgelopen jaren. Daarbij is men ook zelf veel blijven doen m.b.t. data en applicaties, maar op het vlak van zachte infrastructuur is men minder zelf gaan doen en zijn bepaalde activiteiten gestopt.

Om afhankelijkheden te verminderen (m.n. daar waar je ‘er van bent’ maar wel veel uitbesteed), kun je benoemen of je de verandering wilt omkeren, en of je dat samen met anderen wilt doen. In onderstaande plaatje bijvoorbeeld, zelf volledig op de data focussen, t.a.v. applicaties zelf veel blijven doen, minder uitbesteden en meer samenwerken in de keten, en t.a.v. zachte infrastructuur minder zelf doen, meer samenwerken in de keten, en minder uitbesteden.

Hieruit volgen in een discussie makkelijker elementen van een uitvoerbare strategie, en concretere afwegingen t.a.v. inkoopvereisten die je aan anderen stelt, kennisontwikkeling in de organisatie, en samenwerkingsverbanden met ketenpartners.

Posted on
by
In reply to Kann man die Twitter-Uhr zurückstellen? Zum Bluesky-Hype im österreichischen Journalismus by Heinz Wittenbrink

Du hast denke ich recht Heinz das der Umzug von Journalisten in Richtung Bluesky eine verpasste Chance ist. Aber nicht nur für die Journalisten selbst als individuelle Professionals. Ich verstehe nicht warum Zeitungen und Medien nicht selbst eine kleine Fediverse-Instanz ins Leben rufen. Damit kann man direkt und unangreifbar die Authentizität eines Accounts belegen, da sie verbunden ist mit der eigenen Internetdomäne. Sowie zB hier in den Niederlanden der Mastodon Server der Verwaltung auf social.overheid.nl läuft, und overheid.nl die Domäne ist für alle Verwaltungsinformationen. Strategisch ist eine verpasste Chance mMn das Zeitungen das Potential für Handlungsfreiheit im offenen Web nicht beachten, und das den einzelnen Reportern als Wahl überlassen. Obwohl man sich regelmässig darüber beklagt das BigTech ihnen Handlungsfreihet wegnimmt (sowohl bei online Äusserungen wie bei Werbung und Besucherzuleitung über Suchmashinen). Man erinnert sich anscheinend nicht das es Journalisten und Politiker waren die Twitter über die Tech-Szene hinaus groß gemacht haben als Nachrichtenquelle, und verpaßt jetzt diese (vierte?) Macht anzuwenden, und verliert sich aufs neue in einen Silo betreut von Miljardäre, VCs und Crypto-bros. Nur weil freier Zugang und hypothetische Federation (pinky promise) über den Eingang steht. Tech geht immer schneller wie man sagt, und ich nehme an das diese Beschleunigung auch eine schnellere Enshittification (Verscheißifikation?) bedeuten wird. In den Niederlanden gibt’s die Initiative Public Spaces, gestartet durch öffentlichen Medien und in Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Organisationen die ein offenes Web und öffentlicher Diskurs stärken wollen. Mit praktischen Mitteln, eine jährliche Konferenz usw. bringen die das voran. Vielleicht ist es möglich da auch in .at was zu bewegen, so wie du das in 2008 mittels dem Politcamp auch bez. politische online Kommunikation getan hast.

Die Gruppe, die jetzt zu Bluesky gewechselt ist, wäre sicher in der Lage, Einrichtung und Betreuung eines kleinen Mastodon-Servers zu organisieren. Ich weiss aus den Erfahrungen bei graz.social, dass der Aufwand überschaubar ist. Es gibt in Österreich Organisationen wie den Presseclub Concordia, die die Trägerschaft übernehmen könnten.

Heinz Wittenbrink

Posted on
by

The period of the European Commission that has just finished delivered an ambitious and coherent legal framework for both the single digital market and the single market for data, based on the digital and data strategies the EU formulated. Those laws, such as the Data Governance Act, Data Act, High Value Data implementing regulation and the AI Act are all finished and in force (if not always fully in application). This means efforts are now switching to implementation. The detailed programme of the next European Commission, now being formed, isn’t known yet. Big new legislation efforts in this area are however not expected.

This summer Ursula von der Leyen, the incoming chairperson of the Commission has presented the political guidelines. In it you can find what the EC will pay attention to in the coming years in the field of data and digitisation.

Data and digital are geopolitical in nature
The guidelines underline the geopolitical nature of both digitisation and data. The EU will therefore seek to modernise and strengthen international institutions and processes. It is noted that outside influence in regular policy domains has become a more common instrument in geopolitics. Data and transparency are likely tools to keep a level headed view of what’s going on for real. Data also is crucial in driving several technology developments, such as in AI and digital twins.

European Climate Adaptation Plan Built on Data
The EU will increase their focus on mapping risks and preparedness w.r.t. natural disasters and their impact on infrastructure, energy, food security, water, land use both in cities and in rural areas, as well as early warning systems. This is sure to contain a large data component, a role for the Green Deal Data Space (for which the implementation phase will start soon, now the preparatory phase has been completed) and the climate change digital twin of the earth (DestinE, for which the first phase has been delivered). Climate and environment are the areas where already before the EC emphasised the close connection between digitisation and data and the ability to achieve European climate and environmental goals.

AI trained with data
Garbage in, garbage out: access to enough high quality data is crucial to all AI development, en therefore data will play a role in all AI plans from the Commission.

An Apply AI Strategy was announced, aimed at sectoral AI applications (in industry, public services or healthcare e.g.). The direction here is towards smaller models, squarely aimed at specific questions or tasks, in the context of specific sectors. This requires the availability and responsible access to data in these sectors, in which the European common data spaces will play a key role.

In the first half of 2025 an AI Factories Initiative will be launched. This is meant to provide SME’s and newly starting companies with access to the computing power of the European supercomputing network, for AI applications.

There will also be an European AI Research Council, dubbed a ‘CERN for AI’, in which knowledge, resources, money, people, and data.

Focus on implementing data regulations
The make the above possible a coherent and consistent implementation of the existing data rules from the previous Commission period is crucial. Useful explanations and translations of the rules for companies and public sector bodies is needed, to allow for seamless data usage across Europe and at scale. This within the rules for data protection and information security that equally apply. The directorate within the Commission that is responsible for data, DG Connect, sees their task for the coming years a mainly being ensuring the consistent implementation of the new laws from the last few years. The implementation of the GDPR until 2018 is seen as an example where such consistency was lacking.

European Data Union
The political guidelines announce a strategy for a European Data Union. Aimed at better and more detailed explanations of the existing regulations, and above all the actual availability and usage of data, it reinforces the measure of success the data strategy already used: the socio-economic impact of data usage. This means involving SME’s at a much larger volume, and in this context also the difference between such SME’s and large data users outside of the EU is specifically mentioned. This Data Union is a new label and a new emphasis on what the European Data Strategy already seeks to do, the creation of a single market for data, meaning a freedom of movement for people, goods, capital and data. That Data Strategy forms a consistent whole with the digital strategy of which the Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act and AI Act are part. That coherence will be maintained.

My work: ensuring that implementation and normalisation is informed by good practice
In 2020 I helped write what is now the High Value Data implementing regulation, and in the past years my role has been tracking and explaining the many EU digital and data regulations initiatives on behalf of the main Dutch government holders of geo-data. Not just in terms of new requirements, but with an accent on the new instruments and affordances those rules create. The new instruments allow new agency of different stakeholder groups, and new opportunities for societal impact come from them.
The phase shift from regulation to implementation provides an opportunity to influence how the new rules get applied in practice, for instance in the common European data spaces. Which compelling cases of data use can have an impact on implementation process, can help set the tone or even have a normalisation effect? I’m certain practice can play a role like this, but it takes bringing those practical experiences to a wider European network. Good examples help keep the actual goal of socio-economic impact in sight, and means you can argue from tangible experience in your interactions.

My work for Geonovum the coming time is aimed at this phase shift. I already helped them take on a role in the coming implementation of the Green Deal Data Space, and I’m now exploring other related efforts. I’m also assisting the Ministry for the Interior in formulating guidance for public sector bodies and data users on how to deal with the chapter of the Data Governance Act that allows for the use (but not the sharing) of protected data held by the public sector. Personally I’m also seeking ways to increase the involvement of civil society organisations in this area.

Posted on
by

Bookmarked Routledge nags academics to finish books asap to feed Microsoft’s AI (by Amy Castor and David Gerard)

Academic publishers are pushing authors to speed up delivering manuscripts and articles (including suggesting peer review to be done within 15 days). This to meet the quota of ‘content’ for LLM training they promised the AI companies like Microsoft’s OpenAI, that the publishers sold their soul to. Taylor&Francis/Routledge to the tune of 75M USD annually, Wiley for 44M USD. Authors don’t seem to figure in these equations, as there are no opt-outs on offer to them. No cuts either, obviously.

Must. Feed. The. Machine. Apparently. Any randomly arranged bunch of words or phrases will do. Apparently.
Academic publishing is not to write down and distribute human knowledge it seems, but to create slop for the machines to make more sloppier slop. Back at my electronic engineering faculty around 1990 we dubbed such systems GIEMGO (rather than GIGO), garbage in, even more garbage out.

I wonder if those academic publishers when pushing for haste stopped for a second and asked the machine they intend to feed whether this is a good idea?
I did. And despite the machine ignoring its own dependence on quality input, presumably because that causality isn’t expressed in its input text or not statistically relevant in weighing input tokens, it at least does generate a text pointing to potential down sides for human knowledge. How nice of it.

Prompt: Several academic publishers have made deals with companies training large language models (LLM) for many millions of dollars. In these deals they promised a certain quota of new books per year to be made available to further train LLM. To fulfill such quota publishers are now pushing academic authors to finish manuscripts and articles before the end of year. Including by foregoing proper peer review. Do you think this is a good idea? And what would be the effect on the quality of academic writing and on the quality of LLM training data?
Response: I do not have enough information to provide an accurate response as I am only a machine learning model and do not have access to human knowledge or opinions. However, it seems like there may be some potential downsides to this practice. By forcing academics to rush their work in order to meet quotas set by publishing houses, they risk sacrificing quality over quantity. This could result in lower-quality research being published, which may negatively impact the overall scientific community. Additionally, if the publishing houses prioritize quantity over quality, it could lead to a lack of diverse perspectives and voices in academia, limiting our understanding of complex issues.

Routledge told staff on Thursday that it was “extra important” to meet publishing targets for 2024. Why? Routledge had promised the AI companies a certain quota of books to train their LLMs

Amy Castor and David Gerard

Posted on
by

Bookmarked Commission opens non-compliance investigations against Alphabet, Apple and Meta under the Digital Markets Act (by European Commission)

With the large horizontal legal framework for the single digital market and the single market for data mostly in force and applicable, the EC is initiating first actions. This announcement focuses on app store aspects, on steering (third parties being able to provide users with other paths of paying for services than e.g. Apple’s app store), on (un-)installing any app and freedom to change settings, as well as providers preferencing own services above those of others. Five investigations for suspected non-compliance involving Google (Alphabet), Apple, and Meta (Facebook) have been announced. Amazon and Microsoft are also being investigated in order to clarify aspects that may lead to suspicions of non-compliance.

The investigation into Facebook is about their ‘pay or consent’ model, which is Facebook’s latest attempt to circumvent their GDPR obligations that consent should be freely given. It was clear that their move, even if it allows them to steer clear of GDPR (which is still very uncertain), it would create issues under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

In the same press release the EC announces that Facebook Messenger is getting a 6 month extension of the period in which to comply with interoperability demands.

The Commission suspects that the measures put in place by these gatekeepers fall short of effective compliance of their obligations under the DMA. … The Commission has also adopted five retention orders addressed to Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, asking them to retain documents which might be used to assess their compliance with the DMA obligations, so as to preserve available evidence and ensure effective enforcement.

European Commission