Suchergebnisse

Parties adopt online participation methods in the hope of engaging a wider group of participants. However, literature on the digital divide suggests that this is unlikely to happen, as online participa-tion remains dependent on the same factors as offline participation: income, class, education. Based on a mixed methods study of members of the Green Party Germany, this paper discusses the expected and actual effects of online participation tools on the participation of party members. Expectations are that these tools will benefit nearly everyone, but in practice, the goal to engage inactive members is only partially achieved: Younger members and those with lower educational attainments are mo-bilised, but women are not. These effect differ depending on the type of technology. I argue that this is an expression of the prevailing digital divide, which needs to consider not only a socio-demo-graphic divisions, but also the multifaceted effects of different technologies.

As external forces seek to gain influence over ICTs of political parties, their security becomes an additional relevant factor in parties' finances. While many studies focus on parties' online fundraising, their spending for web-based technologies remains terra incognita. Our perspective follows the idea that a party's spending is an indicator for relevance. What aspects are on the table when new ICTs are purchased by parties? What significance do security concerns have? We analyzed the Green Parties in Germany and Austria. Both are forerunners in their use of online participation platforms with decades of experience in engaging members offline. We conducted interviews with stakeholders from both parties and an external IT-specialist. Our findings indicate differences in the approach of securing ICTs even among these most similar cases: some see security as a long-term issue and invest in in-house solutions, others see security as a necessary expense and opt for external service providers.

Abstract
Publicly funded data-driven innovation programmes frequently involve partnerships between small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and municipal authorities utilizing citizen data. The intention of these projects is to benefit citizens. However, few such projects achieve success or impact within the project timeframe. This may result in benefit accruing mainly to the SME partner, who gains both learning and data, engendering questions of data justice around whether citizen data are being exploited without sufficient benefit returning to citizens. Through case studies composed of interviews and document analysis, we examine how benefits for citizens are conceived and achieved in the publicly funded data-driven air quality projects Data Pitch and Smart Cities Innovation Framework Implementation. We find the differences between the programme funders' policies had a clear influence on the citizen engagement elements. There are also a number of ways in which the desired citizen engagement and benefit becomes diluted, including through misalignment of incentives and focus, a lack of prioritization and ownership, and power imbalances between citizens and the other actors in the quadruple helix model. To retain the focus on ensuring citizens benefit from data-driven innovation programmes using citizen data, we propose the use of data Justice plans. More work is required to specify the content and mechanisms of such plans for application in such programmes.

AbstractData trusts have been conceived as a mechanism to enable the sharing of data across entities where other formats, such as open data or commercial agreements, are not appropriate, and make data sharing both easier and more scalable. By our definition, a data trust is a legal, technical, and organizational structure for enabling the sharing of data for a variety of purposes. The concept of the "data trust" requires further disambiguation from other facilitating structures such as data collaboratives. Irrespective of the terminology used, attempting to create trust in order to facilitate data sharing, and create benefit to individuals, groups of individuals, or society at large, requires at a minimum a process-based mechanism, that is, a workflow that should have a trustworthiness-by-design approach at its core. Data protection by design should be a key component of such an approach.

The aim of this workshop was to ask potential end-users of the citizens' information pack on legal and ethical issues around ICTs (i.e. citizens and citizens' groups) the following questions: What is your knowledge of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and what actions have you taken in response to these regulations? What challenges are you experiencing in ensuring the protection and security of your project data, and compliance with the GDPR, within existing data management processes/systems? What information/tools/resources do you need to overcome these challenges? What are the best formats/channels for receiving, sharing and acting upon this information? What is the most appropriate structure/format(s) for the citizens' information pack?

ICTs, personal data, digital rights, the GDPR, data privacy, online security… these terms, and the concepts behind them, are increasingly common in our lives. Some of us may be familiar with them, but others are less aware of the growing role of ICTs and data in our lives - and the potential risks this creates. These risks are even more pronounced for vulnerable groups in society. People can be vulnerable in different, often overlapping, ways, which place them at a disadvantage to the majority of citizens; Table 3 in this guide presents some of the many forms and causes of vulnerability. As a result, vulnerable people need greater support to navigate the digital world, and to ensure that they are able to exercise their rights. This guide explains where such support can be found, and also answers the following questions: What are the main ethical and legal issues around ICTs for vulnerable citizens? Who is vulnerable in Europe? How do issues around ICTs affect vulnerable people in particular? This guide is a resource for members of vulnerable groups, people who work with vulnerable groups, and citizens more broadly. It is also useful for data controllers who collect data about vulnerable citizens. While focused on citizens in Europe, it may be of interest to people in other parts of the world. It forms part of the Citizens' Information Pack produced by the PANELFIT project, and is available in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish.