On The Table 2014 Impact Report

In every Chicago neighborhood and many suburban communities, thousands of residents came together to break bread and discuss how to collaboratively build and maintain strong, safe and dynamic communities. This report summarizes conversations based on a wide variety of data collected by or made available to the Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement (IPCE) and addresses three major questions IPCE posed to understand the impact of the initiative: who participated, what was discussed, and how were participants impacted by the conversations? These conversations were intended to provide a platform for partnering with and inspiring participants, organizations, and institutions in the region to take action to improve quality of life and to build a more sustainable future for the Chicago region

Free Speech and Justified True Belief

Law often prioritizes justified true beliefs. Evidence, even if probative and correct, must have a proper foundation. Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. Prosecutors are not permitted to trick juries into convicting a defendant, even if that defendant is truly guilty. Judges’ reasons, and not just the correctness of their holdings, are the engines of precedent. Lawyers are, in short, familiar with the notion that one must be right for the right reasons. And yet the standard epistemic theory of the First Amendment—that the marketplace of ideas is the “best test of truth”—has generally focused on truth alone, as if all true beliefs must be treated equally. This thin account leaves the epistemic theory vulnerable to withering criticism, especially in a “post-truth” era. This Article suggests that the epistemic theory of the First Amendment might be reframed around a different value: not truth alone, but knowledge. Beginning with the tripartite definition of knowledge as justified true belief, philosophers from Plato until the present day have tried to account for what makes knowledge distinct and distinctly valuable. And in many ways law, too, already accounts for the existence and value of justifications, not just true beliefs. Identifying and exploring those threads of constitutional theory and doctrine can help provide a richer account of the cognitive First Amendment at a time when it is sorely needed. Doing so can also help resolve thorny doctrinal problems like those involving professional speech and institutional deference

Rethinking affordance

n/a – Critical survey essay retheorising the concept of 'affordance' in digital media context. Lead article in a special issue on the topic, co-edited by the authors for the journal Media Theory

Unlocking Latino Civic Potential 2016 and Beyond

In August 2015, the Aspen Institute Latinos and Society Program and the Aspen Institute Citizenship and American Identity Program convened a diverse group of distinguished scholars, organizers, and other experts and leaders to discuss the challenges and causes of low Latino civic participation and to develop recommendations for unlocking Latino civic potential in the United States.This is a vital topic, as the U.S. Latino population is growing rapidly, is overwhelmingly young, and thus will see growing power and influence in American society and politics, if Latinos are able to more fully realize their civic potential. Increasing Latino civic and political participation rates today will pay dividends for generations to come; likewise, missing the opportunity to do so will have consequences to the health of our democracy for generations to come.This report identifies four priority areas and tactics for unleashing the civic potential of Latinos in the United States. Focusing on immigrant integration and naturalization, voter engagement, civic education, and leadership development; the report offers a comprehensive vision for how to engage the nation's fastest growing demographic, beyond election cycles, to participate more fully in our democracy

Reputational Injury Without a Reputational Attack: Addressing Negligence Claims for Pure Reputational Harm

This Note examines the unsettled relationship between defamation and negligence. The law of defamation, through the torts of libel and slander, constitutes a well-developed and complex body of state common law and constitutional considerations. However, some claims for reputational harm may fall outside of this framework, as the law of defamation does not account for all of the ways that an individual’s reputation may be injured. Thus, plaintiffs sometimes bring negligence claims to seek redress for damage to reputation. When a plaintiff brings a negligence claim for pure reputational harm, the court is faced with a variety of options for handling the claim. This Note argues that courts should adopt a multistep approach to handling such claims. The court should first determine whether the claim is communication-based or not. If it is a noncommunicative claim, it should be allowed to stand as a simple negligence claim. If, however, the claim is communication-based, it should be presumptively displaced by the torts of libel and slander

A National Dialogue on Health Information Technology and Privacy

Increasingly, government leaders recognize that solving the complex problems facing America today will require more than simply keeping citizens informed. Meeting challenges like rising health care costs, climate change and energy independence requires increased level of collaboration. Traditionally, government agencies have operated in silos -- separated not only from citizens, but from each other, as well. Nevertheless, some have begun to reach across and outside of government to access the collective brainpower of organizations, stakeholders and individuals.The National Dialogue on Health Information Technology and Privacy was one such initiative. It was conceived by leaders in government who sought to demonstrate that it is not only possible, but beneficial and economical, to engage openly and broadly on an issue that is both national in scope and deeply relevant to the everyday lives of citizens. The results of this first-of-its-kind online event are captured in this report, together with important lessons learned along the way.This report served as a call to action. On his first full day in office, President Obama put government on notice that this new, more collaborative model can no longer be confined to the efforts of early adopters. He called upon every executive department and agency to "harness new technology" and make government "transparent, participatory, and collaborative." Government is quickly transitioning to a new generation of managers and leaders, for whom online collaboration is not a new frontier but a fact of everyday life. We owe it to them -- and the citizens we serve -- to recognize and embrace the myriad tools available to fulfill the promise of good government in the 21st Century.Key FindingsThe Panel recommended that the Administration give stakeholders the opportunity to further participate in the discussion of heath IT and privacy through broader outreach and by helping the public to understand the value of a person-centered view of healthcare information technology

Achieving Green and Healthy Homes and Communities in America

In the Fall of 2010, the National Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisioning contracted with the National Academy to develop and execute an online dialogue that would examine ways to increase the health, safety, and energy efficiency of low- to moderate-income homes. Since 1999, the National Coalition had worked to improve low- to moderate-income housing through the support and execution of home interventions that addressed multiple issues within a home at one time; an approach that often did not align with other traditional, single-issue housing assistance programs. By 2010, the National Coalition had taken on the leadership of the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, a public-private partnership focused on integrating funding streams to improve low- to middle-income homes across the country.With plans to expand the GHHI's operations, the National Coalition partnered with the National Academy to conduct the National Dialogue on Green and Healthy Homes, a collaborative online dailogue in which participants were asked to identify challenges to, and innovative practices for, improving the health, safety and energy-efficiency of low- to moderate- income homes. The Dialogue was live from November 4-November 22, 2010, and collected 100 hundred ideas and 362 comments from 320 registered users. Over the course of its two and a half week duration, the Dialogue received more than 2,500 visits from over 1,100 people in 48 states and territories. Key FindingsBy reviewing the feedback received in the Dialogue, the Panel was able to make a number of recommendations on how the green and healthy homes community of practice could increase the health, safety and energy efficiency of homes across the country. These recommendations included: Conduct an evaluation of current housing standards to determine if they meet the Nation's health, safety, and energy efficiency needs; Develop a tiered performance standard for healthy, safe and energy efficient homes; Group government funding streams to better align programs with the comprehensive intervention approach; Develop a long-term funding strategy to support efforts after Recovery Act funding ends; and Educate government decisionmakers and the public on the importance of developing green and healthy homes and communities, and the work that supports that development

The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines

Algorithmic decision-making has become synonymous with inexplicable decision-making, but what makes algorithms so difficult to explain? This Article examines what sets machine learning apart from other ways of developing rules for decision-making and the problem these properties pose for explanation. We show that machine learning models can be both inscrutable and nonintuitive and that these are related, but distinct, properties. Calls for explanation have treated these problems as one and the same, but disentangling the two reveals that they demand very different responses. Dealing with inscrutability requires providing a sensible description of the rules; addressing nonintuitiveness requires providing a satisfying explanation for why the rules are what they are. Existing laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as techniques within machine learning, are focused almost entirely on the problem of inscrutability. While such techniques could allow a machine learning system to comply with existing law, doing so may not help if the goal is to assess whether the basis for decision-making is normatively defensible. In most cases, intuition serves as the unacknowledged bridge between a descriptive account and a normative evaluation. But because machine learning is often valued for its ability to uncover statistical relationships that defy intuition, relying on intuition is not a satisfying approach. This Article thus argues for other mechanisms for normative evaluation. To know why the rules are what they are, one must seek explanations of the process behind a model’s development, not just explanations of the model itself

Serious invasions of privacy in the digital era: issues paper

This Issues Paper was released on 8 October 2013, signalling the first stage of public consultation for the Serious Invasions of Privacy Inquiry. The paper provides background information and highlights issues identified by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) as relevant to the Terms of Reference. The Issues Paper asks questions not just on issues relating to a stand-alone cause of action—to allow people to sue for a serious invasion of privacy—but also about alternative ways that existing laws could be supplemented or amended to provide appropriate protection for privacy in the digital era. The ALRC invites individuals and organisations to make submissions in response to specific questions, or to any of the background material and analysis provided. The closing date for submissions was 11 November 2013