78 items found

Blog Posts (70)

  • KL - der skal mere til

    Kommunernes Landsforening har den 23. maj 2022 udgivet deres Digitaliseringspolitik. Den er et skridt på vejen, men som med strategien fra Digitaliseringsstyrelsen er den simpelthen ikke nytænkende eller dybdetænkende nok. Den er hellere ikke fremtidssikret. Her er mine kommentarer i nogenlunde vilkårlig rækkefølge Ikke et eneste sted nævnes der i politikken, at de digitale systemer der anvendes skal løbende forvaltes (styres), og at dette skal gøres i samarbejde med relevante borgergrupper og medarbejdere. Det er en iøjnefaldende mangel. Rundt omkring i Danmark, Europe og verdenen har digitale systemer haft meget skadelige effekter på borgere og ansatte. I Holland måtte regeringen gå af, da algoritmer der skulle spotte snyd med børnepengene viste sig at diskriminere mod ikke-etniske hollændere. I Danmark har en fejl i et algoritmisk system betydet at 513 hjertepatienter kan have risikeret at være blevet opereret unødigt. I England har algoritmiske systemer konsekvent givet børn fra fattigere områder lavere karakter end børn fra mere velståede områder. Eksemplerne er mange - denne database over fejl i digitale systemer giver god anledning til panderynk. Det er derfor en seriøs bekymring at KL enten ikke kender til disse mange tilfælde, eller ikke forstår vigtigheden af at digitale systemer skal løbende styres, så (u)tilsigtede skader rettidigt ses, rettes og undgås. KL's teknologitænketank anbefaler godt nok at kommunerne skal "tænk i samarbejde og borgerinddragelse, når i udvikler digitale løsninger." Det er altså ikke nok at borgerne (og om vi må tilføje 'relevante medarbejdere') inddrages i udviklingsfasen. De skal i den grad inddrages i den ovenfor omtalte løbende evaluering (styring) af de implementerede systemer. Selvom vigtigheden af borgernes tillid nævnes flere gange, indeholder politikken ikke nogle klare mål hvad angår transparens. Borgernes tillid afhænger direkte af at de a. ved hvad deres data bliver brugt til, b. ved hvilke data der bruges, c. hvad deres klagemuligheder er, d. hvem de skal henvende sig til i kommunen, e. hvilke systemer der anvender disse data, til hvilket formål, f. hvem der har udviklet systemet, og g. systemudviklerens rettigheder til at gøre brug af data til andet formål og meget mere. Det ville have været ønskværdigt at KL havde inkluderet transparens krav i deres digitaliseringspolitik. I indsatsområde 5 står der under "Fremtiden skal bygges på det fælleskommunale IT-fundament" at kommunerne skal "Undgå leverandørafhængighed". Det er såmænd en rigtig god ide, at det er kommunerne selv, der udvikler deres løsninger. Men alt peger just nu på at langt de fleste systemer bliver udviklet af tredje part. Kompetencerne i det offentlige skal i den grad øges for at kommunerne selv kan udvikle og forbedre deres systemer. Under punkt 2: Bedre Service står der ganske rigtigt at: "kommunerne hver gang skal vurdere om tilbuddet til borgerne skal og kan være digitalt". Dette er det eneste sted man kan ane forsigtighedsprincippet i hele politikken. I det hele taget læses den som om 1. det digitale er uundgåelig, og 2. nødvendig, og 3. ønskværdig. Alle 3 antagelser uden rette styring af disse systemer kan, og allerede har, ledt til utilsigtede og often skadelige indvirkninger på borgerne og de ansatte. Det havde klædt KL at antage dataminimeringsprincippet fra GDPR: The principle of “data minimisation” means that a data controller should limit the collection of personal information to what is directly relevant and necessary to accomplish a specified purpose. They should also retain the data only for as long as is necessary to fulfil that purpose. In other words, data controllers should collect only the personal data they really need, and should keep it only for as long as they need it. EDPS Hvad angår kompetencer nævnes "Derfor er det vigtigt, at nye teknologier bliver bredt forankret, og at medarbejderne har kompetencer til og mod på at bruge dem." At selvsamme medarbejdere skal have rette kompetencer til kritisk at styre og forvalte systemerne fra et rettighedsperspektiv og for at sikre at borgerrettigheder ikke overtrædes eller skades nævnes ej. Igen, dette er en alvorlig mangel i politikken. Hvis ikke medarbejderne i kommunerne ved hvordan og hvorfor de skal forvalte/styre systemerne og ej hellere hvem de skal henvende sig til hvis de mistænker eller iagttager skævheder i systemet, hvem skal så? Kommunerne skal også: "Bruge data som en værdiskabende ressource". Og videre at "Der er behov for at rydde alle sten af vejen for at kunne dele data, der hvor det gavner borgerne." Her kunne det være interessant at dykke ned i ordvalget "værdi" og "resource". Og hvem bestemmer egentligt hvad "der er til gavn for borgerne"? Mine personlige data er altså ikke en vare der kan ændres, handles med og sælges igen med gevinst (læs: merværdi) som mål. Mine data skal ses i et menneskerettighedsperspektiv, og de burde varetages i det lys. Dette handler ikke om værdi, eller om ressourcer, men om rettigheder. Det er derfor bekymrende at politikken fra KL indeholder ønsket om at: Kommunerne og KL skal fortsat arbejde målrettet i både fælleskommunalt og fællesoffentligt regi for at bruge data klogt og sikre koordinering på tværs for borgeren. Det skal lovgivning støtte op om og ikke spænde ben for Hvis data skal deles mellem kommuner, skal det kun kunne lade sig gøre hvis borgeren frit og eksplicit har givet tilsagn om det. Der er gode erfaringer og praksis i Estland's data tracker system, der giver borgere mulighed for at se hvilken offentlig myndighed har tilgået borgernes data og hvorfor. Igen, transparens kunne løftes meget mere frem i politikken fra KL. Og endeligt, der er virkelig intet nyt i hele KL's politik. Borgernes tillid kan ikke vindes eller vedligeholdes ved små lappeløsninger på et system, der gentagne gange har vist sig at slå fejl. Selvom etik eller 'etisk' nævnes nogle gange, så går politikken slet ikke i dybden med hvordan denne etik skal formuleres, fortolkes og egentligt efterleves. Igen skal "styringsmekanismer" der er inklusive med i denne politik for at den overhovedet kan påberåbe sig etik. Men derudover savner jeg visioner for hvordan kommunerne kunne gå forrest i at anvende decentrale servers, differentieret databeskyttelse (engelsk: differential privacy) eller lignende systemer, mere demokratisk borgerinddragelse, data som et kollektivt gode, data trusts og meget mere. Med andre ord, der skal simpelthen mere til hvis denne politik skal anses som visionære. Det er den ikke, og det er i sig dybt bekymrende.

  • Just published: "Righting the Wrong: Putting Workers’ Data Rights Firmly on the Table"

    Christina J. Colclough contributes with this chapter in a new book edited by Professor Mark Graham and DPhil Fabian Ferrari. Read more about the book published by MIT Press below. Understanding the embedded and disembedded, material and immaterial, territorialized and deterritorialized natures of digital work. Many jobs today can be done from anywhere. Digital technology and widespread internet connectivity allow almost anyone, anywhere, to connect to anyone else to communicate and exchange files, data, video, and audio. In other words, work can be deterritorialized at a planetary scale. This book examines the implications for both work and workers when work is commodified and traded beyond local labor markets. Going beyond the usual “world is flat” globalization discourse, contributors look at both the transformation of work itself and the wider systems, networks, and processes that enable digital work in a planetary market, offering both empirical and theoretical perspectives. The contributors—leading scholars and experts from a range of disciplines—touch on a variety of issues, including content moderation, autonomous vehicles, and voice assistants. They first look at the new experience of work, finding that, despite its planetary connections, labor remains geographically sticky and embedded in distinct contexts. They go on to consider how planetary networks of work can be mapped and problematized, discuss the productive multiplicity and interdisciplinarity of thinking about digital work and its networks, and, finally, imagine how planetary work could be regulated. Get the book as pdf , or even better buy it! https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/Digital-Work-in-the-Planetary-Market Download Chapter 17: Righting the Wrong: Putting Workers' Data Rights Firmly on the Table here Contributors Sana Ahmad, Payal Arora, Janine Berg, Antonio A. Casilli, Julie Chen, Christina Colclough, Fabian Ferrari, Mark Graham, Andreas Hackl, Matthew Hockenberry, Hannah Johnston, Martin Krzywdzinski, Johan Lindquist, Joana Moll, Brett Neilson, Usha Raman, Jara Rocha, Jathan Sadowski, Florian A. Schmidt, Cheryll Ruth Soriano, Nick Srnicek, James Steinhoff, Jara Rocha, JS Tan, Paola Tubaro, Moira Weigel, Lin Zhang

  • Reminding the G7 - workers' rights are human rights

    The Why Not Lab was invited to the G7 Labour dialogues to discuss digitalisation of work and workers with the German Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Hubertus Heil. See what we discussed here. The German government holds the Presidency of the G7 this year. In the Labour Dialogues held in Berlin May 12 and 13, union leaders had the opportunity to discuss Climate Change, the new social contract, workers rights post pandemic, supply chains and digitalisation. Hosted by FES and DGB these discussions with ministers were highly valuable. Not only for the G7 unions but also in relation to ensuring that the G7 respects and bridges global divides. Digitalisation and the need for inclusive governance Hubertus Heil covered many issues in his opening speech. From Germany's just adopted human rights and due diligence law, to the scheduled law improving workers' data rights to the EU AI Act. The Why Not Lab's Christina J. Colclough was tasked to comment on the Minister's speech and the German G7 political priorities on digitalisation. Here is what she covered. Standards and certifications as envisioned in the draft EU AI Act, the policies of GPAI, the OECD and the G7 must be accompanied by mandatory inclusive and periodic governance obligations. This requirement is critically missing in all multilateral political discussions. In workplaces, this co-governance must include workers and their representatives. Linked to this, and in line with the German government's planned law on workers' data rights, workers must have much stronger collective data rights. This to prevent the commodification of work and workers, and the subsequent narrowing of labour markets. Workers' Rights are Human Rights, and the current manipulation of workers through algorithmic systems must stop. Politicians should stop fetishizing the 'free flow of data' and in line with Shoshana Zuboff work towards banning markets in human futures. We need a de-datafication of labour markets. Colclough then moved on to highlight the need to ensure that the developers of new digital systems and the companies/workplaces deploying them must have the necessary competencies to govern these technologies from a human rights' perspective. So must we ensure that workers and their unions have the competencies they need to truly engage in this human rights and workers' rights governance. On one crucial point, Colclough disagreed with the Minister on some of the details in the EU AI Act. She stressed that in it's current form the Act deviates from the GDPR on key areas: namely on the lacking need for transparent impact assessments, the lacking recommendation to consult with workers on workplace systems and the missing rights of authorities to access these assessments. This leads to a self-regulation of even high risk workplace systems, which is simply unacceptable. She too pinpointed that it is somewhat interesting that the EU AI Act is a risk-based regulation, and again therefore deviates from the rights-based GDPR. The Minister took careful note of all of these points. E-commerce/Digital Trade We then discussed digital trade. Colclough expressed that many of the positive policy wishes the Minister was presenting during the meeting are actually in contradiction with the German G7 policy priorities' push for a reform of the WTO to include digital trade. Here she underscored: that the free flow of data does not equal the free and equal access to data. That the governments and the EU Commission keep repeating this demand will only lead to the increased commodification of workers and citizens, and will only benefit the companies who already extract enormous amounts of data. Colclough mentioned the other demands that are on the table, which would all stifle governments scope to regulate, they will deepen digital divides and disempower citizens and workers. These are: 1. A ban on data location 2. A removal of technology transfer obligations 3. A removal of the obligation to reveal source code 4. A removal of all obligations to have a physical and/or legal presence in the host country. Colclough concluded that the current e-commerce trade demands must be refuted and blocked. Read why in the briefing the Why Not Lab has written for the G7 meeting here

View All

Pages (8)

  • About | The Why Not Lab | Championing ALT Digital

    about the Why Not Lab The Why Not Lab is a boutique value-driven consultancy that puts workers at the centre of digital change. We offer our expertise exclusively to progressive organisations, trade unions and governments. The Why Not Lab has a two-fold mission to ensure that the digital world of work is empowering rather than exploitative. We: ​ Equip workers and their unions with the right skills, know-how and know-what to shape an alternative digital ethos that ensures collective rights in the digital age; ​ Put workers' interests centre stage in current and future digital policies ​ ​ To bridge digital divides and prevent the objectification of workers that is currently underway, workers must be empow ered so they can table an alternative digital ethos. The Why Not Lab aims to support exactly this through our training, policy and strategic support. ​ The Why Not Lab is run by Dr Christina J. Colclough - a fearless optimist who believes that change for good is possible if we put our minds and heart to it. She works with experts and partners across the world to provide the best advice at all times. Read more about Dr. Colclough below Please note: We have therefore adopted a differential pricing principle so we can support workers and organisations from all regions of the world. Do contact us with any inquiries. Dr Christina J. Colclough Regarded as a thought leader on the futures of work(ers) and the politics of digital technology, Christina is an advocate for the workers’ voice. She has extensive global labour movement experience, where she led their future of work policies, advocacy and strategies for a number of years. She was the author of the union movement's first principles on Workers' Data Rights and the Ethics of AI . A globally sought-after keynote speaker and workshop trainer with over 200 speeches and trainings the last 3 years, Christina created the Why Not Lab as a dedication to improving workers' digital rights. She is included in the all-time Hall of Fame of the world's most brilliant women in AI Ethics. See Christina's wikipedia page here . ​ Trusted Positions ​ Christina is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts in the UK and Advisory Board member of Carnegie Council's new program: AI and Equality Initiative. She is also a member of the OECD One AI Expert Group and is affiliated to FAOS, the Employment Relations Research Center at Copenhagen University. In 2021, Christina was a member of the Steering Committee of the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI). Our Digital Future Our Digital Future is a 3-year project with Public Services International aimed at capacity building unions in all regions of the world on digitalisation of work and workers and co-designing union responses. Training material (reports & slides) are available upon request. MOOC for unions With a good camera, professional lighting, a yummy Røde microphone, the scene is set to shoot a number of short videos that in time will become a full blown MOOC. Its all about the datafication of work, digital technologies and union responses. ​ Co-governing A.I Through thematic advice and training we are supporting a group of unions in a European country on the co-governance of algorithmic systems in workplaces. Their aim is to scale to the entire labour market. UnionTech Find the material & recordings from this 4-part series of workshops on #UnionTech here - courtesy of participants, presenters and FES . These workshops united participants to build their capacity to critically use & challenge digital technologies. Digital Training USA Pretty honoured to be working with a top-notch university in the US to create a series of workshops on digitalisation and the impacts on work and workers. The first round of workshops is tailor-made union leaders. Data Storytelling The team behind WeClock offers with support from FES an in-depth, hands-on course on data storytelling. Through responsible data collection, to designing and running the campaign, participants learn how to analyse their data and use this in their campaigning. Current Projects Testimonials John C. Havens E.D., IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous & Intelligent Systems & Council on Extended Intelligence . In an environment where rhetoric often rules all, Christina provides hard-hitting yet pragmatic and solutions-oriented counsel on issues including the future of work, human autonomy, human rights, and technology governance in general. ​ She is my "go to" person on any issues related to AI and the future of work based on her specialized knowledge of worker's rights and actual global policy and economics relating to these issues versus only aspirational techno-utopian ideals. She is also a gifted and personable speaker, transforming highly nuanced and complex technical and political issues into conversational, story-oriented speeches.

  • TOOLS & GUIDES | The Why Not Lab | Championing ALT Digital

    Tools & Guides One of the Why Not Lab's missions is to co-develop and deploy digital technologies that empower minority groups and safeguard human rights. Check out our privacy-preserving self-tracking app WeClock . Or the tool for good data governance Lighthouse . Or dive into our guides for ensuring worker empowerment in digitalised workplaces. WeClock the app for workers by workers WeClock offers a privacy-preserving way to empower workers and unions in their battle for decent work. WeClock gives an indication of the present and changing natu­re of work by providing insight about the: presence or absence of decent or fair work, working conditions, or work/life balance. Built with workers in mind, WeClock empowers change. Check out the app's website here for more info and download links. Worker Empowerment Guides by the Why Not Lab Check out our Data Life Cycle at Work guide that will help you navigate the topics for bargaining for much stronger workers' data rights. A void left by inadequate regulations across the world. Our Co-governance of Algorithmic Systems Guide buckets 19 questions into 7 different themes. Essential for getting a seat at the table and decision-power over the algorithmic systems in place at work. A check list of sorts, walk this guide and keep management responsible and liable for the systems they use. ​ ​ Lighthouse Online Tool for Good Data Governance Given that WeClock will be a data-gathering tool for unions, we decided to work with a UK union Prospect , along with Digital Public and Small Scale , to develop Lighthouse – an online, privacy-preserving tool to help unions become stewards of good data governance. Lighthouse takes the form of an online guide - or quiz - where those participating get to rate their methods and practices along a range of topics. ​ ​ Use Lighthouse courtesy of Prospect here Digital Tools for Trade Unions 2019 Report As part of the Young Workers Lab project, we scanned the market for digital tools either built by trade unions or that could be an inspiration for trade unions. Our insights are available in our "Connective Action: Digital Tools for Trade Unions report." ​ Download the report here . Thoughtexchange the crowd-sourcing platform As work becomes more precarious, piecemeal and decentralised, we needed a communication tool that could reach all members, no matter where they were and when they worked. Thoughtexchange is that very tool! Read user stories from UNI Global's members and sectors here: Engaging members in new ways (Unions21) Grim Reality for Young Workers Strengthening Union Democracy ​ ​ Contact Thoughtexchange here ​

  • Contact | The Why Not Lab | Championing ALT Digital

    Let's Connect! And reshape Digital @ Work Send We believe in the richness of diversity, equal opportunities and inclusive meetings, panels, speaker line ups etc. We urge all requestors to diversify their events as much as possible, and will happily recommend excellent folks in our stead. Thanks for contacting The Why Not Lab. You will hear from us soon, Christina

View All