ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net IDP2016 (X). Céline Deswarte: Towards a future proof legal framework for digital privacy in Europe http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18831 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Keynote speech. Chairs: Pere Fabra Céline Deswarte. Policy Officer, European Commission. Directorate General for Communication, Networks, Content and Technology.Towards a future proof legal framework for digital privacy in Europe EU legal framework for Digital Privacy: General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679/EU + ePrivacy Directive 2002/57/EC. When you are surfing online you produce key information on time of connection, browsing history, location, etc. which can be retrieved. Telecom providers must anonymize or delete traffic and location data of their users and subscribers. When it is stored in hour own computer (e.g. cookies) the user must have given their prior consent after having been duly informed. But is it consent strong enough? It is difficult to understand that consent is given “freely” if data subject has no genuine or free choice or unable to withdraw consent without detriment. Protecting your personal data, when e.g. buying online. Companies must rely on a legal basis to process personal data, and respect principles of data processing. On the specific issue of profiling, sharing personal data with a third party implies the right to be informed about it. Profiling is lawful unless it is equivalent to a decision with legal effects that is significantly harmful to the individual (e.g. one can lose one’s own job). Besides, there has to be a respect for the individual’s rights, e.g. the right to object at any time including profiling, and then data processing must stop. Member states shall ensure the confidentiality of one’s electronic communications and related traffic data. So, it is not only about privacy in the sense of what you do, but also in the sense of what you say and to whom. The big problem here is to whom applies all this regulation, as actors are many and different. So far, these principles only apply to telecom providers, while new market players like Voice IP or instant messaging, etc. do not need to respect this. In other words, social networking sites provide communication services but do not fall into the category of telecommunications providers. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (X). Céline Deswarte: Towards a future proof legal framework for digital privacy in Europe

Fri, 08 Jul 2016 05:02:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160708-idp2016-x-celine-deswarte-towards-a-future-proof-legal-framework-for-digital-privacy-in-europe/
IDP2016 (VIII). Lance Bennett: The Democratic Interface: Communication and Organizational Change in Movements and Parties http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18829 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Keynote speech. Chairs: Rosa Borge. Prof. Lance Bennett. Professor of Political Science and Ruddick C. Lawrence Professor of Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.The Democratic Interface: Communication and Organizational Change in Movements and Parties (Keynote co-authored with Alexandra Segerberg and Curd Knüpfer). The democratic interface: the capacity of electoral communication and organization processes to engage citizens and produce equal democratic representation. Does the interface work equally well for everyone? Is it working better for the right? Why? Has a change in participation logic disrupted the traditional party interface with voter on the left? 40 years of neoliberal globalization, resulting in a breaking up of common social institutions (unions, schools, media, health care, etc.) and more political polarization. Power has moved from states to businesses and markets. Most parties are embracing neoliberal policies and parties have hollowed themselves as spaces for citizen engagement (Mair). There is a legitimacy crissi of liberal representative democracy (Della Porta), a relocation of politics in the everyday (Band) and a personalization of politics (Bennett). Does the reactionary right have increasing electoral advantage? Those who identify on the right are more likely to follow rules, respect traditions and customs and, in general, to follow what constitutes the model of a political party in neoliberal democracies: hierarchy, leadership, command, etc. So the right may have more electoral success because their voters have preferences for authority, strong leadership, rules, common traditions, etc. Why the deficits on the left? There are fewer angry citizens on the radical left than on the radical right? there is more trust or confidence in politicians and parties on the left? Both hypothesis are not validated. Same happens with satisfaction with democracy, the economy, etc. And same with participation: the left participates as much or even higher than the right. So it has to be a different logic of participation on the left. The connective party: communication and organization for participatory democracy. There is a discontent with neoliberal globalization since 90s, leading to flexible identities and multiple issues, “meta ideologies” of diversity and inclusiveness, mistrust of parties and leaders and the representative process, and a preference for direct or participatory or deliberative democracy. There is a shift in participation logic at the left interface. And this may be the reason why left parties are having issues to connect with their partisans and sympathisers. Can parties on the left mobilize more voters with connective action? Requirement for a connective party:

Central party open to feedback from peripheral networks. Peripheral networks deliberate and share positions across networks and with central organization. Scale requires digital platforms.

Podemos was initially more decentralized, but went under a process of centralization and strong leadership, quite abandoning the círculos. This left aside many people that were in for the participation. Barcelona en Comú created a whole participatory network with different spaces, times, tools. It is by far the least centralized in Barcelona municipality. Alternativet (Denmark). Founded in 2013, entered parliament in 2015 with 5% vote. Called itself both a party and a political movement, socially open, networked online platform, living everyday democracy, organized through communication between citizen “labs” and party leadership. Can socially mediated participation be coordinated? Can it scale? Can such organization be sustained? Can party leadership share power? Can technology developers design participatory and deliberative platforms in collaboration with core leaders and local activists who may undervalue technology? Discussion Modern democracies are over. They were done when neoliberalism replaced Keynesianism as a way to manage society and public issues. Can Kurban: does right and left still explain the state of politics? Bennett: it is true that it is increasingly difficult to explain things using these axes, but they still somewhat work, especially for the right that still cluster well. Juan Roch: what is the role of technology, of digital platforms? Bennett: they are only instrumental, but they are definitely very important. But it is worth noting that there still is a lot of doubts about intensive use of technology, and even refusal to see technology replacing face-to-face meetings. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (VIII). Lance Bennett: The Democratic Interface: Communication and Organizational Change in Movements and Parties

Fri, 08 Jul 2016 02:34:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160708-idp2016-viii-lance-bennett-the-democratic-interface-communication-and-organizational-change-in-movements-and-parties/
IDP2016 (V). Data protection http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18826 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on data protectionChairs: Mònica Vilasau GDPR: A European model of privacyRicard Martínez. Responsable del Servicio de Transparencia en la Diputació de València. Expert in privacy. The European Union has made of data protection and privacy a solid building, with strong foundations, and ready to face the challenges of the future. Data protection has become a fundamental right and, as such, it is against such the highest level of the right that the debate and the weightings take place. This is at odds with the practices of US firms, that are clearly threatening this fundamental principle. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is trying to fix this and to protect the citizen against all kind of threads. But it is still imperfect. If, for instance, still relies on authorisation. It is well known that the end user will accept (authorise) any kind of data usage by third parties just to be able to enter a social networking site, or to have access to social media, or to use a given digital service. The regulation should then be more proactive, and “not trust” the judgement of the citizen, and protect them despite themselves. Accountability has to be filled with content, not be a hollow recipient of wishful thinking. The legislator must know reality, the reality of the user, the reality of technology. There is a big problem now that technologies enable the possibility that third parties can own others’ identities, do things for them (and without them knowing), make decisions for them (and without them knoweing), etc. General data protection regulation vs. big data regulationAlessandro Mantelero, Polytechnic University of Turin One of the main problems of big data is that it does not actually asks for permission, or consent. Or, indeed, most of consent was already given when the user accepted the conditions of each and every social networking site, website, online service, etc. Regulation is clearly lagging behind the advancements of technology. This is not new —it actually is the norm— but not only the gap is widening, but the paths are divergent one from another. Achieving anonymity on the Internet is extremely difficult. This is what we have to address. When we collect information which is non-sensitive (e.g. on mobility) it will most likely produce outputs that are relevant for privacy, that can contribute to identify or draw a profile of someone. And all this is not in the GDPR. How is GDPR addressing these new but actual challenges We are shifting from an individual-based data protection paradigm to a new paradigm of a collective vision, where the collective shapes the identity, shapes privacy, etc. Discussion Alessandro Mantelero: this is not a legal topic, but an economic topic. If we test prototype cars for security and do not allow them to be on the streets until they match some security issues, same should happen when designing digital services. Yes, maybe this would slow the pace of innovation. Maybe. But we have to find a balance between total flexibility in digital services design and total lack of taking into account fundamental rights that can be seriously damaged by the design of those digital services. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (V). Data protection

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:12:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-v-data-protection/
IDP2016 (IV). Communications on E-government http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18825 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on E-governmentChairs: Agustí Cerrillo Innovation management in public organizations: open data in the threshold of open government.Adrián Vicente Paños, Diputació de València; Servicio de Transparencia y Gobierno Abierto. In general, innovation is badly managed in European public administrations: lack of reusage, management deficits, etc. e-Government, in many cases, has been used as a flagship for the “modernization” of public bodies. And, in particular, open data and open data portals are increasingly becoming the first stop for pubic bodies to face modernization and innovation. 84% of European countries have open data portals, although less than half of them have a certain degree of maturity. Reuse of data vary significantly depending on the type of data and sector. Thus, finance, contracts, geospatial data and some others are by far much more used than other datasets. There is a need to improve communication so that the end-user (e.g. the citizen) can reuse data, be more easily found, etc. Benchmarking good practices across different bodies would also have a potentially high impact. The asymmetric regulation of third parties’ rights in the procedures of access and reuse of public information.Leonor Rams Ramos, Profesora Contratada – Doctora de Derecho Administrativo (acreditada a Titular de Universidad) en la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. The new Spanish Law on Transparency (Ley 19/2013) was much needed, but has been criticised because of its wide limitations, very open cases for non-admittance, and lack of instruments for assessing its efficacy — among others. What happens with third parties that, despite not being public bodies, they have relationships with public administrations and thus these have data that can be requested by the citizen. Can these third parties, these private bodies oppose to their data being published or given away by public administrations under the Transparency Law? The Art.19.3 LTBG makes it compulsory to notify third parties if they could be affected by a request of data, and they then become an interested party of the procedure. It is not a right to veto: it just triggers some alerts so that the data from third parties is accurately dealt with. If the data required falls within the category of personal data, the veto is automatic. If not, it has to be analyzed case by case. The problem is that the citizen that makes the request has no voice in the whole procedure, or can argue against the decision to veto the delivery of data. Even worse, the person requesting the data does not know what the third party can do or will do to avoid the disclosure of data. And hence cannot react or anticipate any movement from the third party, which rends them defenceless. The collaboration of the private sector in European digital public services of digital identification.Ignacio Alamillo Domingo, Abogado y auditor. Colaborador docente de la UOC. Digital identity has ceased to be a matter of security, circumscribed in a very tiny area, to something that is ubiquitous, spreading all over a myriad of platforms and institutions. On the other hand, digital identity is not only a matter of cost (cost to create an identity) but also a consumer good or even a capital active, and including a social good, liked to social networking or reputation, and leading to the appearance of public providers of digital identities (e-ID). eIDAS aims at creating a public system of digital identification within the European Union. It focuses in security and interoperability, so that national systems can interact one with each other. What is the role of the private sector in this system? It is possible that a means of digital identification can be private. This means that the public sector admits private means of identification and uses them or interacts with them. And by doing it at a national level it is enabled that it can be done at the European level. The problem here is how to assess private eIDs and their features, or how to avoid the (explicit or tacit) creation of monopolies or monopolies of e-identification private systems. Last, but not least, no only public bodies can use eIDs, but also private parties can benefit from eIDAS and use an kind of eID issued by public or private bodies in any member state of the EU. Discussion Ignacio Alamillo: it would be interesting that the public sector accepted different degrees of identification, with different levels of security, compliance, etc., in collaboration with public-private-partnerships, etc. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (IV). Communications on E-government

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 07:15:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-iv-communications-on-e-government/
IDP2016 (III). Raquel Xalabarder: Copyright law for a digital single market: how far are we from achieving it? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18824 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Keynote speech. Chairs: Maria Julià Prof. Raquel Xalabarder. Professor of Intellectual Property, Law and Political Science Department, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC).Copyright law for a digital single market: how far are we from achieving it? Copyright law grants an exclusive right on works contained in products (tangible goods) and services which must freely circulate within the EC/EU internal market. So far, we have a bunch of national copyright laws, with different scopes, and with a marked principle of territoriality. Can we harmonize these issues? There has to be no discrimination within the EU: what you grant to a national author, you grant it to a EU author. BUT. We had a single digital market for goods, but not for services. Once a work was embedded on a product, it fell within EU common law; but it happens otherwise with services. And here is the big deal we are facing now. Rome EC Treaty:

Subsidiarity principle, only applies when objectives are better achieved by the EC than by member states individually. Harmonization through directives, that need national implementation. Lisbon EU Treaty Art. 118 TFEU: mandate for uniform IP rights in all EU. Need for a regulation on EU copyright?

We now have a bunch of EU directives that deal with computer software, rental and lending rights, satellite and cable communications, terms of protection, databases, copyright, resale right, enforcement, orphan works, collective management (of rights) organizations and music online, etc. There’s a big deal trying to harmonize concepts like what is a work, what is an author, what are related rights, etc. Different directives refer to works and authors in very different ways. Same happens with moral rights, exploitation rights, remuneration rights… Remuneration rights are especially difficult to address as they vary very much across countries, in what they cover, in the amount or kind of remuneration, its management, etc. About communication to the public, there is no clear consensus on what the “public” is, communication, display or performance, etc.). Here the concept of linking to (protected) content becomes crucial, of course including the role of the agent that created the link. The harmonisation of limitations to intellectual property rights are also scattered across different directives and regulations in general. Licensing, enforcement… again matters of disagreement and lack of harmonization. Discussion Wouter Tebbens: copyleft software heavily relies on copyright, and the design and the product are very much the same. But what happens with copyleft hardware, where the design and the product are much different? Xalabarder: it is uncertain. It depends on whether you just protect the design, and then the product is not affected, or if you take into account the design embedded in the product. It is difficult to tell. Some conclusions?

Fragmented harmonization of some issues: work, author, rights, limitations… Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) role is paramount. Territorial licensing allowed (for services) as “original sin”. Member states “reception” of EU copyright law and caselaw? Subsidiarity principle. Time for a copyright unitary title?

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (III). Raquel Xalabarder: Copyright law for a digital single market: how far are we from achieving it?

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 04:47:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-iii-raquel-xalabarder-copyright-law-for-a-digital-single-market-how-far-are-we-from-achieving-it/
IDP2016 (II). Communications on Digital Single Market and e-Commerce http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18823 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on Digital Single Market and e-CommerceChairs: Blanca Torrubia The role of geoblocking in the internet legal landscape.Marketa Trimble, Samuel S. Lionel Professor of Intellectual Property Law at William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Geoblocking: blocking depending on place and depending on content. Geoblocking breaks the ubiquity of the Internet and users’ expectations of a territorially-unlimited Internet. On the other hand, geoblocking is a way to try to accommodate Internet content to the territorial restraint of national jurisdiction. Opposition to geoblocking:

Contrary to the original architecture of the internet. It’s imperfect, leaving lots of room for spillovers. Has uncertain legality. Is associated with not insignifiat implementation costs. May have an impact on freee speech.

The EU proposes a campaign against geoblocking, though proposing a new regulation to address geoblocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers’ nationality. Some positive ends of geoblocking:

Contributes to the diversity of content on the Internet. Geoblocking allows for content to be made available where it is legal. A territorial partitioning of the Internet is inevitable as long as countries have strong national public policies that shape at least some of their laws. Online gambling and other sensitive areas of regulation will provoke countries’ strong policy stances, for which geoblocking on the Internet offers a workable modus operandi.

Hardwiring Privacy in the European Digital Space.Lee Bygrave, Professor, Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law. Information systems architecture has the ability to shape behaviour beyond what legislation allows. There are explicit attempts to change system architectures to force changes in law or to put in practice de facto “regulations”, especially in the field of data protection and privacy. Some of these hardwiring attempts to change regulation may have an impact in homeland security, on privacy guarantees, etc. The exclusive right of the author to control publicity and sale offers of their work. Impact in the building of a single digital space.Antoni Rubí Puig, Profesor de Derecho Civil de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Can we buy in third countries’ websites goods that are subject to intellectual property rights that apply in our country but not in the third country? Can we do that without incurring in an IP illegality? Probably not. The right to distribute works is exclusive of the author’s. There are several points in the whole process of publishing, offering, selling and delivering goods where the author has their say according to their intellectual property rights. The proposals of the European Commission about contract rules in the supply of digital content and online sales: conformity, remedies and exercise of remediesRosa Milà Rafel, Investigadora Juan de la Cierva-Incorporación de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha Centro de Estudios de Consumo. Proposal of EU directive of online sales. Goal: to eliminate one of the main barriers against international e-commerce in Europe. Problem: if it is approved, it will indeed increase the fragmentation of actual regulation. Proposal of EU directive of supply of digital content. It includes a wide range of digital content, such as cloud computing services and social networking services. Unlike the former one, this directive is likely to reduce fragmentation of existing regulation. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (II). Communications on Digital Single Market and e-Commerce

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 03:41:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-ii-communications-on-digital-single-market-and-e-commerce/
IDP2016 (I). Hugh Beale: The future of European Contract Law in the light of the European Commission’s proposals for Directives on digital content and on-line sales http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18822 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Keynote speech. Chairs: Miquel Peguera. Prof. Hugh Beale. QC FBA, Professor of Law, University of Warwick; Visiting Professor and Senior Research Fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford.The future of European Contract Law in the light of the European Commission’s proposals for Directives on digital content and on-line sales The main goal of the European directive was to increase consumer confidence, that consumers were given a minimum of rights wherever they did their purchases. But it was also about reducing traders’ costs, as differences in contract law creates costs. After 2003, the European Commission has been working to remove barriers to trade, and not only in B2C contracts, but also in B2B contracts. In general, Rome I art 6(2) says that consumers are entitled to mandatory rules of Law of State of habitual residence. Which is a major problem for sellers who have to know the applicable law for every consumer. A full harmonization seems highly desirable. But this may cause withdrawal of rights to consumers in some given states, which most will just not accept. The Digital Content Directive applies to the trade of digital content: stream, download, etc. digital content. But is this like buying something that you then own? Or is it more like hiring someone’s services? The directive applies to both, as a one time delivery or as something that stands for a period of time. And it includes exchanges of digital goods or services for a price or in exchange of personal data. Last, rights apply to whether you are buying a physical support (e.g. DVD) or not (e.g. downloads). DCD Art 18 implies that any individual can initiate an action against terms that they may find abusive. And, accordingly, the EC and/or the Member State has to enforce the regarding of the law. This can have a potential huge impact on the compliance with the directive. What will the impact of the directive be? Probably small, because:

It only includes a very narrow set of goods and services. It leaves out everything related to B2B, and SMEs would benefit much from it.

Discussion Blanca Torrubia: how are differences between property rights dealt with in the directive? Beale: it seems that the big differences in how to understand property rights are between the EU and the US, more than within member states. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (I). Hugh Beale: The future of European Contract Law in the light of the European Commission’s proposals for Directives on digital content and on-line sales

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 02:09:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-i-hugh-beale-the-future-of-european-contract-law-in-the-light-of-the-european-commissions-proposals-for-directives-on-digital-content-and-on-line-sales/
IDP2016 (IX). New Media, Citizens & Public Opinion http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18830 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on New Media, Citizens & Public OpinionChairs: Joan Balcells Fragmented audiences, fragmented voters?Carolina Galais González, Postdoctoral researcher, UOC; Ana Sofia Cardenal Izquierdo, Full professor, UOC. Does digital media exposure benefit small parties?

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:47:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-ix-new-media-citizens-public-opinion/
IDP2016 (VII). New Political Parties & Cyber-activism http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18828 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on New Political Parties & Cyber-activismChairs: Joan Balcells Structural Conditions for Citizen Deliberation: A Conceptual Scheme for the Assessment of “New” Parties.Maria Haberer, Doctoral Student, IN3, UOC; Ismael Peña-Lopez, Lecturer at the School of Law and Political Science, UOC. Is there something like “new politics”? There are certainly recent social movements (15M, Occupy Wall Street) that look like what people like Lebkowsk (1997) called technopolitics. It seems that citizen deliberation is what lies at the core of these movements and the political parties that came after them. Deliberative democracy is a form of communication to come to consensus-based decision that serve the public good. Barcelona En Comú (BComú) is analysed to see whether it fits in this definition of new politics or deliberative democracy. What opportunities have the citizens to participate? What are the challenges these spaces are facing? Four aspects or dimensions:

Structure and functionality. Accessibility and transparency. Hybridity and coordination. Outcome and accountability.

What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age.Can Kurban, Doctoral Student, New School for Social Research, New York; Ismael Peña-Lopez, Lecturer at the School of Law and Political Science, UOC; Maria Haberer, Doctoral Student, IN3, UOC. What is the relationship between ICTs and democracy? Is it about online vs. offline? About Politics 2.0? The literature is not clear about what we understand by technopolitics:

“constitutional integrity” (Lebkowski, 1997) “hybridity” (Hecht, 2001) contingency and multiplicity of actors (Kellner, 2001) contesting conceptions of citizenship, rights, and the polity (Hughes, 2006) the closed vs. the open (Rasmussen, 2007) power and strategy (Toret et al. 2015)

Two main origins of antagonism: the organizing role of communication (and Internet governance) and the value of information (big/pubic data). So, in the latest years we either see ICTs strengthening the status quo, making it more efficient, or as an antagonism of the status quo, empowering citizens with new tools and protocols. And since 2008, the acceleration of the antagonist approach has been quite evident. Dimensions:

Context: we are in contentious politics, in a new digital media environment, living an organizational change. Actors: new and plural actors. Scale: we go from individuals, to organizations, to contentious networks. Directions: contentious politics moving from outside to inside the institutional politics. Synchronization: new spaces for activism, spaces that are not isolated but overlapping layers, and that synchronize through several practices. Purpose: taking back politics in the short term, hacking the political system in the long term.

Are we witnessing a new constitutional process? Online primaries and intra-party democracy: candidate selection processes in Podemos and the Five Star movement. Bálint Mikola, PhD Candidate, Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations, Central European University (CEU), Budapest. To what extent do online primaries empower party members and supporters vis-a-vis the other faces of party organization? Four dimensions:

Who can be selected: from all citizens to only some specific party members. Who selects: from all the electorate to only the party leader. Is the process decentralized: functional and territorial. Voting/appointment systems.

Comparison between Movimento 5 Stelle (Italy) and Podemos (Spain). Primaries are much more regulated in Podemos, but on the contrary they are more inclusive and open to the outside of the party. In Podemos, block voting was possible and the result was a certain skewness towards the party leader’s preferences. Indeed, party leadership can control candidate selection through block voting and licensing of candidates. On the other hand, coalition agreements dilute members’ influence. Europeanization and left-wing populism in southern Europe: the case of Podemos.Juan Roch González, Phd Candidate in Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin. What are the discursive formation represented by Podemos around EU issues? What is the role of the EU, in relation to Spanish politics, facilitating or constraining framing opportunities to the Spanish political agents? The issue of Europe has been crucial for Spanish politics, especially since Spain became part of the EU but most especially in the latest years when European politics have been quite hard on budget issues for the member states, even more for southern states like Greece, Portugal or Spain. This has put the European issue in the very centre of Spanish Politics, affecting budget policies, employment policies and, all in all, leading to a Europeanization of the economic policy area in Spain. During this period of Europeanization (2010-2012) the Spanish government generated framing opportunities mediated by national (the context of crisis in Spain), the lack of political culture about European issues, etcl.), and agential factors (the new social movements, etc.). It seems that Podemos has not entirely grasped these opportunities, they are perceived as risky opportunities. Discussion Rosa Borge: are participation rates of 15% really low? Mikola: it is true that they are not “that low” in relationship with other parties, but it is also true that, in general, Internet-based parties are usually much more mobilized and one would expect much higher degrees of participation, circa 50%, as it happens in other tasks. Rosa Borge: is Podemos becoming more hierarchical? Mikola: maybe not hierarchical, but certainly more oligarchical in order to become more electoral. Q: how does participation changes participants? how does participation changes their own views? Haberer: it is true that participation usually precedes deliberation, but our analysis is more about what makes possible deliberation, and not what happens with it or with the citizen. The crucial thing here is, beyond normative approaches about deliberation, what makes it possible and how is it deployed within the party. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (VII). New Political Parties & Cyber-activism

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:45:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-vii-new-political-parties-cyber-activism/
IDP2016 (VI). Cybercrime http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18827 Notes from the 12th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Building a European digital space, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 7-8 July 2016. More notes on this event: idp2016. Communications on CybercrimeChairs: Josep Maria Tamarit The European Commission and security governance: the role of a policy shaper in the fight against cybercrime.Ana Paula Brandão, Assistant Professor of International Relations, University of Minho, Portugal; Researcher of the Political Science Research Centre (CICP). The concept of security is today quite comprehensive and wide. We have to think of ways of security governance that may even work without a government. From who governs and how, to who controls for whom. Why is cybercrime so important for the EU?

Transboundary security problem. EU, a key target. Expansion and sophistication of the issue. Public-private nexus.

We are now entering an age of “securitization”, where many issues are seen under the light of security. The concern on security is huge. We need a common definition of cybercrime, a comprehensive approach for this multifaceted issue, horizontal coordination, public-private cooperation, a new normative dimension, etc. New technologies applied to criminal law: the search of computer equipment.Inmaculada López-Barajas Perea, Profesora Titular Acreditada de Derecho Procesal, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. There is an increase of an invasion of privacy from the government, allegedly for security and criminal reasons. It is actually true that private life happens in many places, many of them virtual or digital, and which are now subject of search in case of suspicion of crime. What the legislator is now trying is that each and every citizen right affected by a police action has to be individually authorised. That is, during a search in a house, one cannot take the personal computer as if it was just a device to storage information, because it includes much more than that: it is a gate for freedom of speech, it holds personal data, etc. Same applies to performing searches on systems connected to the personal system. Expanding the search to other systems will require the corresponding authorisation. Defamation in 140 characters (or less): civil liability for honour damaging in Twitter.Albert Ruda González Profesor agregado de Derecho civil de la Universitat de Girona. Twibel: libel by tweet. Libel has always been a human practice, but Twitter gives it a new meaning: because it is open by default, because retweeting gives the original libel an extendend and expanded life (and without context), etc. Usual problems:

Anonymity: who is liable? Parodies: where is the limit? Big diffusion of the publications. Liability of the RT. Disclaimers of non-liability: again, where are the limits? How to publish the sentence on Twitter?

Discussion Q: what happens when a bot steals one’s identity and libels other users on Twitter? Ruda: impersonation is not accepted on Twitter and, when it happens, the user is blocked. In the same train of thought, this should not make anyone liable for having had their identities stolen. Josep Maria Tamarit: what are we witnessing, a shift of platforms, where libel, or hate-speech, is moving from one place (e.g. a square) to another one (e.g. Twitter)? Or is it that libel (and other practices) is increasing due to the facilitation of new technologies, especially social networking sites? This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2016 (VI). Cybercrime

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:44:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160707-idp2016-vi-cybercrime/
Del voto electrónico a la democracia híbrida http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18821 Internet primero; después lo que convinimos a llamar Web 2.0; luego las redes sociales o las aplicaciones para tableta y móvil. Todo ello, unido con el descontento hacia el sistema de democracia representativa, parece conjurarse para reivindicar algo de soberanía para el ciudadano a base de recuperar la vieja democracia directa de la Antigua Grecia. Esa democracia directa se edificó sobre dos fuertes bases: la primera, que el mundo era en cierto modo comprensible para un individuo, dada su relativamente baja complejidad; la segunda, que los ciudadanos podían dedicarse a tomar decisiones, a gestionar lo común, a la política porque una gran parte de la sociedad no estaba compuesta por ciudadanos con plenos derechos políticos: mujeres, metecos y esclavos. Tras varios siglos de regímenes no democráticos, la democracia es paulatinamente recuperada por las nuevos estados liberales, pero con un añadido: los distintos estratos de instituciones intermediadoras. No en vano, en el siglo XVIII el mundo era ya enormemente complejo y el número de ciudadanos (formalmente) libres y con derechos políticos demasiados como para hacer eficiente y eficaz la implicación directa en la toma de decisiones. ¿Hasta qué punto estamos ahora en condiciones de tomar lo mejor de los dos mundos? ¿Podemos devolver soberanía al ciudadano a la vez que minimizamos los costes asociado la gestión colectiva gracias a las distintas tecnologías y espacios digitales? Democracia directa y voto electrónico Parece que del párrafo anterior se deriva, necesariamente, que el voto electrónico vendrá a sanear nuestra democracia —como el emprendimiento vendrá a sanear nuestra economía—. Votamos más, nos representan menos: todo bueno. La buena noticia es que el voto electrónico goza ya de una salud formidable —al menos en términos técnicos—. No en vano, la gestión del voto tradicional ya es electrónica en muchas de sus fases. Sabemos que el voto electrónico permite una mejor gestión del voto, —rapidez en el recuento, ahorros en términos logísticos (especialmente una vez la primera inversión está hecha)—, se facilita el acceso al voto a colectivos en riesgo de exclusión del proceso —expatriados, algunos colectivos de discapacitados—, permite mayor flexibilidad a la hora de votar —incluyendo cambiar el voto (sea esto bueno o malo)—, disminuye errores en las transiciones entre etapas, etc. Sabemos, además, que en muchos aspectos es incluso más seguro que el voto presencial. Aunque las democracias más avanzadas han dejado de lado muchas prácticas ilegítimas, todavía son habituales en muchos comicios la compra de votos, obligar o prohibir un determinado sentido del voto, el robo o sustitución de papeletas, la manipulación del voto emitido… Al voto electrónico se le atribuyen tres grandes debilidades: la posibilidad de la manipulación a gran escala; la introducción de una capa tecnológica que, como tal, puede introducir una nueva tipología de errores (tanto de hardware como de software); la mayor dificultad de auditar el proceso así como la concurrencia de nuevos actores al mismo. Estos riesgos no son menores, ni mucho menos, pero cada vez son más relativos. La cuestión de la nueva tecnología y los nuevos actores es cada vez menos relevante en la medida en que esa tecnología y actores ya permean en el resto del proceso. En referencia a la manipulación a gran escala, sigue siendo un gran riesgo, pero los avances en cifrado, así como el desarrollo de modelos basados en blockchain pueden minimizar, a corto plazo, estos riesgos. En el fondo, a menudo le pedimos a lo digital lo que no hacemos con lo presencial: ¿son los apoderados honestos? ¿pueden manipular papeletas? ¿y los miembros de la mesa? ¿qué pasa desde que el presidente abandona la mesa hasta que llega a la sede electoral municipal? ¿y con las urnas? En el fondo, el gran problema del voto electrónico es el siguiente: ni aumenta la participación ni fomenta un voto más informado o reflexionado. Simplemente —aunque es mucho— hace más barato votar varias veces por sus claras economías de escala. ¿Es esto suficiente? ¿Justifican las alforjas este camino? Democracia deliberativa y herramientas de participación Hay algo que la democracia directa requiere y ni las mejores herramientas nos van a proporcionar por mucho que optimicen el proceso: tiempo. La democracia pasa por ejercer un voto bien informado, lo que a efectos prácticos requiere: un diagnóstico de la situación; una deliberación entre los actores afectados por un tema, sus distintas aproximaciones y las posibles soluciones al mismo; y una negociación donde se identifiquen escalas de valores, prioridades y consensos posibles. Todo ello antes de —o tan siquiera sin— votar. La democracia deliberativa —asistida por diferentes herramientas de participación electrónica— permite precisamente trabajar estas tres fases —diagnóstico, deliberación, negociación— sin necesariamente fijarse en la toma de la decisión final (sea voto directo o a través de representantes electos). En la democracia deliberativa no es tan relevante la decisión final, sino identificar qué temas son más relevantes para la agenda pública así como cartografiarlos extensivamente para que no se escape ningún matiz y sea más fácil aislar los puntos de coincidencia para construir consensos. La principal asunción de la democracia deliberativa es el paso de la toma de decisiones puntual al debate continuo, a preferir procesos largos de construcción que la gestión de conflictos en procesos a menudo interminables y generalmente deslegitimadores. Muchas de las herramientas de la tecnopolítica van en esta dirección, además de dotarse de canales de sincronización con otras herramientas de la democracia deliberativa tradicional. Para empezar, la deliberación electrónica pone especial énfasis en escuchar más que en hablar: trabaja para que herramientas y plataformas faciliten la detección de comportamientos emergentes, el reconocimiento de patrones o la caracterización de tendencias. ¿Clicktivismo? No, punta del iceberg: lo que importa es lo que está debajo. Las nuevas plataformas de participación electrónica y deliberación facilitan también bajar los costes de participar al posibilitar aportaciones sobre la marcha, en el lugar y momento adecuados. Y, sobre todo, en el tema adecuado: atrás queda la cuestión de tener que participar en todo (imposible) y tener que saber de todo (todavía más imposible): se trata aquí de hacer aportaciones cualitativas, fruto de la propia experiencia y formación, y que la suma del todo sea mayor que las partes. Algoritmos estadísticos o de inteligencia artificial nos van a ayudar en ello. La democracia deliberativa, por tanto, no buscará que participe “todo el mundo” (aunque sería deseable) sino que participe “todo el mundo relevante en una cuestión”. Ese “relevante” es el eslabón débil del sistema: ¿quién lo define? ¿cómo sabemos que el grupo es significativo y representativo? Democracia líquida, democracia híbrida Entre la democracia directa, que puede decidirlo todo sin pensar, y la democracia deliberativa, que puede asamblearizarlo todo sin decidir nada, nos encontramos con la democracia líquida, que pretende recoger lo mejor de ambos mundos. La democracia líquida consiste en delegar el voto de forma temporal —por norma general para cada decisión o voto a realizar a un intermediario a cuyo voto se añadirá el de todo aquél que haya delegado en él. Aunque el concepto no es nuevo en ciencia política, tomó especial relevancia al ponerla en práctica el Partido Pirata alemán mediante la plataforma LiquidFeedback. De nuevo, la tecnología contribuye a hacer “fácil” conceptos que antes eran difícilmente sostenibles y, sobre todo, escalables. Aunque técnicamente es muy prometedor, adolece de males parecidos a la democracia directa y la organización asamblearia: quién más tiempo tiene para dedicarse a la política, más fácil le resulta acaparar votos (o delegaciones de voto) y, con ello, poder. Nada que ya no conociéramos. Una alternativa —aunque técnicamente se trataría de una des-delegación de voto— es la que propone Democracia 4.0: en su modelo, se funciona con una base de democracia representativa pero es posible rescatar el voto para posibilitar la democracia directa a todos aquellos ciudadanos que así lo deseen para todas las decisiones que, en su lugar, tomaría el órgano representativo pertinente (p.ej. el Parlamento). Por cada voto “rescatado” del representante se le resta a éste una porción de dicho voto, de forma que, en el límite, si todos los ciudadanos votasen, el Parlamento no tendría ningún poder. Una opción intermedia a ambos modelos sería el modelo de democracia híbrida, que añade un delegado (temporal) al esquema combinado de democracia representativa (en un extremo) y de democracia directa (en el otro extremo). Así, para cada votación tendríamos tres opciones: dejar que nuestros representantes electos voten por nosotros, votar directamente, o bien delegar en un tercero (un amigo, un experto, un cuñado) nuestro voto para dicha decisión. Modelo híbrido de democracia directa-representativa Este modelo permite que cada ciudadano acomode sus preferencias de participación a distintos modelos para cada situación que se plantee. Y, probablemente, relativiza el poder de los recolectores de voto hiperactivos al poder seguir confiando en las instituciones como último (o primer) recurso. El mayor inconveniente para su aplicación —al menos en España— es la forma como se eligen los representantes electos: para que podamos “restar” una fracción de voto al representante es necesario poder identificar al votante con “su” representante. Ello solamente es posible cuando cada distrito elige únicamente a un único representante, como ocurre con los distritos uninominales británicos. (Aunque técnicamente podría realizarse con cualquier sistema electoral, podría dar serios problemas de inconsistencia que llevaran a penalizar, injustamente, la opción de confiar en los representantes electos). Repensar la participación, repensar las instituciones Lo que la tecnología nos permite, hoy en día, es que podamos volver a pensar en el ciudadano apartando temporalmente el foco de las herramientas. O, dicho de otro modo, que podamos volver a diseñar sistemas de votación donde el ciudadano pueda rescatar su soberanía sin estar sometidos a las barreras de espacio y tiempo, de información y de comunicación, que antaño constreñían el diagnóstico de la voluntad del pueblo, la deliberación, la negociación y la toma de decisiones. Las instituciones se han convertido, con los años, en centros de poder, en actores en sí mismos. Podemos ahora, con cuidado y sin romper nada, intentar que vuelvan a tener ese papel de caja de herramientas, de plataforma ciudadana, de ágora para la gestión colectiva de lo público. Entrada originalmente publicada el 13 de junio de 2016, bajo el título El voto electrónico no es sólo un tema tecnológico: así podría cambiar la democracia tal y como la entendemos en Xataka. Todos los artículos publicados en esa revista pueden consultarse aquí bajo la etiqueta xataka. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Del voto electrónico a la democracia híbrida

Mon, 04 Jul 2016 03:24:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20160704-del-voto-electronico-a-la-democracia-hibrida/
Las nuevas infraestructuras de la democracia http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18820 La revolución digital ha puesto en nuestras manos toda una nueva caja de herramientas para la gestión de la información y las comunicaciones. Esta nueva caja de herramientas, sin embargo, tiene un potencial tan extraordinario que ya hoy está transformando —y no sólo reformando— muchísimas de las tareas y actividades que las personas hacemos, especialmente aquellas que suponen la interacción de varios actores. Como la toma de decisiones colectivas. Este enorme potencial transformador viene de dos características de estas nuevas herramientas. Por un lado, hacen que aquello con lo que trabajamos para la toma de decisiones tenga un coste mucho menor que sin estas herramientas. Así, el acceso a la información y la posibilidad de generar debate a su alrededor se han vuelto dramáticamente menos costosos que cuando teníamos que coincidir en el tiempo y en el espacio, así como distribuir la información en soportes físicos, como el papel. Por otra parte, porque las herramientas mismas tienen un coste también dramáticamente inferior a sus contrapartes del mundo analógico: toda la infraestructura física necesaria para informarse, tomar decisiones y evaluarlas está ahora al alcance de cualquier persona gracias a su virtualización. Podemos afirmar, sin exagerar demasiado, que se han democratizado las herramientas de la democracia. El diagnóstico de las necesidades de una comunidad puede ser hoy mucho más plural a través de las pequeñas pero numerosas contribuciones personales de sus miembros, más allá de las que puedan hacer sus portavoces y representantes. La identificación y ponderación de las posibles alternativas para cubrir una necesidad puede ser hoy mucho más rica a través de la concurrencia en la deliberación de más actores, mejor informados y con sus razones mejor fundamentadas. La evaluación final del impacto, eficacia y eficiencia de las decisiones tomadas puede ser hoy mucho más transparente y precisa gracias a la facilidad para publicar tanto los protocolos seguidos como los datos de los indicadores para hacer las diferentes valoraciones. Esta nueva caja de herramientas sigue necesitando la facilitación de las instituciones. Más que nunca. Las instituciones deben aportar el contexto que nos permita comprender mejor las necesidades y soluciones en relación a los diferentes actores implicados, y en consecuencia, a elegir mejor las herramientas a utilizar para la toma de decisiones. Las instituciones deben facilitar la creación de espacios de deliberación, tanto físicos como virtuales —o mejor aún, híbridos— que permitan una deliberación informada y de consenso. Las instituciones deben contribuir a fomentar la toma de decisiones colectivas, allí donde sea más adecuado que pasen —de forma centralizada o distribuida—, en los mejores espacios y con el contexto adecuado. Y deben hacerlo aportando los recursos necesarios y que a menudo sólo están a su alcance: datos e información, conocimiento y capital humano, infraestructuras, recursos materiales y financieros. De entre todas las herramientas de esta nueva caja, hay que destacar especialmente el software libre y los datos abiertos. Ambos permiten tres cuestiones capitales en una toma de decisiones que cada vez será más globalizada e interdependiente. Por un lado, favorecen la escalabilidad. Permiten poder adaptar el tamaño de las herramientas a la medida del proyecto, pudiendo verter los recursos poco a poco, sin sufrir ninguna limitación en su crecimiento. Por otra, favorecen la replicabilidad. Permiten poder repetir las experiencias de éxito en otra parte, aprovechando los conocimientos e infraestructuras y así optimizando las inversiones. Por último, favorecen la interoperabilidad. Permiten los recursos y los actores pueda aplicarse allí donde hacen falta, sin tener que duplicar, trabajando horizontalmente y de forma distribuida pero para un mismo fin global. Las cajas de herramientas, sin embargo, no aparecen de la nada. Que las haya, que circulen o que sean accesibles y fácilmente reutilizables será uno de los papeles fundamentales —como lo ha sido desde que tenemos democracias modernas— de las instituciones. Así, las instituciones han contribuido a la creación y mantenimiento de todo un ecosistema de infraestructuras para la democracia compuesto por gobiernos, administraciones, parlamentos, partidos políticos, sindicatos o asociaciones. Del mismo modo las instituciones, en beneficio de los ciudadanos y en el suyo propio, harán bien de invertir en las nuevas infraestructuras de la democracia: el software libre y los datos abiertos. Una nueva caja de herramientas para una nueva democracia. Un nuevo ecosistema que, más allá del cumplimiento de las leyes, debe comportar una nueva manera de hacer ajustada al nuevo paradigma de la Sociedad de la Información: el Gobierno Abierto. Entrada originalmente publicada el 13 de junio de 2016 como un capítulo del libro Programari lliure i de codi obert – Societat lliure i govern obert de la Xarxa d’Innovació Pública. A continuación puede descargarse el capítulo o el libro entero (en Catalán).

Capítulo en PDF: Peña-López, I. (2016). “Les noves infraestructures de la democràcia”. En Xarxa d’Innovació Pública (Coord.), Programari lliure i de codi obert – Societat lliure i govern obert, 6-7. Barcelona: Xarxa d’Innovació Pública.

Libro entero en PDF: Xarxa d’Innovació Pública (Coord.) (2016). Programari lliure i de codi obert – Societat lliure i govern obert. Barcelona: Xarxa d’Innovació Pública.

Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Las nuevas infraestructuras de la democracia

Tue, 14 Jun 2016 02:33:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20160614-las-nuevas-infraestructuras-de-la-democracia/
Book chapter: The new infrastructures of democracy http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18819 The Xarxa d’Innovació Pública (XIP, the Catalan Network for Public Innovation) has just published the booklet Programari lliure i de codi obert – Societat lliure i govern obert (Free and open source software – Free society and open government). The booklet is in Catalan and presents a collection of reflections and good practices on why and how to apply free and open source software in government. I am collaborating with the first chapter, Les noves infraestructures de la democràcia (The new infrastructures of democracy), where I state that: We can say without too much exaggeration, that the tools of democracy have gone through a deep process of democratization. The diagnosis of the needs of a community can be far more pluralistic today through the small but numerous personal contributions of its members, and beyond the contributions that their spokespersons and representatives could make. The identification and consideration of possible alternatives to fill a need can be much richer today by the concurrence in the deliberation of more players, better informed and with their arguments much better founded. The final assessment of the impact, effectiveness and efficiency of decisions made today can be much more transparent and accurate thanks to the ease of publishing decision-making protocols followed by publishing indicators and data to make any kind of assessment. The full text of the chapter and the booklet can be downloaded below.

Book chapter in PDF: Peña-López, I. (2016). “Les noves infraestructures de la democràcia”. In Xarxa d’Innovació Pública (Coord.), Programari lliure i de codi obert – Societat lliure i govern obert, 6-7. Barcelona: Xarxa d’Innovació Pública.

Full booklet in PDF: Xarxa d’Innovació Pública (Coord.) (2016). Programari lliure i de codi obert – Societat lliure i govern obert. Barcelona: Xarxa d’Innovació Pública.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Book chapter: The new infrastructures of democracy

Tue, 14 Jun 2016 02:22:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160614-book-chapter-the-new-infrastructures-of-democracy/
Net Data Directory http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18818 Ictlogist: Created page with "http://netdatadirectory.org/ <blockquote>The Net Data Directory collects and shares information on different sources of data about the Internet. For more about the project, s..."


<blockquote>The Net Data Directory collects and shares information on different sources of data about the Internet. For more about the project, see our [http://netdatadirectory.org/about about page]. To get started, use the search box below, or check out our quick [http://netdatadirectory.org/help start guide].</blockquote>

[[Category:Data]][[Category:ICT]][[Category:Data_ICT]] [[Category:Regulation]][[Category:Regulation_ICT]]

Mon, 06 Jun 2016 01:59:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/wiki/index.php?title=Net_Data_Directory
eLearning Africa 2016 (VII). Back up for Online Tutors and Mentors http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18817 Notes from eLearning Africa 2016, organized by ICWE GmbH and held in El Cairo, Egypt, on 24-26 May 2016. More notes on this event: ela2016. Back up for Online Tutors and Mentors Chairperson: Robert Kisalama, Belgian Technical Cooperation, Uganda Ismael Peña-López, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, SpaineSupervision: A Four-tier Applied Model [click here to enlarge]


PDF: Peña-López, I. (2016). e-Supervision: a four-tier applied model. Communication at eLearning Africa 2016, 26 May 2016, El Cairo. El Cairo: eLearning Africa.

Prezi: Peña-López, I. (2016). e-Supervision: a four-tier applied model. Communication at eLearning Africa 2016, 26 May 2016, El Cairo. El Cairo: eLearning Africa.

Discussion Robert Kisalama: What about patenting? Knowledge recognition? A: this model applies especially to social sciences, where patenting is not as sensitive as in other disciplines and, on the contrary, research benefits much from open debate. On the other hand, if we are talking about knowledge theft — different from patenting — the truth is that the sooner something is “published” online the easier it is to track its legitimate authors. Indeed, the same community of practice/learning will denounce bad practices and identify and shame knnowledge thieves. Robert Kisalama: Who should initiate the conversation? A: in the best scenario, the conversation will already exist in one or many established communities. It is a matter to help the students find them and participate in them. On the other hand, personal initiative normally naturally leads to being part of a community, first tacitly then explicitly. Q: how many numbers? How far? A: it is difficult to say how many people can one e-supervise. It is true that the educational system is not prepare and measures quite poorly the time one devotes to e-supervision. One of the keys is to identify where the supervisor is adding more value and shift the rest of tasks towards the student — or the network. Which are these tasks? Mainly two: identifying the context that will make emerge the core things that have to be worked, and then fostering the conversation so that knowledge exchange happens. Robert Kisalama: how do you assess the quality of the communities A: normally you do not. On the one side, you should already be part of the relevant networks, so it is a matter of time that the students will join you in these. On the other hand, “good work” usually leads to the “right place”. That is, working collaboratively, in the open, sharing and exchanging insights with others quite naturally will lead to “the” community, as it many times is the network that attracts you and invites you to be a part of it, not the other way round. Q: how do you assess the performance? A: In my opinion it is better to assess the process and the belonging to the different networks. If the process is good, the outcome and performance is usually good. On the other hand, this is part of the things that can be distributed to the rest of the network. If the dialogue and knowledge exchange is fluid, if the exchange happens in the open, the network rewards good contributions and thus enables a process of self-assessment. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as eLearning Africa 2016 (VII). Back up for Online Tutors and Mentors

Thu, 26 May 2016 07:02:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160526-elearning-africa-2016-vii-back-up-for-online-tutors-and-mentors/
eLearning Africa 2016 (VI). Creating Communities of Practice for Teachers http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18816 Notes from eLearning Africa 2016, organized by ICWE GmbH and held in El Cairo, Egypt, on 24-26 May 2016. More notes on this event: ela2016. Creating Communities of Practice for Teachers Would you like to hear about the methods and tools to enhance teachers’ pedagogical skills? Learn how communities of practice, by and for teachers, can influence professional development. Chairperson: Mohamed Ahmed, Mansoura University, Egypt Hela Nafti, Tunisian Education and Resource Network TEARN, TunisiaAchieving Peace by Building Sustainable Global Online Learning Communities SDG Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Learners have to acquire skills and, most especially, attitudes and values — because information is everywhere. iEARN: 130 countries, 30 languages, 40,000 educators, 2 million youth. iEARN (International Education and Resource Network) is the world’s largest non-profit global network that enables teachers and youth to use the Internet and other technologies to collaborate on projects that enhance learning and make a difference in the world. Learning Circles promote theme-based project work integrated with the classroom curriculum. Working with Learning Circle partners from around the world help students develop important interpersonal skills. Learning Circles also encourage interactions among teachers providing a very different model of professional development. A Learning Circle is created by a team of 6-8 teachers and their classes joined in the virtual space of an electronic classroom. The groups remains together over a 3-4 month period working on projects drawn from the curriculum of each of the classrooms organized around a selected theme. At the end of the term the group collects and publishes its work. Then, just as any class of students does, the Learning Circle comes to an end. Each session begins with new groupings of classes into Learning Circles.

Created a Tunisian circle to deal about peace and sustainable development. Capacity building, teacher training is the most relevant thing for teachers: you can not teach if you do not know how to. Paul Waibochi, CEMASTEA, Kenya,Using Social Media (Whatsapp) in Enhancing Teacher Pedagogical Competencies: Case Study Cemastea – Lesson Study Model How can we improve teachers’ competences in how to deliver the curriculum through m-learning: how to use Whatsapp for education and learning purposes. In infrastructure matters, Kenya is ready: 80% mobile uptake, high bandwidth per person, familiarity with mobile services (e.g. m-pesa), etc. Process of teachers working in teams to develop lessons to adress an identified problem amongst learners. The developed lesson is taught by one of the teachers while others observe. The team discusses the taught lesson and make improvements. The purpose of m-learning is more access (you save travelling of both students and teachers), more efficiency and quality. Now lessons are not only face-to-face, so they are not so much time-constrained, and happen instead on a blended-learning basis. Another good thing about Whatsapp is that it supports multimedia: the teacher can teach and videotape the lesson and then share it through Whatsapp where other teachers can observe and comment. Finally, the idea is to create a community of teachers that engage in the project, help each other, share their outputs. In parallel to that, the teachers acquire or strengthen 21st century skills, like communication, collaboration, critical thinking, etc. in addition to constant professional development and regular orientation and training. Discussion Q: How do we select the teachers? Waibochi: they come from the same grade, and from the same topic to be taught at a particular class. Q: how do you eliminate “noise” from Whatsapp groups? Waibochi: it is about defining well what is going to be the topics of conversation, and stick with them. Q: how do you measure the expected outcomes in the communities of practice? How do you evaluate results? Waibochi: there are screening surveys that are used to evaluate what the students knew before and after the intervention. Q: Why not your own chatting platform? Waibochi: not only Whatsapp, but also Facebook accounts. The technology is already there and everybody is using it. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as eLearning Africa 2016 (VI). Creating Communities of Practice for Teachers

Thu, 26 May 2016 04:07:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160526-elearning-africa-2016-vi-creating-communities-of-practice-for-teachers/
eLearning Africa 2016 (V). Entrepreneurialism, Capacity Development and the Role of Education in Accelerating Change http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18815 Notes from eLearning Africa 2016, organized by ICWE GmbH and held in El Cairo, Egypt, on 24-26 May 2016. More notes on this event: ela2016. Plenary: Entrepreneurialism, Capacity Development and the Role of Education in Accelerating Change Economic growth and technological innovations are beginning to change Africa but how can the transformation be made permanent? How can the pace of change be quickened? How can we ensure that Africa is not just transformed but able to compete in tomorrow’s markets? How can we encourage a new spirit of entrepreneurialism? How can we boost capacity development, to ensure that Africans are ready to seize new opportunities in the future? How can we empower African educators and give them the tools they need to teach new skills? How can we enable students to make the most of a new world of learning? How can we put education and training at the heart of Africa’s transformation? These are just some of the questions which our panel of experts will address. Chairperson: Hossam El Gamal, Chairman of the Information and Decision Support Centre (IDSC), Egypt Dr Tarek Shawki, Secretary General of Presidential Specialised Councils, Egypt,Keynote Address Education in our lifetime requires great innovation and collaboration. We need to understand what is required from the ecosystem. What is the relationship between the economy and education? We have to make this issue surface and take over the public debate. And the the social justice that should come with education. It is likely that the assessment system is quite guilty for this dissociation between education and the economy, between earning a diploma and learning. People lack autonomy because the system is ruled with a totalitarian approach. This lack of freedom implies that some decisions are left unmade. A new project by the Egyptian government, the Egyptian knowledge bank, has been buying a massive amount of digital content (scientific, educational, etc.) from major publishers and put it online for free (for Egyptian IPs). But not only that, new textbooks are pointing at these resources, so that the content of the textbooks is enhanced by the one online. The project is framed within a macro strategy to redesign Egyptian Education as an Education 2.0. Prof Moses Oketch, Professor of International Education Policy and Development at UCL, UKPerspectives on ICT, Lifelong Learning and Endogenous Development in Africa Besides moneraty benefits of human capital, there are non-monetary benefits, like better health, etc. And, in addition to that, there is non-monetary social benefits (vs. individual benefits). It is time to put these concepts in the forefront of the public debate. And technology has become crucial in the human capital formation. And not only human capital, but endogenous development. And this is crucial for sustainable development, while also reducing diminishing returns of investment. Last, technology is changing the very concept of lifelong learning: you are actually learning all the time. Four key connections:

Identify and support incentives for ICT and lifelong learning. Overcome barriers arising from investment externalities. Encourage and support endogenous technology/applications that are locally relevant and scale them up. Enhance ICT inclusivity in learning and teaching to overcome structural inequalities and skills deficit.

Dr Rania Reda, Founder & CEO of ITQAN for Smart Solutions, EgyptWe Can Dream Bigger Now To transform education we have to take into account all education stakeholders: students, educators, parents, administrators, etc. And entrepreneurs come and try and fill the gaps that these stakeholders might have to unleash their full potential, to optimize performance. Assessing the stakeholders’ needs is the first step for transforming education. Augmented reality can certainly help to improve education. By projecting things that do not exist into real life, learning can be much more engaging, a requisite for real learning. Visualization, quite often, helps to understand complex concepts, eases the assimilation of content. How to use augmented reality in schools: help with homework (e.g. a video is displayed when a page of homework is scanned), book reviews (e.g. the student can annotate a book and anyone can read/hear/see it), parent virtual inspiration (e.g. record parent encouraging their child), yearbooks (e.g. bring photos back to life), word walls, lab safety, deaf and hard of hearing flashcards. Discussion Oketch: how do we measure the impact of technology in matters of learning outcomes? We have to begin to measure learning in different ways as we do now. We haven’t figured out yet how to do it, and it will certainly be the next frontier. Rania Reda: besides infrastructure — which is crucial — mentoring is very important: many times one knows what to do, but does not exactly how. And here is where coaching an entrepreneur can lead to very good results. In a very near future, learners will be much more learner-centered in their learning. When information is abundant, one begins to learn how to access and manage information, and to use it for learning. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as eLearning Africa 2016 (V). Entrepreneurialism, Capacity Development and the Role of Education in Accelerating Change

Thu, 26 May 2016 02:09:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160526-elearning-africa-2016-v-entrepreneurialism-capacity-development-and-the-role-of-education-in-accelerating-change/
eLearning Africa 2016 (IV). Researching Learner Centred Methods http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18814 Notes from eLearning Africa 2016, organized by ICWE GmbH and held in El Cairo, Egypt, on 24-26 May 2016. More notes on this event: ela2016. Researching Learner Centred Methods If you manage to engage and encourage students to take an active role in their learning, you will find that creating education together is possible. Speakers in this session share their experiences in co-creation. Chairperson: Francisca Oladipo, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria Paxton Zozie, Mzuzu University, Malawi, Using Real-time Response Systems to Enhance Participative Learning in Higher Education at Mzuzu University How to encourage active participation of each and every student, especially in large classes. And even more, how to enhance collaborative learning and active learning. Cloud-based student response systems will be used to address the issue, based on clicker technology, like Participoll or Socrative. Polls do make students more engaged in the lecture, and they prompt interactivity between the student and the teacher, as the teacher can see in real time whether students got something right or not, and can ask for questions, doubts, etc. but tailored depending on the return of the poll. Challenges: need for Internet connectivity. Notwithstanding, some software can be used on a local network, with no need to be connected to the Internet but only to the computer acting as a server. Another challenge is that sometimes less content is covered, as more time is devoted to participation. Students would like to have more detailed feedback for student self-assessment. Abdul-Majid Nkuutu Kibedi, Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Sports, Uganda, Exploration of the Linkage Between ICT Use and Implementation of Learner-centered Pedagogy General goal: to contribute to the increase of quality and equity in access to post-primary education and training, by providing an improved teaching and practice-oriented learning environment, supported by strengthened active-teaching methods. It is a teaching training education project, with a multi-layered approach:

Infrastructure: laptops, projectors, connectivity, etc. Aggregation of digital tools and links to resources for teaching and assessment. Teacher for self reflection and better research, conference, training tailored to integration of ICT in the teaching and learning.

Some college staff members received a short video training course on shooting and editing video, with low cost equipment. A secondary goal is to tape one-self and see how one is teaching, in part to fight the isolation from peer support where teaching often occurs. On the other hand, videos allow the observation of alternative teaching strategies, allowing time for reflection, as one does not have to respond immediately. Access to offline Wikipedia and digital books was used to increase the available content. Also research from Internet through mobile phone helped the group to engage in discussions and brainstorming sessions. With active teaching and learning methods (ATL), learners develop some of the critical 21st century skills such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration or creative thinking. Teachers who often use ICTs tend to implement ATL methodologies in their teaching and, on the other hand, ICTs easily support adoption of ATL by students. Discussion Q: can you assess the students through response systems? Zozie: yes, you can. If you force them to log in with their users before answering, all data is stored including who answered what. Then data can be downloaded and treated for any purpose, such as assessment. Zozie: the teaching staff needs experience in stating questions, relevant questions. Formulating questions is not easy, especially higher order questions, such as the ones that address concepts and not just the factual. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as eLearning Africa 2016 (IV). Researching Learner Centred Methods

Wed, 25 May 2016 08:34:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160525-elearning-africa-2016-iv-researching-learner-centred-methods/
eLearning Africa 2016 (III). Reaping the rewards of open http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18813 Notes from eLearning Africa 2016, organized by ICWE GmbH and held in El Cairo, Egypt, on 24-26 May 2016. More notes on this event: ela2016. Reaping the rewards of open What are the challenges around the development and implementation of high quality open digital resources across Africa? How can we ensure open content is relevant for classrooms? How can we effectively integrate open resources in schools and institutions? Chairperson: Alice Barlow-Zambodla, e/Merge Africa Network, South Africa Wilhelmina Louw, Namibian College of Open Learning (NAMCOL), NamibiaA Case for NAMCOL – Notesmaster Namibia: Open Educational Resources Main focus on secondary education, but also tertiary education. NAMCOL realized that, beyond open education, NAMCOL could include online Open Educational Resources (OER) as part of their educational package. OER is offered through Notesmaster Namibia platform. Notesmaster is a free platform, especially designed for secondary level students. It is structured Namibian curriculum. And, unlike Moodle, Notesmaster Global provides support for the platform. Development of OERs:

Team approach, usually teachers and programme developers. You can do it on your own, but it won’t be public. Use of OERs, by using the millions of videos, images and animations that exist on the web. Quality assurance, a note can only be published once it achieves the approval of 5 peers. OER policy and licensing, CC BY-SA-NC

Besides content, there is capacity building: building the capacity of teachers is key in achieving effective use of technology in the classroom. Teachers are trained on the practical use of ICTs in the classroom, and how to collaborate online using the Notesmaster LMS. Challenges:

Workload of developers Internet accessibility and connectivity. Shortage of equipment to be used for incorporating both multimedia and online content into tutoring sessions. Insufficient skills in the use of technology (computers and software) Know-how of instructional design requirements for online course development and storyboarding. Buy-in from teachers and learners in the use of technology. Insufficient funds for training and acquisition of equipment.

Angelo Raffaele Fazio, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, ColombiaOpen Online Courses at Universidad Nacional de Colombia by OpenEya OpenEyA is a lecture recording software use to tape, archive and share lectures — in this case on physics and mathematics. To even decrease more the cost of taping, OpenEyA can be compiled on a Raspberry pi 2 model B, which adds to the zero cost of the software a lowest cost of the hardware. As the final output is recorded in HTML 5, the videolecture can be comforably watched on a mobile phone. The video is also uploaded to Didáctica para el desarrollo (DxD, Teaching for development) which provides a platform for sharing also producing analytics on usage. It is difficult, though, to find colleagues that want to join the project, consisting on (1) taping and (2) sharing it on DxD. There is not much evidence on the impact of OpenEyA on the performance of students, as measured in their marks on their final exams, but it is true that less students had to go to the office to clarify doubts. On the other hand, the same amount of students attended the classes. Thus, it seems that OpenEyA is good for clearing doubts after attending the lecture, and that’s it — which is not bad. On the other hand, DxD does begin to have a significant amount of users, which at least adds to the common good. Faraja Kotta Nyalandu, Shule Direct, TanzaniaAn Educational Content Repository: The Backbone of ICT for Education The educational content repository works on a framework that structures the content down to the level of the concept, from the general concept to the year, topic, sub-topic an concept. The digital (Tanzanian) syllabus controls the educational content repository and connects it with course notes in English, learning levels, Englisk-Kiswahili dictionaries, quizzes and games, digital textbooks and audio lessons and videos. The repository becomes then the backend of content and data of the whole Tanzanian syllabus ecosystem. An API is a gateway to content that allows the web portal to browse all content in many ways. SMS (through Makini), USSD and mobile apps were created so to provide access to content on many platforms. The level of uptake clearly demonstrate that these platforms to fit the needs of the market. If it is simple, if it is contextual, if it is useful, people will use it and will enjoy using it. And besides students, also 1,900 digital teachers are already using the content for their own classes, providing new content, etc. Dina Elkordy, Université d’Alexandrie, Egypt, L’innovation pédagogique en matière d’utilisation des TIC dans l’enseignement et l’apprentissage New project to put out content in Arabic, English, French and Spanish on several subjets. Strong focus on teacher training on the use of ICTs and OER. Main barriers: Internet connectivity, bureaucracy, etc. Discussion Q: why don’t faculty want to join open educational resources projects? Fazio: people are uncomfortable with new technologies; people are also shy at the camera — even if OpenEyA is not very intrusive; they also want to keep what they teach for them and their students, and not to have it open to public scrutiny. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as eLearning Africa 2016 (III). Reaping the rewards of open

Wed, 25 May 2016 07:04:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160525-elearning-africa-2016-iii-reaping-the-rewards-of-open/
eLearning Africa 2016 (II). e-Readiness for Teachers: Supporting the Driving Force http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18812 Notes from eLearning Africa 2016, organized by ICWE GmbH and held in El Cairo, Egypt, on 24-26 May 2016. More notes on this event: ela2016. e-Readiness for Teachers: Supporting the Driving Force Are educators and institutions ready to implement ICTs? or can gaps be assigned to a lack of knowledge, digital skills or attitude? Take part in this discussion based on different research projects to speak about the different challenges teachers face in their profession. Chairperson: Keith Magee, Camara Education, Ireland Gladys Bwoch, Uganda Management Institute, UgandaDynamics Governing Use of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs): The Case of Uganda Management Institute (UMI) and Makerere University The UMI offers courses on a blended basis — but structured sequentially: a distance learning part and a face-to-face part, not at the same time. When in distance learning, the students get their digital learning materials to read, plus practice questions, quizzes and references for further reading, most of the time self-contained in the learning materials. Everything is hosted on a VLE and the facilitators interact with the students also there. The VLE is an emulation of the face-to-face sessions, but virtually instead of physically. Interaction happens among facilitators and participants, and among participants themselves. Why bother with usage of VLE at UMI:

Staff in the School of Distance Learning and IT at UMI train facilitators and participants before face to face sessions on the use of VLE for teaching and learning. There is an orientation week to notice zeal for use of VLE. Consistent usage of VLE by facilitators and participants disappear and does not persist throughout the semester thereafter, as expected. Yet most activities of the programme oblige the facilitators and participants to be always working on the VLE. Need to identify the dynamics behind continued usage of VLE to work out modalities that ensure continued usage.

Objectives of the study:

find out frequency of usage of VLE. determine factors of usage and qualitative usage.


Students spend little time at the VLE and went there infrequently.

Wed, 25 May 2016 04:24:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20160525-elearning-africa-2016-ii-e-readiness-for-teachers-supporting-the-driving-force/