You are browsing the archive for blog.

Enlivening the Community at Open Knowledge Finland Retreat 2018

- October 19, 2018 in blog, Events

A merry gang of 17 people got together on 12-13.10.2018 for our annual Open Knowledge Finland 24h retreat at Kisakeskus near Raasepori, about 90 km from Helsinki. The weekend featured talks, good food including Tapola’s black sausage, booze an evening at the sauna where Mika lost his glasses and a bunch of bonding. Art of Hosting: Circles for Participatory sensemaking and Open Space Since some of our members had participated in a Art of Hosting event during the summer that many others were also interested in, we decided to try out some of the methods during our retreat. We set up our chairs in a circle for participatory sensing and governance about our general experiences, consent-based decision-making for taking everybody into account and Open Space Technology to host open discussions on the topics that people are interested in. Even though openness has been a core value for Open Knowledge Finland since it’s beginning in 2012, we are still just beginning to learn the self-management methods that might support us support being diverse in opinions, inclusive in accepting the variance and simultaneously be efficient enough in moving forward. It’s not only about using the methods but also about growing together with a shared mindset, which is difficult in our decentralized organization that is based on mostly fleeting meetings with each other. Discussion topics OKRs – Objectives and Key Results What is Open Knowledge Finland? A mapping exercise We have so many things going on in Open Knowledge Finland that it’s hard for any of us, and especially newcomers, to get a good idea of who we are. We did a quick exercise in mapping some of our communities that can generally be divided into two categories: the Open Knowledge folks and those focusing on Open Collaboration. You can see our result here: Strategy Communications & Marketing What is Teal? ResponsiveOrg/Participatory Team Practices On Saturday we looked into the Open Collaboration practices (they can be seen here: http://okf.fi/opencollab) that we’re exploring in Open Knowledge Finland. We have introduced just a few of them and are looking to try out some new ones. We don’t really have a process for introducing them and they are not actively in use everywhere. One of the new ones we started discussing is organizing in circles and a “Talkootarjotin”, exposing microtasks to volunteers. Starting a Circle for Website Renewal & Talkootarjotin We decided to discuss organizing in circles and the Talkootarjotin in a separate session. We started discussing how we might start a circle for the renewal of our website. We decided to look into Sociocracy 3.0 patterns on Defining Agreements (https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/defining-agreements.html) to explore how we might use participatory circles to organize in both static and temporary ways. Here’s what a Website Circle might look like: We also ended up ideating and creating a new community of Open Knowledge Allies to participate by volunteering to help us with microtasks. You can read about it here: https://fi.okfn.org/open-knowledge-allies-lets-get-sht-done/ General Feelings on the Weekend We had new people initiated into eating the Finnish delicacy, Tapola’s black sausage: Jelena got inspired to write poetry that included Mika’s lost glasses: Ansku & Zizi “found” some footage in which the crew gets latino: Key takeaways from a newcomer’s perspective Attended 4 open sessions in total, Open Knowledge / OKFI in a nutshell Going back into the basic question of what, why and how of OK/OKFI has taught me about the fundamental principles of OK as a whole and its impact to the community. Learned about the difference between workgroups and projects which I assumed to be of similar in function prior to participating the session. Gained insights about the various domain-specific groups (workgroups) and how each groups are interwoven around the OK sphere. Open collaboration in OKFI Learned about how OKFI is selecting, testing and applying different methodologies when collaborating with others in areas such as, project development, brainstorming, workshops and etc. Some open colab practices were even used during the retreat such as, circles and Consent over Consensus OKRs Learned on how to evaluate and set realistic / achievable and actionable goals (objectives) and how or steps to achieve it and measured. Circles It was amazing to witnessed how the session started from looking into the theoretical side of circles and immediately applying it into practical means, in this case for website revamped circle. This was my first time to participate in a retreat that has utilized open space sessions and in my opinion it turned out be a success. The culture of openness and respectfulness was also observed throughout the retreat, where everyone was given a chance to speak and to be heard. Overall, the OKFI one day retreat was an invaluable experience for me, lots of learning, amazing people and awesome sauna session. How to Participate Next? Join Open Knowledge Allies & let’s get sh*t done! Want to contribute your time to the purpose of creating a fair and open digital society by means of Open Knowledge and Open Collaboration? We have a bunch of initiatives, tasks and roles we might need YOUR help with. Join Open Knowledge Allies to help us out and collaborate with us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/okallies Join the Open Knowledge Finland Slack for the discussion, you can get an invite here: https://okfi-slack.herokuapp.com/ And join the #OKAllies channel: https://okfi.slack.com/messages/CDEKT7M55/ The post Enlivening the Community at Open Knowledge Finland Retreat 2018 appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Collective Intelligence 2018: From Open Knowledge and Network Organizations to Technology-enabled Intelligence

- July 11, 2018 in blog, projects, ResponsiveOrg Finland

This article is reposted here from the ResponsiveOrg Finland blog on Medium. I attended the Collective Intelligence 2018 conference was organized 7–8.7.2018 at the University of Zurich, the university where Albert Einstein received his PhD. Most of the participants of the Collective Intelligence 2018 conference were academics and the presentations reflected this but there were a few gems in there that I’d like to elaborate on. What is Collective Intelligence? Collective Intelligence is the promise of intelligence that can exceed the intelligence created at individual, team and organizational levels. It’s a multidisciplinary approach still in its infancy that builds upon better social practices and/or current and emerging combinations of technologies allow us to transcend our limited perspectives and the biases related to them and bundle together the efforts of as many people that we can get to participate in a purposeful manner by means of organizing as a network. Collective Intelligence is both an applied and scientific field. In terms of applied collective intelligence, Geoff Mulgan, the CEO of UK-based Nesta, author of the book Big Mind — How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World, mentions Wikipedia and Waze as examples. Wikipedia has become the largest encyclopedia ever by means of building a digital platform and having mostly volunteers governing, moderating and editing it. Waze is a route-mapping application that combines the aggregated GPS sensor data of its users to provide route information that can take real-time traffic information into account when suggesting routes. These are examples of technology-enabled Collective Intelligence. Picture source: Collective Intelligence/Wikipedia Social processes of creating information and enabling action are also very difficult when agreement and certainty falter. When this happens, you know you are dealing with a complex topic and that is ambiguous, has many perspectives and local optimum answer to it. In facilitation, this area is called “the Groan Zone” because of the feelings that can and often do arise in it. The processes by which a map of the domain, task or mission in question can be developed socially are another form of Collective Intelligence. In addition to technologies (software-hardware), social groups, forms of data and knowledge are also key enablers of Collective Intelligence. For us Open Knowledge Finland folks, this area is a given of course. Patrick Meier and Drone Video Aid for Disaster Areas The first keynote from Patrick Meier of WeRobotics was mindblowing. Patrick is part of the Digital Humanitarians Network which seeks to promote the use of technology in disaster areas. Patrick’s company’s focus is in drone-assisted aid. Some examples of his projects include:
  1. Founding and facilitating the work of local drone “Flying Labs” in disaster and potential disaster areas:
Because disaster areas require a lot of effort, aid workers are working 20 hour days in situations of crisis. One form of aid is to evaluate where aid is needed and this is done by exploring villages and cities for damaged buildings. This has traditionally been done by sending people to the places and have them evaluate the situations. Patrick Meier’s drones have been used to make this process faster by recording videos of the damaged areas. However because of the dire situation in the crisis areas, evaluation of drone footage was not a priority to air workers. However, by the help of the Digital Humanitarians Network, it is possible to crowdsource the online evaluations of damage based on the drone footage. This, in itself is a great example of Collective Intelligence. The Digital Humanitarians Network is going even further. Because evaluations are being done online, it is possible to use the human-generated evaluation data to train Machine Learning algorithms that might help make the evaluations even faster in the future.
  1. Using AI to augment human observations and scale observation making:
I suggest looking into Patrick’s work, there’s some really inspiring stuff there! Follow Patrick Meier on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PatrickMeier WeRobotics company: https://werobotics.org/ The Digital Humanitarians book: http://digital-humanitarians.com/ Lucy Fortson and Machine Learning for Citizen Science Another intriguing talk at the conference came from Lucy Fortson who is working for Zooniverse, an online platform by which people can participate in making classifications that assist scientific projects. Examples of Zooniverse projects include Galaxy Zoo, a project for classifying distant galaxies based on astronomical photo and Shakespeare’s World, in which voluteers can help transcribe writings from Shakespeare’s time to help understand history better. Zooniverse is an awesome platform with over 40 million classifications done by 150 000 volunteers. As its goal is to assist science the projects hosted on Zooniverse have produced countless scientific articles, new scientific findings and also allowed some of the volunteers to participate in writing the articles. To further help with the Citizen Science assisted research done on their platform, Zooniverse is also exploring the combination of users and Machine Learning to help create observations that are both precise (human) and broad (AI) to expedite the research projects. Rosy Mondardini, Citizen Science and Sustainable Development Goals Rosy Mondardini, leader of the Citizen Science Center at the University of Zurich, had an interesting short talk during a panel on Crowdsourcing and Crowd-Driven Innovation about how they are promoting the use of Citizen Science to measure Sustainable Development Goals. For those not familiar, Sustainable Development Goals are UN’s call to action “to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all that could be achieved in 15 years if all sectors of society would collaborate around them. According to Rosy Mondardini, there is insufficient data to see progress in the Sustainable Development goals and this is one of the areas of opportunity where Citizen Science and crowd-driven coordination might be of assistance. For me, this is an interesting concept in terms enabling future forms of participation in cities. Traditionally data regarding cities has been expert-generated but what if Citizens also had the ability to generate both hard sensor data and soft experiental data about their lived environments to assist in sensemaking and participating in making cities based on their own experiences? Collective Intelligence 2018: Summa Summarum Collective Intelligence is definitely one of those emergent topics that is on the rise even though it seems like the concept is not very well known here in Finland even though we are doing many cool things in the areas of Citizen Science and Open Collaboration. I have not heard of many instances from Finland where technology has been used to augment people in service of large social issues quite yet. Like I mentioned earlier, the Collective Intelligence 2018 conference, even though it had the goal of bringing together practitioners, companies and academics, was not able to cater to the goal and focused mostly on academic approaches. Another issue I had with the conference was the the high focus on technology-enabled collaboration whereas the human-centered approaches having to do with facilitation of groups was mostly missing. Being a person of multiple interests, what I really enjoyed in the conference, was becoming influenced by thinking that is somewhat different than my own. Even though I’m not very deep into Collective Intelligence quite yet, I believe I will be considering options more from the angle of enabling technology-assisted open crowds in my future thinking. In regards to the relationship between what we call Responsive Organizations and Collective Intelligence, I believe we’re in the same ballpark. As Collective Intelligence is the emergent property of the collaboration between groups, technologies and data/knowledge, it shares the same resources as Responsive Organizations. Collective Intelligence, Social Technologies and Network Organizations are heavily related and enablers of each other. Whereas Responsive Organizations use Social Technologies (essentially practices and technologies that allow us to collaborate better and at scale) to organize as scalable Networks or Network Organizations for purposeful action by means of broad knowledge creation, Collective Intelligence is the knowledge that is created using Networks and Social Technologies. They are definitely related concepts. Collective Intelligence is also close to what we call Open Knowledge as the openness of knowledge is an enabler of its purposeful transformation into Collective Intelligence. We at Open Knowledge Finland and ResponsiveOrg Finland will definitely be following the Collective Intelligence scene and hope to promote its practical advancements for the development of the Finnish society.
ResponsiveOrg Finland invites you to explore and promote practices by which teams and organizations can be better at responsiveness to changes, people, futures and operating as a network. Join in: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ResponsiveOrgFI/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ResponsiveOrgFI
WWW: http://responsiveorg.fi
Contact: @mikaelseppala
@OKFFI The post Collective Intelligence 2018: From Open Knowledge and Network Organizations to Technology-enabled Intelligence appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Collective Intelligence 2018: From Open Knowledge and Network Organizations to Technology-enabled Intelligence

- July 11, 2018 in blog, projects, ResponsiveOrg Finland

This article is reposted here from the ResponsiveOrg Finland blog on Medium. I attended the Collective Intelligence 2018 conference was organized 7–8.7.2018 at the University of Zurich, the university where Albert Einstein received his PhD. Most of the participants of the Collective Intelligence 2018 conference were academics and the presentations reflected this but there were a few gems in there that I’d like to elaborate on. What is Collective Intelligence? Collective Intelligence is the promise of intelligence that can exceed the intelligence created at individual, team and organizational levels. It’s a multidisciplinary approach still in its infancy that builds upon better social practices and/or current and emerging combinations of technologies allow us to transcend our limited perspectives and the biases related to them and bundle together the efforts of as many people that we can get to participate in a purposeful manner by means of organizing as a network. Collective Intelligence is both an applied and scientific field. In terms of applied collective intelligence, Geoff Mulgan, the CEO of UK-based Nesta, author of the book Big Mind — How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World, mentions Wikipedia and Waze as examples. Wikipedia has become the largest encyclopedia ever by means of building a digital platform and having mostly volunteers governing, moderating and editing it. Waze is a route-mapping application that combines the aggregated GPS sensor data of its users to provide route information that can take real-time traffic information into account when suggesting routes. These are examples of technology-enabled Collective Intelligence. Picture source: Collective Intelligence/Wikipedia Social processes of creating information and enabling action are also very difficult when agreement and certainty falter. When this happens, you know you are dealing with a complex topic and that is ambiguous, has many perspectives and local optimum answer to it. In facilitation, this area is called “the Groan Zone” because of the feelings that can and often do arise in it. The processes by which a map of the domain, task or mission in question can be developed socially are another form of Collective Intelligence. In addition to technologies (software-hardware), social groups, forms of data and knowledge are also key enablers of Collective Intelligence. For us Open Knowledge Finland folks, this area is a given of course. Patrick Meier and Drone Video Aid for Disaster Areas The first keynote from Patrick Meier of WeRobotics was mindblowing. Patrick is part of the Digital Humanitarians Network which seeks to promote the use of technology in disaster areas. Patrick’s company’s focus is in drone-assisted aid. Some examples of his projects include:
  1. Founding and facilitating the work of local drone “Flying Labs” in disaster and potential disaster areas:
Because disaster areas require a lot of effort, aid workers are working 20 hour days in situations of crisis. One form of aid is to evaluate where aid is needed and this is done by exploring villages and cities for damaged buildings. This has traditionally been done by sending people to the places and have them evaluate the situations. Patrick Meier’s drones have been used to make this process faster by recording videos of the damaged areas. However because of the dire situation in the crisis areas, evaluation of drone footage was not a priority to air workers. However, by the help of the Digital Humanitarians Network, it is possible to crowdsource the online evaluations of damage based on the drone footage. This, in itself is a great example of Collective Intelligence. The Digital Humanitarians Network is going even further. Because evaluations are being done online, it is possible to use the human-generated evaluation data to train Machine Learning algorithms that might help make the evaluations even faster in the future.
  1. Using AI to augment human observations and scale observation making:
I suggest looking into Patrick’s work, there’s some really inspiring stuff there! Follow Patrick Meier on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PatrickMeier WeRobotics company: https://werobotics.org/ The Digital Humanitarians book: http://digital-humanitarians.com/ Lucy Fortson and Machine Learning for Citizen Science Another intriguing talk at the conference came from Lucy Fortson who is working for Zooniverse, an online platform by which people can participate in making classifications that assist scientific projects. Examples of Zooniverse projects include Galaxy Zoo, a project for classifying distant galaxies based on astronomical photo and Shakespeare’s World, in which voluteers can help transcribe writings from Shakespeare’s time to help understand history better. Zooniverse is an awesome platform with over 40 million classifications done by 150 000 volunteers. As its goal is to assist science the projects hosted on Zooniverse have produced countless scientific articles, new scientific findings and also allowed some of the volunteers to participate in writing the articles. To further help with the Citizen Science assisted research done on their platform, Zooniverse is also exploring the combination of users and Machine Learning to help create observations that are both precise (human) and broad (AI) to expedite the research projects. Rosy Mondardini, Citizen Science and Sustainable Development Goals Rosy Mondardini, leader of the Citizen Science Center at the University of Zurich, had an interesting short talk during a panel on Crowdsourcing and Crowd-Driven Innovation about how they are promoting the use of Citizen Science to measure Sustainable Development Goals. For those not familiar, Sustainable Development Goals are UN’s call to action “to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all that could be achieved in 15 years if all sectors of society would collaborate around them. According to Rosy Mondardini, there is insufficient data to see progress in the Sustainable Development goals and this is one of the areas of opportunity where Citizen Science and crowd-driven coordination might be of assistance. For me, this is an interesting concept in terms enabling future forms of participation in cities. Traditionally data regarding cities has been expert-generated but what if Citizens also had the ability to generate both hard sensor data and soft experiental data about their lived environments to assist in sensemaking and participating in making cities based on their own experiences? Collective Intelligence 2018: Summa Summarum Collective Intelligence is definitely one of those emergent topics that is on the rise even though it seems like the concept is not very well known here in Finland even though we are doing many cool things in the areas of Citizen Science and Open Collaboration. I have not heard of many instances from Finland where technology has been used to augment people in service of large social issues quite yet. Like I mentioned earlier, the Collective Intelligence 2018 conference, even though it had the goal of bringing together practitioners, companies and academics, was not able to cater to the goal and focused mostly on academic approaches. Another issue I had with the conference was the the high focus on technology-enabled collaboration whereas the human-centered approaches having to do with facilitation of groups was mostly missing. Being a person of multiple interests, what I really enjoyed in the conference, was becoming influenced by thinking that is somewhat different than my own. Even though I’m not very deep into Collective Intelligence quite yet, I believe I will be considering options more from the angle of enabling technology-assisted open crowds in my future thinking. In regards to the relationship between what we call Responsive Organizations and Collective Intelligence, I believe we’re in the same ballpark. As Collective Intelligence is the emergent property of the collaboration between groups, technologies and data/knowledge, it shares the same resources as Responsive Organizations. Collective Intelligence, Social Technologies and Network Organizations are heavily related and enablers of each other. Whereas Responsive Organizations use Social Technologies (essentially practices and technologies that allow us to collaborate better and at scale) to organize as scalable Networks or Network Organizations for purposeful action by means of broad knowledge creation, Collective Intelligence is the knowledge that is created using Networks and Social Technologies. They are definitely related concepts. Collective Intelligence is also close to what we call Open Knowledge as the openness of knowledge is an enabler of its purposeful transformation into Collective Intelligence. We at Open Knowledge Finland and ResponsiveOrg Finland will definitely be following the Collective Intelligence scene and hope to promote its practical advancements for the development of the Finnish society.
ResponsiveOrg Finland invites you to explore and promote practices by which teams and organizations can be better at responsiveness to changes, people, futures and operating as a network. Join in: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ResponsiveOrgFI/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ResponsiveOrgFI
WWW: http://responsiveorg.fi
Contact: @mikaelseppala
@OKFFI The post Collective Intelligence 2018: From Open Knowledge and Network Organizations to Technology-enabled Intelligence appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Datakansalaisen verkkokoulutusmateriaali – Euroopan tietosuoja-asetus

- June 19, 2018 in blog, New Digital Rights MOOC

New Digital Rights MOOC, eli Datakansalaisen Verkkokoulutusmateriaali opettaa kansalaisille heidän digitaalisia oikeuksiaan nykypäivän tietoyhteiskunnassa. Sen ensimmäinen opetus-moduuli opettaa kansalaisille Euroopan tietosuoja-asetuksesta, eli GDPR:stä (General Data Protection Regulation). Projektia rahoittavat Internet Society sekä Eurooppatiedotus ja sitä työstää Open Knowledge Finland.

Sisältö tulee olemaan kaikille avointa, suomeksi ja englanniksi.

  1. Johdanto – omien tietojen kartoitus
  2. Euroopan tietosuoja-asetuksen tärkeimmät:
    1. Suostumus
    2. Pääsy omiin tietoihin
    3. Datan liikkuvuus
    4. Oikeus tulla unohdetuksi
  3. Digitaaliset oikeudet sosiaalisessa mediassa ja markkinoinnissa
  4. Digitaaliset oikeudet jokapäiväisessä elämässä (liikenne, koulutus, sähkö, vesi)
  5. Erityistapauksia (lapset, kuolema, algoritmit)
  6. MyData – tietosuojaoikeuksien sovellus käytännössä
Sinun oivalluksiasi tarvitaan! Liity keskusteluun Facebookissa tai Slackissa. Projektinhallinta tehdään Trellossa. Jäseneksi Slackiin ja Trelloon pääset lähettämällä sähköpostia – Raoul Plommer tai Teemu Ropponen, osoitteeseen: etunimi.sukunimi@okf.fi. Hankeasiakirjat Google-Drivessa The post Datakansalaisen verkkokoulutusmateriaali – Euroopan tietosuoja-asetus appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Datakansalaisen verkkokoulutusmateriaali – Euroopan tietosuoja-asetus

- June 19, 2018 in blog, Featured, New Digital Rights MOOC


New Digital Rights MOOC, eli Datakansalaisen Verkkokoulutusmateriaali opettaa kansalaisille heidän digitaalisia oikeuksiaan nykypäivän tietoyhteiskunnassa. Sen ensimmäinen opetus-moduuli opettaa kansalaisille Euroopan tietosuoja-asetuksesta, eli GDPR:stä (General Data Protection Regulation). Projektia rahoittavat Internet Society sekä Eurooppatiedotus ja sitä työstää Open Knowledge Finland.
 
Sisältö tulee olemaan kaikille avointa, suomeksi ja englanniksi.
 
  1. Johdanto – omien tietojen kartoitus
  2. Euroopan tietosuoja-asetuksen tärkeimmät:
    1. Suostumus
    2. Pääsy omiin tietoihin
    3. Datan liikkuvuus
    4. Oikeus tulla unohdetuksi
  3. Digitaaliset oikeudet sosiaalisessa mediassa ja markkinoinnissa
  4. Digitaaliset oikeudet jokapäiväisessä elämässä (liikenne, koulutus, sähkö, vesi)
  5. Erityistapauksia (lapset, kuolema, algoritmit)
  6. MyData – tietosuojaoikeuksien sovellus käytännössä
Sinun oivalluksiasi tarvitaan! Liity keskusteluun Facebookissa tai Slackissa. Projektinhallinta tehdään Trellossa. Jäseneksi Slackiin ja Trelloon pääset lähettämällä sähköpostia – Raoul Plommer tai Teemu Ropponen, osoitteeseen: etunimi.sukunimi@okf.fi. Hankeasiakirjat Google-Drivessa The post Datakansalaisen verkkokoulutusmateriaali – Euroopan tietosuoja-asetus appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Transparency, algorithms and data

- May 24, 2018 in algorithmic transparency, blog, data transparency, Events, International, Open Democracy, travel

Notes from the Data Transparency Lab 2017 in Barcelona

As part of Open Knowledge Finland, I attended the Data Transparency Lab(DTL) Conference in Barcelona last December. Unfortunately I only managed to attend the second day but since the sessions were recorded, I will be watching the rest online soon. Nevertheless, the second day had a lot of interesting talks and people, and I’d thought I’d note here some of the highlights.

The sessions, seemed to have an emphasis on transparency in the times of algorithmic complexity, which was great to listen to, even more so because the topic was covered from multiple angles. It was described from the angles of policy, design, ethics as well as practical demos accordingly in each session. So total the discussions were on a mix of high level discussion as well as practical applications. In this post I’ll try to summarise few of the talks, give some links to the people when possible, and add a few of my own thoughts as well.

The day started with a keynote from Isabella de Michelis from ErnieApp who described their startup’s point of view on companies and personal data. They argue that once users are aware of how they generate value for companies, they would be more willing to shift their permissions to a vendor type relationship rather than a customer one. For example, when owning an IoT connected fridge, a household should be able to get a discount on their electricity bill (since information about the fridge’s contents would be shared eg. to supermarkets for profit). An interesting position for sure, one which could be debated to clash with a later presentation from Illaria Liccardi.

Image from Liccardi’s research on user permission sharing. http://people.csail.mit.edu/ilaria/papers/ShihCHI15.pdf

Illaria Liccardi, as part of the ‘How to foster transparency’ session, presented her research from MIT on how people’s privacy permissions would change on apps they use, depending on the information provided. The results are possibly not as obvious as expected. They actually found that people are much more willing to give permissions for use of their data when no indication of how they will be used is given. However, they are less willing to give permissions to personal data when the reasoning of use is vaguely worded and yet somewhat permissive when there is a more detailed information from the side of the companies. The full research can be found on her page.

These are interesting findings that imply that for the general public to understand and give consent to give out personal data for company profit, there needs to be both an initial motivator from the company side, and also a good balance between sufficient and clear information on it’s use.

Namely, if people are more permissive when knowing less, then it is possible that the path to transparency won’t be as user-driven as expected.

Nozha Boujemaa from DATAIA institute, ( who was also the chair of that session), nicely put it that ‘data-driven does not mean objective’, which is something I can personally imagine myself repeating endlessly, especially in the context of data-driven journalism. A personal favourite entry point to the topic is on feminist data visualisation by Catherine Dignazio, who explainshow data and datasets can be wrongfully coupled with ideas that they are objective or presenting the truth. Nozha Boujemaa also discusses what would computational decision making systems need to be considered transparent. She notes for example that many Machine Learning (ML) algorithms are open sourced yet they are not open-data-ed. Meaning the data they have been trained on are actually proprietary, and since the decisions are actually based on exactly this trained models, then the openness of the algorithms are less useful.

The CNNum, the French national digital council, are actually trying to figure out how to incorporate and implement these principles for accountability in the french regulatory system. Moreover, their approach seemed to be really aware of the environment they are trying to regulate, in terms of diversity, speed of change cycles and they made a good note on the difficulty in actually assessing the impact of power asymmetry caused by algorithms.

Jun Huan (NSF) with the building blocks to model transparency holistically

Jun Huan (NSF) with the building blocks to model transparency holistically. Photo by author.

 

From the Nation Science Foundation (USA), Jun Huan, went a step beyond accountability for algorithmic systems towards their explainability and interpretability. In their research they are creating ways ML systems can identify and therefore indicate when they are actually ‘learning new tasks’ inspired by the human constructivism learning theory. It definitely sounded promising though due to my shallow knowledge on the topic, I am prone to algo-sensationalism!

Simone Fischer-Hubners, professor from Karlstad University, was chairing the session on ‘Discrimination and data Ethics’. She presented real world cases of discrimination and bias, such as the racial discrimination in online ad serving, price discrimination based on operating system used, predictive policing as well as an example case of gender discrimination in bibliometric profiling based on biased input data (women are less likely to self-cite). The last example is especially interesting because it highlights, that when we refer to biased computer decision making systems we tend to refer to the computational side of the system. However as in the example of the bibliometric profiling in academia, women are less likely to self-cite therefore already the ranking carries the initial biased sample of reality.

Julia Stoyanovich explaining why we should asses data science in its whole lifecycle.

Julia Stoyanovich explaining why we should asses data science in its whole lifecycle.

Julia Stoyanovich referred to that we should be assessing the fairness, accountability and transparency throughout the full data science lifecycle in order to be able to make valid conclusions on such systems. Her research with Data Responsibly, is actually centered around this topic as well. Last but not least, Gemma Galdon Clavell from Eticas added their own approach on research and consulting on ethical issues arising from technology and the importance of creating assessment criteria for technologies on society.

DTL actually funds projects globally, many actually awarded to university research groups, to create tools on the theme of data transparency. A part of the sessions was actually devoted exactly to those tools developed during 2017. The demos seemed by majority to be browser add-ons (and an app if I recall correctly ) that inform users on privacy leaks and ad targeting. Relevant topics for sure, though I admit I did catch myself pondering the irony of most privacy related add-ons being developed for Chrome..

The way I see it is that these subjects should eventually be discussed in even more wide audiences since they will affect the majority and in our daily life. It is therefore great to hear the researchers, dedicated circles and organisations who are actively working on these topics first hand.

Keep it open!

The post Transparency, algorithms and data appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Transparency, algorithms and data

- May 24, 2018 in algorithmic transparency, blog, data transparency, Events, International, Open Democracy, travel

Notes from the Data Transparency Lab 2017 in Barcelona

As part of Open Knowledge Finland, I attended the Data Transparency Lab(DTL) Conference in Barcelona last December. Unfortunately I only managed to attend the second day but since the sessions were recorded, I will be watching the rest online soon. Nevertheless, the second day had a lot of interesting talks and people, and I’d thought I’d note here some of the highlights.

The sessions, seemed to have an emphasis on transparency in the times of algorithmic complexity, which was great to listen to, even more so because the topic was covered from multiple angles. It was described from the angles of policy, design, ethics as well as practical demos accordingly in each session. So total the discussions were on a mix of high level discussion as well as practical applications. In this post I’ll try to summarise few of the talks, give some links to the people when possible, and add a few of my own thoughts as well.

The day started with a keynote from Isabella de Michelis from ErnieApp who described their startup’s point of view on companies and personal data. They argue that once users are aware of how they generate value for companies, they would be more willing to shift their permissions to a vendor type relationship rather than a customer one. For example, when owning an IoT connected fridge, a household should be able to get a discount on their electricity bill (since information about the fridge’s contents would be shared eg. to supermarkets for profit). An interesting position for sure, one which could be debated to clash with a later presentation from Illaria Liccardi.

Image from Liccardi’s research on user permission sharing. http://people.csail.mit.edu/ilaria/papers/ShihCHI15.pdf

Illaria Liccardi, as part of the ‘How to foster transparency’ session, presented her research from MIT on how people’s privacy permissions would change on apps they use, depending on the information provided. The results are possibly not as obvious as expected. They actually found that people are much more willing to give permissions for use of their data when no indication of how they will be used is given. However, they are less willing to give permissions to personal data when the reasoning of use is vaguely worded and yet somewhat permissive when there is a more detailed information from the side of the companies. The full research can be found on her page.

These are interesting findings that imply that for the general public to understand and give consent to give out personal data for company profit, there needs to be both an initial motivator from the company side, and also a good balance between sufficient and clear information on it’s use.

Namely, if people are more permissive when knowing less, then it is possible that the path to transparency won’t be as user-driven as expected.

Nozha Boujemaa from DATAIA institute, ( who was also the chair of that session), nicely put it that ‘data-driven does not mean objective’, which is something I can personally imagine myself repeating endlessly, especially in the context of data-driven journalism. A personal favourite entry point to the topic is on feminist data visualisation by Catherine Dignazio, who explainshow data and datasets can be wrongfully coupled with ideas that they are objective or presenting the truth. Nozha Boujemaa also discusses what would computational decision making systems need to be considered transparent. She notes for example that many Machine Learning (ML) algorithms are open sourced yet they are not open-data-ed. Meaning the data they have been trained on are actually proprietary, and since the decisions are actually based on exactly this trained models, then the openness of the algorithms are less useful.

The CNNum, the French national digital council, are actually trying to figure out how to incorporate and implement these principles for accountability in the french regulatory system. Moreover, their approach seemed to be really aware of the environment they are trying to regulate, in terms of diversity, speed of change cycles and they made a good note on the difficulty in actually assessing the impact of power asymmetry caused by algorithms.

Jun Huan (NSF) with the building blocks to model transparency holistically

Jun Huan (NSF) with the building blocks to model transparency holistically. Photo by author.

 

From the Nation Science Foundation (USA), Jun Huan, went a step beyond accountability for algorithmic systems towards their explainability and interpretability. In their research they are creating ways ML systems can identify and therefore indicate when they are actually ‘learning new tasks’ inspired by the human constructivism learning theory. It definitely sounded promising though due to my shallow knowledge on the topic, I am prone to algo-sensationalism!

Simone Fischer-Hubners, professor from Karlstad University, was chairing the session on ‘Discrimination and data Ethics’. She presented real world cases of discrimination and bias, such as the racial discrimination in online ad serving, price discrimination based on operating system used, predictive policing as well as an example case of gender discrimination in bibliometric profiling based on biased input data (women are less likely to self-cite). The last example is especially interesting because it highlights, that when we refer to biased computer decision making systems we tend to refer to the computational side of the system. However as in the example of the bibliometric profiling in academia, women are less likely to self-cite therefore already the ranking carries the initial biased sample of reality.

Julia Stoyanovich explaining why we should asses data science in its whole lifecycle.

Julia Stoyanovich explaining why we should asses data science in its whole lifecycle.

Julia Stoyanovich referred to that we should be assessing the fairness, accountability and transparency throughout the full data science lifecycle in order to be able to make valid conclusions on such systems. Her research with Data Responsibly, is actually centered around this topic as well. Last but not least, Gemma Galdon Clavell from Eticas added their own approach on research and consulting on ethical issues arising from technology and the importance of creating assessment criteria for technologies on society.

DTL actually funds projects globally, many actually awarded to university research groups, to create tools on the theme of data transparency. A part of the sessions was actually devoted exactly to those tools developed during 2017. The demos seemed by majority to be browser add-ons (and an app if I recall correctly ) that inform users on privacy leaks and ad targeting. Relevant topics for sure, though I admit I did catch myself pondering the irony of most privacy related add-ons being developed for Chrome..

The way I see it is that these subjects should eventually be discussed in even more wide audiences since they will affect the majority and in our daily life. It is therefore great to hear the researchers, dedicated circles and organisations who are actively working on these topics first hand.

Keep it open!

The post Transparency, algorithms and data appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Tilinpäätökseni — mitä opin 3 kaudesta OKF:n hallituksesta

- May 22, 2018 in 2015, 2016, 2017, blog, hallitus, ihmiset, jatkuvuus, muistelmat, oppiminen, strategia, talous, tilinpäätös, yhdistys, yhdistystoiminta

Minulta toivottiin yhteenvetoa ja tilinpäätöstä ajastani OKF:n hallituksessa. Toimin hallituksessa kolme kautta:
  • maaliskuu 2015 – toukokuu 2016, rahastonhoitaja
  • toukokuu 2016 – joulukuu 2016, varapuheenjohtaja
  • vuosi 2017, hallituksen puheenjohtaja
Kun aloitin rahastonhoitajana maalikuussa 2015 oli yhdistyksen aiempi hallitus tehnyt päätöksen palkata toiminnanjohtaja ja tehtävässä oli aloittanut Teemu. Toiminnanjohtaja aloitti samaan aikaan kuin uusi hallitus. Aloin uutena rahastonhoitajana vähän ihmetellä, mistä rahat tulisivat toiminnanjohtajan palkkaan. Oli otettu tietoinen riski palkata toiminnanjohtaja. Haastavasta tilanteesta selvittiin hyvin, vaikka meni yli ½ vuotta, että talous saatiin siedettävään kuntoon. Laskujen maksamisen eräpäiviä ei tarvinnut enää sen jälkeen siirtää. Tein työtä aika yksin. Voin sanoa, että opin valtavasti raha-asioista vuoden aikana. Holvi oli beta-vaiheessa (laskujen maksaminen ei aina toiminut). Tilitoimisto Emu oli paljon nykyistä pienempi (tein paljon enemmän itse). Kun johtaa 20 erilaista projektia taloudellisesti ja tietää, ettei voi tehdä tappiota, niin todellakin saa timanttisen kokemuksen hanke-salkun johtamisesta. Kun samaan aikaan “liikevaihto” kasvaa kymmeniä prosentteja vuodessa — tulee kokemuksesta sellainen, että sen jälkeen pärjää missä tahansa sisäisen tai ulkoisen laskentatoimen työssä. Varapuheenjohtajan parasta antia oli Open Knowledge Leadership -koulutus, joka kesti 4 kuukautta. Tähän koulutukseen oli valittu noin 25 ihmistä eri puolilta maailmaa. Maailmanlaajuinen kurssi oli niin raskas, että vain 50% aloitteista vei sen maaliin. Minusta tehtiin kurssille ryhmäpäällikkö, jonka tehtävänä oli saada 4 ihmistä maaliin asti. “Valmistuin ryhmäni kanssa” ja opin, että yrittäminen, ajanhallinta, rajaaminen ja priorisointi ovat elämän tärkeimpiä taitoja, varsinkin aatteellisissa yhdistyksissä 🙂 Opin myös sen, että suurin osa kurssin ihmisistä oli “Open Knowledge” -perhettä. Aktiiveja, jotka ovat olleet pitkään mukana (useimmat yli 10 vuoden ajan). Kansainvälisesti ongelmat ovat samoja kuin Suomessa. Jaettu ilo on kaksinkertainen ilo ja jaettu suru vain puolikas sellainen myös kansainvälisessä toiminnassa. Parasta oli, että tutustuin avoimuuden ihmisiin eri puolelta maailmaa. Ihailin ihmisten osaamista ja halua muuttaa maailmaa, mutta huomasin, että liian moni yrittää tehdä liikaa ja olennaiseen keskittyminen on erittäin tärkeää. Puheenjohtajana opin sen, että yhdistys on yhteispeliä. Edes PJ ei voi määrätä muita, vaan ainoastaan pyrkiä kuuntelemaan hallitusta. Hallituksessa valtaa käyttää enemmistö, ei PJ. On tilanteita, jossa PJ voi olla henkilökohtaisesti eri mieltä, mutta hallituksen enemmistön mukaan mennään eteenpäin. Suuri onni oli se, että Antti “Jogi” Poikola suostui toimimaan rahastonhoitajana. Tiesin, että hän hoitaa tehtävän viimeisen päälle hyvin, eikä minun tarvitse murehtia siitä. Se on tosi iso asia yhdistyksessä, jossa on paljon säännöllisiä menoja, mutta ei säännöllisiä tuloja. Yhtälö on haasteellinen ilman perusrahoitusta. Olen tehnyt edellisen 4 vuoden aikana yli 8000 tuntia töitä ammattimaisesti monen eri työnantajan palveluksessa ohjelmointirajapintoihin, avoimeen dataan ja MyDataan liittyen. Minulla ei ole tarjota oikotietä onneen. Olen halunnut oppia uutta, valmis tekemään paljon töitä, toimimaan itsenäisesti ja luomaan tästä itselleni ammatin. Olen onnistunut tässä. Nyt opiskelen hallitsemaan aikaani paremmin ja keskittymään olennaiseen tarkemmin. Vinkkini uusille jäsenille on, että perehdy itsenäisesti yhdistyksen projektien loppuraportteihin. Niissä on todella paljon arvokasta tietoa helposti saatavilla. Hallituksen tärkeimpiä tehtäviä on pitää yhdistyksen ilmapiiristä huolta, katsoa talouden perään ja ohjata yhdistyksen toimintaa (huomioiden mm. yhdistyksen säännöt ja muut asetukset). Pöytäkirjat tulee laatia niin yksiselitteisesti, ettei niistä voi riidellä monitulkinnallisuuden takia jälkikäteen. Avoimen hallinnon on oltava poikkeuksellisen hyvin hallittu kokonaisuus. Strategian laatiminen ja toiminta on koko jäsenistön vastuulla. Hallitus edustaa parhaimmillaan monipuolisesti jäsenistöä, mutta jäsenistöllä on todellinen valta yhdistyksessä. Tekemällä oppii. Virheitä tekemällä oppii enemmän. Opin paljon niiltä superlahjakkailta ihmisiltä, joiden kanssa sain tehdä tämän 3 vuoden aikana töitä. En olisi voinut kuvitellakaan, että yhdistyksen talous on näin vahvassa kunnossa. Vuoden 2017 hallitus sai eilen yhdistyksen kevätkokoukselta vastuuvapauden. Tuntuu hienolta saada tämä ajanjakso elämässäni päätökseen. Kiitän kaikkia ihmisiä, joiden kanssa sain olla toimimassa näiden hienojen asioiden puolesta. En tiedä, mitä tulevaisuudessa tapahtuu. Olen hyväksynyt sen, ettei minun tarvitse tietää ja luotan paljon enemmän maailman keskeneräisyyteen kuin aiemmin. Minulle jäin näistä kolmesta vuodesta hyvin paljon uusia verkostoja elämääni ja opin todella paljon. Kiitos kaikille! Mika Honkanen The post Tilinpäätökseni — mitä opin 3 kaudesta OKF:n hallituksesta appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Eduskunnan rajapinta valtiopäiväasiakirjoihin on nyt auki

- May 2, 2018 in api, arvot, avoin data, avoin demokratia, blog, Data, demokratia, Featured, kansalaiset, Open Democracy, osallistuminen, päätösdata, parlamentti, rajapinta, tieto, tietojohtaminen

Täysistuntojen pöytäkirjat, kansanedustajien puheenvuorot ja valiokuntien asiantuntijalausunnot ovat nyt tarjolla vapaasti käytettävänä koneluettavassa muodossa. Data on saatavilla osoitteessa avoindata.eduskunta.fi. Aineisto tarjoaa mahdollisuuksia erityisesti sovelluskehittäjille, tutkijoille ja datajournalisteille. Avatut tiedot ovat tältä vaadikaudelta, pääosin alkaen vuodesta 2015. Äänestystietoja on tarjolla jo 1990-luvulta lähtien. Meneillään on myös toinen hanke, jossa muokataan vuosien 1907-2000 aineistoja avattavaan muotoon. Hankkeen odotetaan julkaisevan tuloksia jo tämän vuoden aikana. Kansanedustajien henkilötiedot jätettiin pois rajapintaan nyt avattavista aineistoista koska se sisältää mm. kansanedustajien sukulaissuhteita kuvaavia tietoja. Asiaan vaikuttaa EU:n uuden tietosuojakäytännön kannalta vielä eduskunnassa ratkaisemattomia linjavetoja. Poissaolotiedot ovat mukana, mutta pdf-asiakirjoina. Pääosin data on rakenteisessa JSON-muodossa. Aineiston käyttäminen edellyttää sitoutumista eduskunnan määrittelemiin käyttöehtoihin. Data on lisensoitu Creative Commons Nimeä 4.0 -lisenssillä, mikä tarkoittaa, että aineistoa saa käyttää vapaasti mihin tahansa käyttötarkoitukseen, muokata ja edelleen julkaista muokattuja tuotoksia, mutta aineiston lähteeseen pitää viitata. Palaset liikahtavat kohdilleen vähitellen Eduskunnan datan avaus on pitkän prosessin tulos. Eduskuntatiedotus lienee avannut keskustelun avoimen datan yhteisön kanssa ensimmäisen kerran jo vuoden 2010 Nettiajan kansalaisyhteiskunta -verkoston tapahtumassa. Kun avoimen datan ilmiö herätti vilkkainta keskustelua vuosikymmenen alussa, eduskunta ei juossut trendin perässä, vaan oli lähdössä uusimaan kokonaan keskeisiä tietojärjestelmiään. Ja kuten joskus tapana on, projektit venyvät. Eduksi/Vaski-nimellä tunnetun hankkeen myötä uuden järjestelmän käyttöönotto venyi vuoteen 2015 saakka. Tuotos näkyi yleisölle muun muassa uusien verkkosivujen muodossa, mutta toive rajapinnasta ei konkretisoitunut. Vuoden 2016 alussa eduskunnan kirjasto kutsui kehittäjät avoimen datan ja avoimen demokratian tilaisuuteen, jossa eri toimijat jakoivat kokemuksiaan päätösdatan avaamisesta ja hyödyntämisestä. Tilaisuuden varsinainen anti oli eduskunnan avoimen datan testirajapinnan julkistaminen. Rajapinnan kautta sai määräajan kyseltyä varsinaista tuotantojärjestelmän dataa, mutta yhteisön palaute rajapinnan toteutuksesta oli kriittinen. Testirajapinta tarjoili datan muodossa, joka herätti jatkokäytön kannalta enemmän kysymyksiä kuin antoi vastauksia.  

Kansalaiset voivat valvoa edustajien työskentelyä niin yleisölehteriltä kuin rajapinnan kautta. Molemmat mahdollisuudet vaativat pienen kynnyksen ylittämistä, mutta ovat avoinna kaikille ja palvelevat erilaisia tarpeita.

Eduskunnan projektiryhmän ja sen IT-toimittajan, GoForen keskusteluissa huomattiin seuraavaksi, että rajapinnan ensimmäinen versio oli suunniteltu väärien periaatteiden mukaan. Se oli liian suoraviivaisesti kiinni tuotantojärjestelmissä. Toteutus piti suunnitella uusiksi. Oman haasteensa tehtävään toi, ettei eduskunnalla ole yhtä datavarastoa, jonka päälle uusi rajapinta rakennetaan, vaan ainesto kootaan useista eri järjestelmistä ja niiden välillä liikkuvasta tiedosta. Lisäksi uudesta rajapinnasta päätettiin tehdä eduskunnan ensimmäinen pilvipalvelu, jonka hyväksyttäminen talon johdossa oli oma asiansa. Nyt keväällä 2018 eduskunnan kirjasto kutsui kehittäjäyhteisön tilaisuuteen, jossa uusi viittä vaille valmis rajapinta esiteltiin. Se on esitelty jo talon sisällä, ja avoin yleisötilaisuus on suunnitteilla vielä ennen kesää, kun projekti saadaan lopullisesti päätökseensä viimeisten viilausten myötä. Eduskunta liittyy Suomessa vielä harvalukuiseen julkisten toimijoiden joukkoon, jotka tarjoavat avointa päätöksentekodataa asianhallintajärjestelmistään. Helsingin kaupunki on toiminut edelläkävijänä Open Ahjo -rajapinnan lanseeramisella jo 2013. Kuuden suurimman kaupungin 6aika-strategia kehitti yhteisen, Helsingin mallia ja Popolo-standardia mukailevan rajapinnan, jota testikäytettiin Tampereen, Vantaan ja Oulun aineistoilla. Kansainvälisesti avointa dataa tarjoilevien parlamenttien määrä alkaa lähennellä kahtakymmentä. Vain mielikuvitus ja tietotekniset taidot ovat rajana Käyttötarkoituksesta riippumatta vapaasti käytettävä (lakien noudattamisesta rajapinta ei vapauta) data voi olla erityinen aarre politiikka-tekno-nörteille. Niin Suomessa kun maailmalla on kehitetty niin kutsuttuja parlamentaarisen valvonnan verkkopalveluita, jotka yksinkertaistavat ja nostavat asiakirjoista esiin vallankäyttäjien valvonnan kannalta olennaisia tietoja. Monimutkaiseksi tulkinnan vain tekee sen, että hallitus-oppositioasetelman ja eduskunnan kokouskäytäntöjen takia yksittäisessä äänestyksessä esimerkiksi ympäristölakipakettia vastaan äänestäminen ei suoraviivaisesti tarkoita, etteikö kansanedustaja pitäisi vihreitä arvoja tärkeinä, sillä voi olla että edustajan oma puoli ajaa vielä kunnianhimoisempia ympäristötavoitteita, jotka ovat käsittelyssä vasta seuraavassa äänestyksessä. Esimerkiksi Kansan muisti -palvelu on ollut ensimmäisiä internet-ajan vallan vahtikoirapalveluita Suomessa. Aivan viime vuosina palvelu on ollut teknisellä tauolla, mutta nyt tekemässä paluuta datan tultua saataville ensimmäistä kertaa helposti jatkokäytettävässä muodossa. Toisena esimerkkinä on Democratize-niminen sovellus, joka antaa käyttäjilleen mahdollisuuden äänestää itse eduskunnan juuri käsittelemistä asioista. Kansan muisti ja Democratize ovat tyyppiesimerkkejä päätösdataa hyödyntävistä sovelluksista, joista monet joko tarjoavat mahdollisuuksia edustajien valvontaan tai omaan henkilökohtaiseen enemmän tai vähemmän näennäiseen osallistumiseen. Lisäksi datajournalistit ovat visualisoineet kansanedustajien ja puolueiden arvoja tarkastellessaan miten päättäjien arvot jakautuvat eri asioissa, ja kuinka jakolinjat muuttuvat verrattuna perinteisiin asetelmiin. Datajournalismista on lyhyt matka tutkimukseen, ja esimerkiksi politiikan tutkimuksessa on alettu viime aikoina hyödyntää laskennallisia menetelmiä. Yhdistettynä sosiaalisen median ja vaalikoneiden aineistoihin päätöksenteko-aineistot voivat tarjota mahdollisuuksia arvioida niin yksittäisten edustajien, puolueiden kuin hallituksen tai opposition tavoitteiden aikaansaamista kuin päätösten vastaavutta julkiseen keskusteluun tai kansalaisten arvoihin nähden. The post Eduskunnan rajapinta valtiopäiväasiakirjoihin on nyt auki appeared first on Open Knowledge Finland.

Bangladesh Celebrate Open Data Day 2018 with 17 Community Radio Station at rural level

- March 5, 2018 in blog, ODD18, Open Data Day

Discussion on Open Data Day program

Like many countries across the globe, International Open Data Day 2018 was also observed in Bangladesh with 17 Community Radio Station level in rural Bangladesh on 3rd March 2018 with support from Open Knowledge Bangladesh and Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC). The day was observed at a special event in 17 districts with local civil society representative. This year, community radio stations are preparing them for celebrating the OPEN DATA DAY 2018 in line with the Open research data, Tracking public money flows, Open mapping and Data for equal development. On this occasion, Community Radio stations will arrange a colorful rally, Radio talk show, Magazine program etc. The representative from media, practitioners, civil society members, administration, and delegates from the different level of the society joining the event. To celebrate the day published a booklet and leaflet about the day in the Bengali language in line with the theme. AHM Bazlur Rahman, CEO of BNNRC said, This year one of our major focus to know how our government spends money. Our 17 local community radio station arrange the program in our station and share the theme with our guests and others.

Discussion about Open Data Day

With the support from BNNRC and Open Knowledge Bangladesh,  all 17 Community Radio stations namely – Community Radio Padma 99.2, Community Radio Nalta 99.2, Community Radio LokoBetar 99.2, Community Radio Pollikantha, Community Radio SagarGiri 99.2, Community Radio Mohananda 98.8, Community Radio Mukti 99.2, Radio Chilmari 99.2, Community Radio Jhenuk 99.2, Community Rural  Radio Krishi Radio 98.8, Community Borendro radio 99.2, Community Radio Naf 99.2, Community Radio Sundarban 98.8 and Community Radio Bikrampur 99.2, Community Radio Meghna, Community Radio Sagardwip and Community Radio Sarabela celebrated open data day for the first time. In every event, community radio station head discussed various topics and issues of Open Data. This year our focus on Open research data, Tracking public money flows, Open mapping and Data for equal development. These included talks on what Open Data is, how it works, where Bangladesh fits in, etc. Aside from this, those interested to work with open data were introduced to various tools of Open Knowledge. A radio show in the Bengali language available at this link: Radio show about Open Daya Day 2018   

All community radio