Securing America's voting systems against spying and meddling: 6 essential reads

Can they be confident their votes will count? 4zevar/Shutterstock.com

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

The federal indictments of 12 Russian government agents accuse them of hacking computers to spy on and meddle with the U.S. 2016 presidential election – including state and county election databases.

With the 2018 midterm congressional elections approaching – along with countless state and local elections – here are highlights of The Conversation’s coverage of voting system integrity, offering ideas, lessons and cautions for officials and voters alike.

1. Voting machines are old

After the debacle of the 2000 election’s efforts to count votes, the federal government handed out massive amounts of money to the states to buy newer voting equipment that, everyone hoped, would avoid a repeat of the “hanging chad” mess. But almost two decades later, as Lawrence Norden and Christopher Famighetti at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University explain, that one-time cash infusion has left a troubling legacy of aging voting machines:

“Imagine you went to your basement and dusted off the laptop or mobile phone that you used in 2002. What would happen if you tried to turn it on?”

That’s the machinery U.S. democracy depends on.

2. Not everyone can use the devices

Most voting machines don’t make accommodations for people with physical disabilities that affect how they vote. Juan Gilbert at the University of Florida quantified the problem during the 2012 presidential election:

“The turnout rate for voters with disabilities was 5.7 percent lower than for people without disabilities. If voters with disabilities had voted at the same rate as those without a disability, there would have been three million more voters weighing in on issues of local, state and national significance.”

To date, most efforts to solve the problems have involved using special voting equipment just for people with particular disabilities. That’s expensive and inefficient – and remember, separate is not equal. Gilbert has invented an open-source (read: inexpensive) voting machine system that can be used by people with many different disabilities, as well as people without disabilities.

With the system, which has been tested and approved in several states, voters can cast their ballots using a keyboard, a joystick, physical buttons, a touchscreen or even their voice.

3. Machines are not secure

In part because of their age, nearly every voting machine in use is vulnerable to various sorts of cyberattacks. For years, researchers have documented ways to tamper with vote counts, and yet few machines have had their cyberdefenses upgraded.

The fact that the election system is so widespread – with multiple machines in every municipality nationwide – also makes it weaker, writes Richard Forno at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County: There are simply more opportunities for an attacker to find a way in.

“Voter registration and administration systems operated by state and national governments are at risk too. Hacks here could affect voter rosters and citizen databases. Failing to secure these systems and records could result in fraudulent information in the voter database that may lead to improper (or illegal) voter registrations and potentially the casting of fraudulent votes.”

4. Even without an attack, major concerns

Even if any particular election isn’t actually attacked – or if nobody can prove it was – public trust in elections is vulnerable to sore losers taking advantage of the fact that cyberweaknesses exist. Just that prospect could destabilize the country, argues Herbert Lin of Stanford University:

“State and local election officials can and should provide for paper backup of voting this (and every) November. But in the end, debunking claims of election rigging, electronically or otherwise, amounts to trying to prove something didn’t happen – it can’t be done.”

5. The Russians are a factor

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announces the indictments of 12 Russian government officials for hacking in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. AP Photo/Evan Vucci

American University historian Eric Lohr explains the centuries of experience Russia has in meddling in other countries’ affairs, but notes that the U.S. isn’t innocent itself:

“In fact, the U.S. has a long record of putting its finger on the scales in elections in other countries.”

Neither country is unique: Countries have attempted to influence each other’s domestic politics throughout history.

6. Other problems aren’t technological

Other major threats to U.S. election integrity have to do with domestic policies governing how voting districts are designed, and who can vote.

Penn State technologist Sascha Meinrath discusses how partisan panels have “systematically drawn voting districts in ways that dilute the power of their opponent’s party” and “chosen to systematically disenfranchise poor, minority and overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning constituencies.”

There’s plenty of work to be done.

Editors’ note: This is an updated version of an article originally published Oct. 18, 2016.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

How Facebook could reinvent itself – 3 ideas from academia

What will he decide to do? AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony in front of Congress, following disclosures of personal data being misused by third parties, has raised the question over how and whether the social media company should be regulated. But short of regulation, the company can take a number of steps to address privacy concerns and the ways its platform has been used to disseminate false information to influence elections.

Scholars of privacy and digital trust have written for The Conversation about concrete ideas – some of them radical breaks with its current business model – the company could use right away.

1. Act like a media company

Facebook plays an enormous role in U.S. society and in civil society around the world. The leader of a multiyear global study of how digital technologies spread and how much people trust them, Tufts University’s Bhaskar Chakravorti, recommends the company accept that it is a media company, and therefore

“take responsibility for the content it publishes and republishes. It can combine both human and artificial intelligence to sort through the content, labeling news, opinions, hearsay, research and other types of information in ways ordinary users can understand.”

2. Focus on truth

Facebook could then, perhaps, embrace the mission of journalism and watchdog organizations, and as American University scholars of public accountability and digital media systems Barbara Romzek and Aram Sinnreich suggest,

“start competing to provide the most accurate news instead of the most click-worthy, and the most trustworthy sources rather than the most sensational.”

3. Cut users in on the deal

If Facebook wants to keep making money from its users’ data, Indiana University technology law and ethics scholar Scott Shackelford suggests

“flip[ping] the relationship and having Facebook pay people for their data, [which] could be [worth] as much as US$1,000 a year for the average social media user.”

The multi-billion-dollar company has an opportunity to find a new path before the public and lawmakers weigh in.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Understanding Facebook's data crisis: 5 essential reads

What will Mark Zuckerberg say to Congress? AP Photo/Noah Berger

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Most of Facebook’s 2 billion users have likely had their data collected by third parties, the company revealed April 4. That follows reports that 87 million users’ data were used to target online political advertising in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

As company CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify before Congress, Facebook is beginning to respond to international public and government criticism of its data-harvesting and data-sharing policies. Many scholars around the U.S. are discussing what happened, what’s at stake, how to fix it, and what could come next. Here we spotlight five examples from our recent coverage.

1. What actually happened?

A lot of the concern has arisen from reporting that indicated Cambridge Analytica’s analysis was based on profiling people’s personalities, based on work from Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan.

Media scholar Matthew Hindman actually asked Kogan what he had done. As Hindman explained, “Information on users’ personalities or ‘psychographics’ was just a modest part of how the model targeted citizens. It was not a personality model strictly speaking, but rather one that boiled down demographics, social influences, personality and everything else into a big correlated lump.”

2. What were the effects of what happened?

On a personal level, this level of data collection – particularly for the 50 million Facebook users who had never consented to having their data collected by Kogan or Cambridge Analytica – was distressing. Ethical hacker Timothy Summers noted that democracy itself is at stake:

“What used to be a public exchange of information and democratic dialogue is now a customized whisper campaign: Groups both ethical and malicious can divide Americans, whispering into the ear of each and every user, nudging them based on their fears and encouraging them to whisper to others who share those fears.”

3. What should I do in response?

The backlash has been significant, with most Facebook users expressing some level of concern over what might be done with personal data Facebook has on them. As sociologists Denise Anthony and Luke Stark explain, people shouldn’t trust Facebook or other companies that collect massive amounts of user data: “Neither regulations nor third-party institutions currently exist to ensure that social media companies are trustworthy.”

4. What if I want to quit Facebook?

Many people have thought about, and talked about, deleting their Facebook accounts. But it’s harder than most people expect to actually do so. A communications research group at the University of Pennsylvania discussed all the psychological boosts that keep people hooked on social media, including Facebook’s own overt protestations:

“When one of us tried deactivating her account, she was told how huge the loss would be – profile disabled, all the memories evaporating, losing touch with over 500 friends.”

5. Should I be worried about future data-using manipulation?

If Facebook is that hard to leave, just think about what will happen as virtual reality becomes more popular. The powerful algorithms that manipulate Facebook users are not nearly as effective as VR will be, with its full immersion, writes user-experience scholar Elissa Redmiles:

“A person who uses virtual reality is, often willingly, being controlled to far greater extents than were ever possible before. Everything a person sees and hears – and perhaps even feels or smells – is totally created by another person.”

And people are concerned now that they’re too trusting.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Improve your internet safety: 4 essential reads

Staying safe online requires more than just a good password. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

On Feb. 6, technology companies, educators and others mark Safer Internet Day and urge people to improve their online safety. Many scholars and academic researchers around the U.S. are studying aspects of cybersecurity and have identified ways people can help themselves stay safe online. Here are a few highlights from their work.

1. Passwords are a weakness

With all the advice to make passwords long, complex and unique – and not reused from site to site – remembering passwords becomes a problem, but there’s help, writes Elon University computer scientist Megan Squire:

“The average internet user has 19 different passwords. … Software can help! The job of password management software is to take care of generating and remembering unique, hard-to-crack passwords for each website and application.”

That’s a good start.

2. Use a physical key

To add another layer of protection, keep your most important accounts locked with an actual physical key, writes Penn State-Altoona information sciences and technology professor Jungwoo Ryoo:

“A new, even more secure method is gaining popularity, and it’s a lot like an old-fashioned metal key. It’s a computer chip in a small portable physical form that makes it easy to carry around. The chip itself contains a method of authenticating itself.”

Just don’t leave your keys on the table at home.

3. Protect your data in the cloud

Many people store documents, photos and even sensitive private information in cloud services like Google Drive, Dropbox and iCloud. That’s not always the safest practice because of where the data’s encryption keys are stored, explains computer scientist Haibin Zhang at University of Maryland, Baltimore County:

“Just like regular keys, if someone else has them, they might be stolen or misused without the data owner knowing. And some services might have flaws in their security practices that leave users’ data vulnerable.”

So check with your provider, and consider where to best store your most important data.

4. Don’t forget about the rest of the world

Sadly, in the digital age, nowhere is truly safe. Jeremy Straub from North Dakota State University explains how physical objects can be used to hijack your smartphone:

“Attackers may find it very attractive to embed malicious software in the physical world, just waiting for unsuspecting people to scan it with a smartphone or a more specialized device. Hidden in plain sight, the malicious software becomes a sort of ‘sleeper agent’ that can avoid detection until it reaches its target.”

It’s a reminder that using the internet more safely isn’t just a one-day effort.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Is there such a thing as online privacy? 7 essential reads

Who’s sharing your secrets? Antonio Guillem/Shutterstock

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Over the course of 2017, people in the U.S. and around the world became increasingly concerned about how their digital data are transmitted, stored and analyzed. As news broke that every Yahoo email account had been compromised, as well as the financial information of nearly every adult in the U.S., the true scale of how much data private companies have about people became clearer than ever.

This, of course, brings them enormous profits, but comes with significant social and individual risks. Many scholars are researching aspects of this issue, both describing the problem in greater detail and identifying ways people can reclaim power over the data their lives and online activity generate. Here we spotlight seven examples from our 2017 archives.

1. The government doesn’t think much of user privacy

One major concern people have about digital privacy is how much access the police might have to their online information, like what websites people visit and what their emails and text messages say. Mobile phones can be particularly revealing, not only containing large amounts of private information, but also tracking users’ locations. As H.V. Jagadish at University of Michigan writes, the government doesn’t think smartphones’ locations are private information. The legal logic defies common sense:

“By carrying a cellphone – which communicates on its own with the phone company – you have effectively told the phone company where you are. Therefore, your location isn’t private, and the police can get that information from the cellphone company without a warrant, and without even telling you they’re tracking you.

2. Neither do software designers

But mobile phone companies and the government aren’t the only people with access to data on people’s smartphones. Mobile apps of all kinds can monitor location, user activity and data stored on their users’ phones. As an international group of telecommunications security scholars found, ”More than 70 percent of smartphone apps are reporting personal data to third-party tracking companies like Google Analytics, the Facebook Graph API or Crashlytics.“

Those companies can even merge information from different apps – one that tracks a user’s location and another that tracks, say, time spent playing a game or money spent through a digital wallet – to develop extremely detailed profiles of individual users.

3. People care, but struggle to find information

Despite how concerned people are, they can’t actually easily find out what’s being shared about them, when or to whom. Florian Schaub at the University of Michigan explains the conflicting purposes of apps’ and websites’ privacy policies:

"Companies use a privacy policy to demonstrate compliance with legal and regulatory notice requirements, and to limit liability. Regulators in turn use privacy policies to investigate and enforce compliance with regulations.”

That can leave consumers without the information they need to make informed choices.

4. Boosting comprehension

Another problem with privacy policies is that they’re incomprehensible. Anyone who does try to read and understand them will be quickly frustrated by the legalese and awkward language. Karuna Pande Joshi and Tim Finin from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County suggest that artificial intelligence could help:

“What if a computerized assistant could digest all that legal jargon in a few seconds and highlight key points? Perhaps a user could even tell the automated assistant to pay particular attention to certain issues, like when an email address is shared, or whether search engines can index personal posts.”

That would certainly make life simpler for users, but it would preserve a world in which privacy is not a given.

5. Programmers could help, too

Jean Yang at Carnegie Mellon University is working to change that assumption. At the moment, she explains, computer programmers have to keep track of users’ choices about privacy protections throughout all the various programs a site uses to operate. That makes errors both likely and hard to track down.

Yang’s approach, called “policy-agnostic programming,” builds sharing restrictions right into the software design process. That both forces developers to address privacy, and makes it easier for them to do so.

6. So could a new way of thinking about it

But it may not be enough for some software developers to choose programming tools that would protect their users’ data. Scott Shackelford from Indiana University discussed the movement to declare cybersecurity – including data privacy – a human right recognized under international law.

He predicts real progress will result from consumer demand:

“As people use online services more in their daily lives, their expectations of digital privacy and freedom of expression will lead them to demand better protections. Governments will respond by building on the foundations of existing international law, formally extending into cyberspace the human rights to privacy, freedom of expression and improved economic well-being.”

But governments can be slow to act, leaving people to protect themselves in the meantime.

7. The real basis of all privacy is strong encryption

The fundamental way to protect privacy is to make sure data is stored so securely that only the people authorized to access it are able to read it. Susan Landau at Tufts University explains the importance of individuals having access to strong encryption. And she observes police and the intelligence community are coming around to understanding this view:

“Increasingly, a number of former senior law enforcement and national security officials have come out strongly in support of end-to-end encryption and strong device protection …, which can protect against hacking and other data theft incidents.”

One day, perhaps, governments and businesses will have the same concerns about individuals’ privacy as people themselves do. Until then, strong encryption without special access for law enforcement or other authorities will remain the only reliable guardian of privacy.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

FBI tries to crack another smartphone: 5 essential reads

Who should be allowed inside? PopTika/Shutterstock.com

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of archival stories.

Federal investigators following up on the mass shooting at a Texas church on Nov. 5 have seized the alleged shooter’s smartphone – reportedly an iPhone – but are reporting they are unable to unlock it, to decode its encryption and read any data or messages stored on it.

The situation adds fuel to an ongoing dispute over whether, when and how police should be allowed to defeat encryption systems on suspects’ technological devices. Here are highlights of The Conversation’s coverage of that debate.

#1. Police have never had unfettered access to everything

The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice have in recent years – especially since the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California – been increasing calls for what they term “exceptional access,” a way around encryption that police could use to gather information on crimes both future and past. Technology and privacy scholar Susan Landau, at Tufts University, argues that limits and challenges to investigative power are strengths of democracy, not weaknesses:

“[L]aw enforcement has always had to deal with blocks to obtaining evidence; the exclusionary rule, for example, means that evidence collected in violation of a citizen’s constitutional protections is often inadmissible in court.”

Further, she notes that almost any person or organization, including community groups, could be a potential target for hackers – and therefore should use strong encryption in their communications and data storage:

“This broad threat to fundamental parts of American society poses a serious danger to national security as well as individual privacy. Increasingly, a number of former senior law enforcement and national security officials have come out strongly in support of end-to-end encryption and strong device protection (much like the kind Apple has been developing), which can protect against hacking and other data theft incidents.”

#2. FBI has other ways to get this information

The idea of weakening encryption for everyone just so police can have an easier time is increasingly recognized as unworkable, writes Ben Buchanan, a fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Instead,

“The future of law enforcement and intelligence gathering efforts involving digital information is an emerging field that I and others who are exploring it sometimes call "lawful hacking.” Rather than employing a skeleton key that grants immediate access to encrypted information, government agents will have to find other technical ways – often involving malicious code – and other legal frameworks.“

Indeed he observes, when the FBI failed to force Apple to unlock the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone,

"the FBI found another way. The bureau hired an outside firm that was able to exploit a vulnerability in the iPhone’s software and gain access. It wasn’t the first time the bureau had done such a thing.”

#3. It’s not just about iPhones

When the San Bernardino suspect’s iPhone was targeted by investigators, Android researchers William Enck and Adwait Nadkarni at North Carolina State University tried to crack a smartphone themselves. They found that one key to encryption’s effectiveness is proper setup:

“Overall, devices running the most recent versions of iOS and Android are comparably protected against offline attacks, when configured correctly by both the phone manufacturer and the end user. Older versions may be more vulnerable; one system could be cracked in less than 10 seconds. Additionally, configuration and software flaws by phone manufacturers may also compromise security of both Android and iOS devices.”

#4. What they’re not looking for

What are investigators hoping to find, anyway? It’s nearly a given that they aren’t looking for emails the suspect may have sent or received. As Georgia State University constitutional scholar Clark Cunningham explains, the government already believes it is allowed to read all of a person’s email, without the email owner ever knowing:

“[The] law allows the government to use a warrant to get electronic communications from the company providing the service – rather than the true owner of the email account, the person who uses it.

"And the government then usually asks that the warrant be "sealed,” which means it won’t appear in public court records and will be hidden from you. Even worse, the law lets the government get what is called a “gag order,” a court ruling preventing the company from telling you it got a warrant for your email.“

#5. The political stakes are high

With this new case, federal officials risk weakening public support for giving investigators special access to circumvent or evade encryption. After the controversy over the San Bernardino shooter’s phone, public demand for privacy and encryption climbed, wrote Carnegie Mellon professor Rahul Telang:

"Repeated stories on data breaches and privacy invasion, particularly from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, appears to have heightened users’ attention to security and privacy. Those two attributes have become important enough that companies are finding it profitable to advertise and promote them.

"Apple, in particular, has highlighted the security of its products recently and reportedly is doubling down and plans to make it even harder for anyone to crack an iPhone.”

It seems unlikely this debate will ever truly go away: Police will continue to want easy access to all information that might help them prevent or solve crimes, and regular people will continue to want to protect their private information and communications from prying eyes, whether that’s criminals, hackers or, indeed, the government itself.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Using truly secure passwords: 6 essential reads

Scholars have ideas about how to help solve our password problems. vladwei/Shutterstock.com

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Editor’s note: the following is roundup of previously published articles.

Passwords are everywhere – and they present an impossible puzzle. Social media profiles, financial records, personal correspondence and vital work documents are all protected by passwords. To keep all that information safe, the rules sound simple: Passwords need to be long, different for every site, easy to remember, hard to guess and never written down. But we’re only human! What is to be done about our need for secure passwords?

Get good advice

Sadly, much of the password advice people have been given over the past decade-plus is wrong, and in part that’s because the real threat is not an individual hacker targeting you specifically, write five scholars who are part of the Carnegie Mellon University passwords research group:

“People who are trying to break into online accounts don’t just sit down at a computer and make a few guesses…. [C]omputer programs let them make millions or billions of guesses in just a few hours…. [So] users need to go beyond choosing passwords that are hard for a human to guess: Passwords need to be difficult for a computer to figure out.”

To help, those researchers have developed a system that checks passwords as users create them, and offers immediate advice about how to make each password stronger.

Use a password manager

All that computing power can work to our advantage too, writes Elon University computer scientist Megan Squire:

“The average internet user has 19 different passwords. It’s easy to see why people write them down on sticky notes or just click the ‘I forgot my password’ link. Software can help! The job of password management software is to take care of generating and remembering unique, hard-to-crack passwords for each website and application.”

That sounds like a good start.

Getting emoji – 🐱💦🎆🎌 – into the act

Then again, it might be even better not to use any regular characters. A group of emoji could improve security, writes Florian Schaub, an assistant professor of information and of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan:

“We found that emoji passcodes consisting of six randomly selected emojis were hardest to steal over a user’s shoulder. Other types of passcodes, such as four or six emojis in a pattern, or four or six numeric digits, were easier to observe and recall correctly.”

Still, emoji are – like letters and numbers – drawn from a finite library of options. So they’re vulnerable to being guessed by powerful computers.

Drawing toward a solution

To add even more potential variation to the mix, consider making a quick doodle-like drawing to serve as a password. Janne Lindqvist from Rutgers University calls that sort of motion a “gesture,” and is working on a system to do just that:

“We have explored the potential for people to use doodles instead of passwords on several websites. It appeared to be no more difficult to remember multiple gestures than it is to recall different passwords for each site. In fact, it was faster: Logging in with a gesture took two to six seconds less time than doing so with a text password. It’s faster to generate a gesture than a password, too: People spent 42 percent less time generating gesture credentials than people we studied who had to make up new passwords. We also found that people could successfully enter gestures without spending as much attention on them as they had to with text passwords.”

Easier to make, faster to enter, and not any more difficult to remember? That’s progress.

A world without passwords

Any type of password is inherently vulnerable, though, because it is an heir to centuries of tradition in writing, writes literature scholar Brian Lennon of Pennsylvania State University:

“[E]ven the strongest password … can be used anywhere and at any time once it has been separated from its assigned user. It is for this reason that both security professionals and knowledgeable users have been calling for the abandonment of password security altogether.”

What would be left then? Only attributes about who we are as living beings.

The unknowable password

Identifying people based not on what they know, but rather their actual biology, is perhaps the ultimate goal. This goes well beyond fingerprints and retina scans, Elon’s Squire explains:

“[A] computer game similar to ‘Guitar Hero’ [can] train the subconscious brain to learn a series of keystrokes. When a musician memorizes how to play a piece of music, she doesn’t need to think about each note or sequence. It becomes an ingrained, trained reaction usable as a password but nearly impossible even for the musician to spell out note by note, or for the user to disclose letter by letter.”

That might just do away with passwords altogether. And yet if you’re really just longing for the days of deadbolts, padlocks and keys, you’re not alone.

Don’t just leave things to a password

User authentication using an electronic key is here, as Penn State-Altoona information sciences and technology professor Jungwoo Ryoo writes:

“A new, even more secure method is gaining popularity, and it’s a lot like an old-fashioned metal key. It’s a computer chip in a small portable physical form that makes it easy to carry around. (It even typically has a hole to fit on a keychain.) The chip itself contains a method of authenticating itself … And it has USB or wireless connections so it can either plug into any computer easily or communicate wirelessly with a mobile device.”

Just don’t leave your keys on the table at home.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

3.14 essential reads about π for Pi Day

We need just a little more party hat… Yelp/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of archival stories.

On March 14, or 3/14, mathematicians and other obscure-holiday aficionados celebrate Pi Day, honoring π, the Greek symbol representing an irrational number that begins with 3.14. Pi, as schoolteachers everywhere repeat, represents the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

What is Pi Day, and what, really, do we know about π anyway? Here are three-and-bit-more articles to round out your Pi Day festivities.

A silly holiday

First off, a reflection on this “holiday” construct. Pi itself is very important, writes mathematics professor Daniel Ullman of George Washington University, but celebrating it is absurd:

The Gregorian calendar, the decimal system, the Greek alphabet, and pies are relatively modern, human-made inventions, chosen arbitrarily among many equivalent choices. Of course a mood-boosting piece of lemon meringue could be just what many math lovers need in the middle of March at the end of a long winter. But there’s an element of absurdity to celebrating π by noting its connections with these ephemera, which have themselves no connection to π at all, just as absurd as it would be to celebrate Earth Day by eating foods that start with the letter “E.”

And yet, here we are, looking at the calendar and getting goofily giddy about the sequence of numbers it shows us.

There’s never enough

In fact, as Jon Borwein of the University of Newcastle and David H. Bailey of the University of California, Davis, document, π is having a sustained cultural moment, popping up in literature, film and song:

Sometimes the attention given to pi is annoying. On 14 August 2012, the U.S. Census Office announced the population of the country had passed exactly 314,159,265. Such precision was, of course, completely unwarranted. But sometimes the attention is breathtakingly pleasurable.

Come to think of it, pi can indeed be a source of great pleasure. Apple’s always comforting, and cherry packs a tart pop. Chocolate cream, though, might just be where it’s at.

Strange connections

Of course π appears in all kinds of places that relate to circles. But it crops up in other places, too – often where circles are hiding in plain sight. Lorenzo Sadun, a professor of mathematics at the University of Texas at Austin, explores surprising appearances:

Pi also crops up in probability. The function f(x)=e^-x², where e=2.71828… is Euler’s number, describes the most common probability distribution seen in the real world, governing everything from SAT scores to locations of darts thrown at a target. The area under this curve is exactly the square root of π.

It’s enough to make your head spin.

Historical pi

If you want to engage with π more directly, follow the lead of Georgia State University mathematician Xiaojing Ye, whose guide starts thousands of years ago:

The earliest written approximations of pi are 3.125 in Babylon (1900-1600 B.C.) and 3.1605 in ancient Egypt (1650 B.C.). Both approximations start with 3.1 – pretty close to the actual value, but still relatively far off.

By the end of his article, you’ll find a method to calculate π for yourself. You can even try it at home!

An irrational bonus

And because π is irrational, we’ll irrationally give you even one more, from education professor Gareth Ffowc Roberts at Bangor University in Wales, who highlights the very humble beginnings of the symbol π:

After attending a charity school, William Jones of the parish of Llanfihangel Tre’r Beirdd landed a job as a merchant’s accountant and then as a maths teacher on a warship, before publishing A New Compendium of the Whole Art of Navigation, his first book in 1702 on the mathematics of navigation. On his return to Britain he began to teach maths in London, possibly starting by holding classes in coffee shops for a small fee.

Shortly afterwards he published “Synopsis palmariorum matheseos,” a summary of the current state of the art developments in mathematics which reflected his own particular interests. In it is the first recorded use of the symbol π as the number that gives the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

What made him realize that this ratio needed a symbol to represent a numeric value? And why did he choose π? It’s all Greek to us.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Understanding net neutrality: 10 essential reads

Via shutterstock.com

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of archival stories, and is an updated version of an article previously published Jan. 24, 2017.

Ajit Pai. Federal Communications Commission

Ajit Pai, President Trump’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is a longtime foe of net neutrality. He has proposed completely repealing the Obama administration’s 2015 Open Internet Order, a decision the commission will likely vote to confirm on Dec. 14.

But what is net neutrality, this policy Pai has spent years criticizing? Here are some highlights of The Conversation’s coverage of the controversy around the concept of keeping the internet open:

1. Public interest versus private profit

The basic conflict is a result of the history of the internet, and the telecommunications industry more generally, writes internet law scholar Allen Hammond at Santa Clara University:

Like the telephone, broadcast and cable predecessors from which they evolved, the wire and mobile broadband networks that carry internet traffic travel over public property. The spectrum and land over which these broadband networks travel are known as rights of way. Congress allowed each network technology to be privately owned. However, the explicit arrangement has been that private owner access to the publicly owned spectrum and rights of way necessary to exploit the technology is exchanged for public access and speech rights.

The government is trying to balance competing interests in how the benefits of those network services. Should people have unfiltered access to any and all data services, or should some internet providers be allowed to charge a premium to let companies reach audiences more widely and more quickly?

2. Media is the basis of democracy

Pai’s move against net neutrality, media scholar Christopher Ali at the University of Virginia writes, is just part of a larger effort at the FCC to accelerate the deregulation trend of the past 30 years. The stakes are high:

Media is more than just our window on the world. It’s how we talk to each other, how we engage with our society and our government. Without a media environment that serves the public’s need to be informed, connected and involved, our democracy and our society will suffer….

If only a few wealthy companies control how Americans communicate with each other, it will be harder for people to talk among ourselves about the kind of society we want to build.

3. Pushing back against corporate control

Competition is already fairly limited, it turns out. Across America, most people have very little – if any – choice in who their internet provider is. Communication studies professor Amanda Lotz at the University of Michigan explains the concerns raised by a monopoly marketplace and the potential effects of turning back the current policy of net neutrality:

The rules were created out of concern internet service providers would reserve high-speed internet lanes for content providers who could pay for it, while relegating to slower speeds those that didn’t – or couldn’t, such as libraries, local governments and universities. Net neutrality is also important for innovation, because it protects small and start-up companies’ access to the massive online marketplace of internet users.

In this view, the internet is a public utility that should be preserved and protected for all to access freely.

4. Getting around the rules

Even with net neutrality rules in place, companies were pushing the boundaries of what is legal. In recent years, many mobile internet providers have been simultaneously imposing and creating exemptions from limits on how much data their customers can use in a given month. Called “zero rating policies,” these exemptions omit from the monthly cap certain types of data, or certain companies’ data. For example, T-Mobile customers can listen endlessly to Spotify internet radio regardless of how much high-speed data they use for other purposes. Information systems scholars Liangfei Qiu, Soohyun Cho and Subhajyoti Bandyopadhyay at the University of Florida examined the effects of those policies on the marketplace:

At first glance, zero rating plans would seem to be good for consumers because they allow users to consume traffic for free. But our research suggests the variety of content may be reduced, which in the long run harms consumers.

Their findings suggest that keeping the internet open would be best for the public.

5. Regulation isn’t always a good solution

However, regulating with that sort of goal could be risky because of the fast-changing nature of the internet, writes technology policy scholar Scott Wallsten at Georgetown:

Today’s business models may not be viable in the future. Net neutrality rules run counter to that reality by freezing in place a particular industry structure, making it difficult for firms to respond to underlying changes in technology and consumer demand over time.

6. A vestige of the 20th century

Whether net neutrality rises or falls, however, the debate will continue. The rules and frameworks the government uses to try to regulate the internet are long out of date, and were written to address a very different time, when landline telephone service was not yet ubiquitous. Boston University communication and law professor T. Barton Carter explained what the real solution is:

The laws governing the internet were written in the early 20th century, decades before the companies that dominate the internet like Google and YouTube even existed. The only solution is a complete rewrite of the 80-year-old Communications Act – unfortunately a fool’s errand in today’s Washington.

7. Can net neutrality even happen?

And maintaining net neutrality itself could be a major challenge, if not a fool’s errand, thanks to important technical details that could make the ideal impossible, writes University of Michigan computer scientist Harsha Madhyastha:

If one user is streaming video and another is backing up data to the cloud, should both of them have their data slowed down? Or would users’ collective experience be best if those watching videos were given priority? That would mean slightly slowing down the data backup, freeing up bandwidth to minimize video delays and keep the picture quality high.

8. Check for yourself

What it looks like when an internet provider throttles content. Screenshot of Northeastern University Wehe app, CC BY-ND

Northeastern University computer scientist David Choffnes describes how his team built an app that can measure exactly how internet service providers handle different types of traffic:

The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is – or isn’t – as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes. Regular people can explore their own services with our mobile app for Android, which is out now; an iOS version is coming soon.

Letting people see whether, and how, their data service handles internet traffic may be the best way to show people the importance of an open internet.

9. Very large stakes

If net neutrality is repealed, it could spell disaster for America’s position as an international leader in online innovation, writes global business scholar Bhaskar Chakravorti at Tufts:

Based on our findings, I believe that rolling back net neutrality rules will jeopardize the digital startup ecosystem that has created value for customers, wealth for investors and globally recognized leadership for American technology companies and entrepreneurs. The digital economy in the U.S. is already on the verge of stalling; failing to protect an open internet would further erode the United States’ digital competitiveness, making a troubling situation even worse.

10. Setting clearer guidelines

If Pai’s proposal goes through, it will signal that future changes in partisan control in Washington, D.C., could also lead to major shifts in internet regulation. A key part of this potential problem is lack of clarity in the laws, meaning regulators and courts have to sort through major policy questions that would better be dealt with in Congress, writes Timothy Brennan, a former chief economist at the FCC who is now a public policy scholar at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He explains three steps Congress could take to simplify the debate – without even having to agree on the policy itself:

If Congress could enact legislation that removed the distinction between “telecommunication” and “information” services, reinforced the importance of the public interest in communications and restored antitrust enforcement power for regulators, the FCC would be better able to develop net neutrality regulations – whatever they may turn out to be – with solid substantive and legal foundations.

That could go a long way to furthering both public debate and public policy.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Securing the voting process: Four essential reads

How secure is your vote? Hands with votes illustration via shutterstock.com

Jeff Inglis, The Conversation

Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of stories related to election cybersecurity.

Every vote counts. It’s the key principle underlying democracy. Through the history of democratic elections, people have created many safeguards to ensure votes are cast and counted fairly: paper ballots, curtains around voting booths, locked ballot boxes, supervised counting, provisions for recounting and more.

With the advent of computer technology has come the prospect of faster counting of votes, and even, some hope, more secure and accurate voting. That’s much harder to achieve than it might seem, though. Here are highlights of The Conversation’s coverage of why that is.

Voting machines are old

After the debacle of the 2000 election’s efforts to count votes, the federal government handed out massive amounts of money to the states to buy newer voting equipment that, everyone hoped, would avoid a repeat of the “hanging chad” mess. But more than a decade later, as Lawrence Norden and Christopher Famighetti at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University explain, that one-time cash infusion has left a troubling legacy:

Imagine you went to your basement and dusted off the laptop or mobile phone that you used in 2002. What would happen if you tried to turn it on? We don’t have to guess. Around the country this election year, people are going into storage, pulling out computers that date back to 2002 and asking us to vote on them.

They asked election officials around the country about the situation, and report on some worrying findings, including how vulnerable the equipment is to cyberattack, and how voting machine breakdowns lead to long lines that deter voters from participating.

Not everyone can use the devices

Also limiting voter turnout is the fact that most voting machines don’t make accommodations for people with physical disabilities that affect how they vote. Juan Gilbert at the University of Florida quantifies the problem:

“In the 2012 presidential election, … The turnout rate for voters with disabilities was 5.7 percent lower than for people without disabilities. If voters with disabilities had voted at the same rate as those without a disability, there would have been three million more voters weighing in on issues of local, state and national significance.”

To date, most efforts to solve the problems have involved using special voting equipment just for people with particular disabilities. That’s expensive and inefficient – and remember, separate is not equal. Gilbert has invented an open-source (read: inexpensive) voting machine system that can be used by people with many different disabilities, as well as people without disabilities.

With the system, which has been tested and approved in several states, voters can cast their ballots using a keyboard, a joystick, physical buttons, a touchscreen or even their voice.

Machines are not secure

Nearly every voting machine in use, though, is vulnerable to various sorts of cyberattacks. For years, researchers have documented ways to tamper with vote counts, and yet few machines have had their cyberdefenses upgraded.

The fact that the election system is so widespread – with multiple machines in every municipality nationwide – also makes it weaker, writes Richard Forno at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County: There are simply more opportunities for an attacker to find a way in.

“Voter registration and administration systems operated by state and national governments are at risk too. Hacks here could affect voter rosters and citizen databases. Failing to secure these systems and records could result in fraudulent information in the voter database that may lead to improper (or illegal) voter registrations and potentially the casting of fraudulent votes.”

Even without an attack, major concerns

Even if an attack never happens – or if nobody can prove one happened – November’s election is vulnerable to sore losers taking advantage of the fact that cyberweaknesses exist.

There is more than enough evidence that a cyberattack is possible. And just that prospect could destabilize the country, argues Herbert Lin of Stanford University:

Imagine that on Nov. 9, the day after Election Day, the early presidential election returns show that Donald Trump has lost. … Trump could call the electronically tallied vote counts obviously fraudulent. Even without pointing to any internal campaign polling suggesting he would win, he could highlight the indisputable fact that no one knows what is going on inside the voting machines.

It’s enough to make you turn out to vote, and keep you up all night afterward.

Jeff Inglis, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Moving Beyond FracFocus: Bringing Real Transparency to Fracking

Since its launch in 2011, FracFocus, a government- and industry-funded website, has been the only place where Americans could learn the details about chemicals and water used in fracking operations near their homes, schools and businesses. But FracFocus has never lived up to its promise of bringing true transparency to fracking. And now, at least one state is planning to set its own course for fracking disclosure.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has announced that it is withdrawing from FracFocus. Starting in March 2016, Pennsylvania’s fracking operators will have to report electronically to a state database that will present citizens with a map-based interface with simple one-click summaries of specific wells, in addition to downloadable bulk data.

Pennsylvania officials say this is to counter FracFocus’s lack of user-friendliness, which has long been a source of consternation to researchers attempting to document the impacts and risks of fracking. For many years, FracFocus’s website was populated with individual PDF files, scanned copies of forms filed by fracking companies. Initially, many of those disclosures were voluntary; as the site’s influence grew, states began requiring frackers to file with FracFocus. But the database was always far from complete.

FracFocus could be useful for citizens curious about an individual well, but the database was notoriously unfriendly to those wanting to probe more deeply into fracking. For a long time, searches could not return more than 2,000 records. From those search results, users could not download more than a small number of actual disclosure forms each day. What they were able to download was not machine-readable or searchable in any way.

Those limitations persisted as FracFocus improved its underlying data structure, in 2013 requiring disclosures to be submitted in a machine-readable format to an electronic database.

It was 2015 before the public was allowed to download machine-readable data. This latest improvement in FracFocus transparency is welcome, but still falls short of modern standards for making data available and accessible to the public. In Frontier Group’s work on government spending transparency, we have argued that, to be useful to the public, transparency data must (among other things) be searchable, bulk-downloadable, and “one-stop,” meaning that citizens shouldn’t have to jump through multiple hoops or have specialized knowledge to obtain important information.

By contrast, here’s what the average person would have to do to even look at the bulk-downloadable data from FracFocus:

• Download, install, configure and operate a major database server system, Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio, as well as SQL Server Configuration Manager. They are free, but hard to find on the Microsoft download website (the latest version is here). They have terribly un-intuitive interfaces once they’re running. They are also PC-specific, so Mac users are out of luck.
• Purchase Microsoft Access, a database program not included in the regular version of Microsoft Office (the one that includes Word, Excel and PowerPoint). Microsoft charges $109.99; Amazon’s price is $99.99. (You could use a different database program, but the instructions provided by FracFocus are Access-specific.)
• Follow a complicated series of steps – laid out in a nine-page PDF document provided by FracFocus – to convert the data to a form usable by Microsoft Access.
• Construct queries in Access – not a simple point-and-click database program by any stretch – and interpret the results.

This process is not for the faint of heart, nor for the computer-inexperienced.

Even then, the data are not presented clearly. Rather than a company simply listing how many gallons of water and how many pounds of which chemicals it pumped deep underground at which well, key numbers are presented as percentages of the final fracking fluid. That requires a significant series of careful database queries and spreadsheet calculations to get actual usable figures.

With luck, Pennsylvania’s reporting system will set a new standard for public disclosure of, and citizen access to, data related to fracking. The creation of separate databases for every state where fracking occurs is not the ideal solution – a high-quality national database would be better. But until FracFocus catches up to the standards of data quality and user-friendliness people expect in the 21st century, citizens will need to look to the states to protect their access to this important information that affects their health and well-being.

EPA Study Confirms Fracking’s Dangers to Drinking Water

Does fracking harm drinking water? The EPA spent five years studying it. And from some of the press coverage, you might be confused about the answer.

But here is the real bottom line: The EPA study finds that fracking can harm drinking water in a variety of well-understood ways. It also finds that fracking has harmed drinking water in a number of instances across the country. And there are likely many more instances of harm from fracking than the EPA or anyone else has yet discovered.

The EPA concludes that fracking is linked to “important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources.” Translation: Fracking threatens water quality. Period.

The threats are five-fold, according to the EPA’s report:

• Fracking can strain water resources, especially in dry places or regions suffering from drought.
• Chemicals used in fracking, fracking fluid, and water from underground formations (which can be laced with toxics and radioactive elements), all have the potential to leak into water supplies.
• Wells can be drilled into underground aquifers.
• Chemical-laden liquids and gases can move through fractured rock underground, exiting formations that contain oil and natural gas, and entering water-bearing formations.
• Fracking wastewater can be stored, treated and disposed of in ways that risk causing water pollution.

These are among the threats that researchers have been chronicling for years. The fracking industry has tried to sidestep these concerns, but the EPA report underscores that the threats are real.

The dangers the EPA found, and the occasions on which they are known to have contaminated drinking water, may not be the only ways fracking threatens drinking water. The EPA’s report notes that researchers encountered severe data limitations – including industry-backed restrictions on publicizing the number and location of fracking wells, as well as the identities and quantities of chemicals used – that limit our ability to know the full truth about fracking’s dangers.

The question now is what to do with the knowledge we do have. Should fracking be banned outright? Can stronger regulations be sufficiently protective of the public? Or should we continue with business as usual?

In considering the answer to those questions, it is important to ask a few others:

• Is a short-term boost in fossil fuel production worth risking enduring damage to groundwater supplies – damage that can be prohibitively expensive, if not impossible, to fully clean up?
• Is it fair to subject those living in areas where fracking takes place to the risk of water contamination in order to deliver cheaper fossil fuels to the rest of us?
• Is it smart to allow the widespread use of a self-evidently risky technology for more than a decade before determining whether it poses a threat to drinking water?
• Drinking water contamination is just one of many potential dangers posed by fracking. If one adds the public health damage caused by fracking-related air pollution, the damage to natural areas, the impact on local infrastructure and quality of life, and other costs of fracking, is it ever worth doing?

Cities across the country, as well as the state of New York, have come to the conclusion that the answer to the last question is “no” – fracking simply isn’t worth the risks.

Even in places where fracking continues to take place, however, the EPA report has important implications. The risk posed by fracking to water supplies justifies requiring fracking companies to post bonds or other forms of financial assurance sufficient to ensure that the companies – not taxpayers – pay the full cost of cleaning up any damage.

And the data gaps in the EPA report indicate that it is critical to improve data collection on drinking water sources before and after fracking occurs, as well as to conduct additional hydrological studies about all methods of potential contamination of our precious drinking water sources.

We need to protect everyone’s water – including those people who live in areas where fracking is widespread. We should not threaten the scarce and valuable water supplies on which our lives depend by extracting from the ground polluting fossil fuels whose combustion endangers our very existence.

Getting the Public into the Policy Act

The other morning I met a disgruntled woman at my bus stop. She had been waiting more than 20 minutes for a bus to come along, after which three buses showed up in rapid succession. While we stood on the curb, she fumed: Rather than getting three buses at 30-minute intervals, couldn’t the transit agency send one bus every 10 minutes?

It turns out, though, that there are reasons for “bus bunching,” and one of the best ways to learn about the problem – and identify possible solutions – is to play a simple game created by engineering student Lewis Lehe and designer Dennys Hess (h/t CityLab). Through the game interface, you can try out your ideas for how to reduce or prevent bus bunching, with system responses that match the academic literature on the subject.

Game interfaces have the potential to be great tools for democratic engagement in policy making. They make complicated concepts understandable to a wide range of people, and enable ordinary citizens (and policy-makers) to test out potential scenarios for improvements.

I first did this in SimCity, the brilliant Maxis game series I played during middle and high school on my dad’s PC. I could create a city with no roads and only rail, or just subways. I could eliminate bus service and watch how my city thrived or collapsed into ruin. SimCity addressed many policy areas beyond transportation, including taxes, pollution from electricity generation, mixed-use land planning, police and fire coverage, and educational access.

SimCity and its ilk have allowed me and countless others to engage with these issues and experiment with solutions. Games don’t have to be complicated to be effective communicators. Among the many options are these simpler highlights that still give enough nuance to be fascinating:

• You can become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and play with interest rates to watch their effects on inflation and unemployment.
• The Nobel Prize Foundation teaches kids how malaria spreads, with options to play as either the malaria parasite or the mosquito.
• The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has a game that presents various dilemmas facing refugees, such as how to deal with persecution at home, how to escape to safety, and how to begin a new life elsewhere.
• MTV Networks even gets in on the action with a game in which the player runs a Darfur refugee camp, under threat of attack from local militants and with increasing numbers of people arriving in need of help.

Information doesn’t even have to be playable: Just looking like a game can make it more accessible, as in this video about subway delays from the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority.

The wider the range of options – as SimCity had, and Cities: Skylines, a just-out game that’s touted as its intellectual heir – the greater the potential for mass public involvement, and creative solution experimentation.

This can create a more informed public, which is essential to good government – if the rules of the game accurately represent reality. If games have the power to educate and engage, they also have the power to mislead.

But gamification of public policy choices and dilemmas isn’t just for recreation. Getting large numbers of people to play such games can enable us to crowd-source solutions to real-world problems, educate the public about critical policy choices and dilemmas, gain critical information about public concerns and preferences, and support richer, more informed, and more diverse participation in public policy debates.

Revamping Urban Bus Routes: Data Analysis Tools Show the Way

As cities across the country wrestle to reconcile increasing demand for transit services with budget challenges, optimizing transit service can be a key tool for squeezing maximum value out of every available transportation dollar. Data-powered evaluations offer the potential of making those decisions easier and provide better outcomes.

The transit agency serving Houston just revamped its entire route structure and schedule in search of improved efficiency.

Like in many cities, Houston’s previous route plan was 30 years old, and was based on residential and employment centers at that time. And as in most cities, what updates have occurred were modifications based on the old system, making only incremental attempts at accommodating the major shifts in urban living and working patterns over the decades.

Now there are tools that can help policymakers and the public understand what those shifts mean, offer ways to respond effectively, and potentially even keep pace with changes in future years.

Houston’s new plan, scrapping a downtown-centric hub-and-spoke layout in favor of a citywide grid system, is slated to take effect in August; anyone interested in urban transit systems should watch how the transition goes there, to learn what to do as well as, perhaps, some pitfalls to avoid.

Regardless of how Houston’s effort fares, cities across the country are going to need to transition their 20th century transportation systems to ones ready for the 21st century. Fortunately, there are new tools that can help policymakers and residents alike better understand the systems that exist now, and model the potential results of proposed changes.

For inventorying the service potential of existing systems, there are several examples:

• San Francisco has a new interactive map that allows people to see how much of the city they can reach in a given period of time. Most fascinating, it includes not only projections for days of normal operations, but also for days that are better or worse than normal.
• The Accessibility Observatory at the University of Minnesota released a study late in 2014 ranking U.S. cities by how accessible jobs were via transit during rush hour.
• New York City residents can delve even more deeply, looking at transit-accessible jobs by sector, thanks to the independent research and advocacy group Regional Plan Association.

For imagining how transit systems could work better overall, and for testing potential results of changes, Transitmix, an online system allowing people to create their own bus lines on data-filled maps of the real world has transitioned from game to tool used by professionals. The Oregon Department of Transportation is the first to sign up to use Transitmix to assess service statewide; the modeling potential is significant.

With these new data-powered tools, planning transportation for the city of the future can involve more people, more perspectives and more potential options.

Water, Pollution, Electricity Problems? Sewage Could Be the Solution

Earlier this month, Bill Gates made headlines around the world by drinking a glass of water. Five minutes beforehand, it had been human sewage.

The water was made by the OmniProcessor, a self-contained unit supported by the Gates Foundation that is targeted at helping the billions of people in the developing world who have no access to sewage sanitation, and who need clean potable water, electricity, and agricultural fertilizer.

For us in the developed world, it is a great example of how viewing issues as interrelated can turn a whole set of problems into solutions.

Thinking about sewage not as waste but as a resource shifts thinking about four vitally important areas of public concern:

• How to supply enough clean potable water for people to use
• How to generate enough electricity to meet rising demand
• How to handle human sewage as population grows and becomes more dense
• How to reduce pollution from fertilizer and chemical runoff from agricultural facilities

Right now, each of these is a very expensive proposition. But inventors and entrepreneurs are discovering that if addressed together, these problems can help solve each other, dramatically reducing costs, potentially paying for themselves, and possibly even generating a profit.

Producing safe drinking water and treating sewage costs about $7.5 billion a year in the U.S. alone, and the processes requires as much as 2 percent of total national electricity consumption, according to a June 2014 report from the U.S. Department of Energy [PDF].

Many of these treatment systems are wearing out, and need investment to be able to continue handle their existing workloads, much less accommodate future growth. The total cost estimate is nearly $700 billion over the next 20 years, according to that U.S. DOE report, which calls for combining elements of national energy and water policy efforts to promote self-sustaining wastewater treatment plants.

The water in sewage can be separated and purified. Bacteria that digest the waste produce methane that often qualifies as a renewable fuel, and can be burned to produce electricity or replace natural gas from deep underground. Left behind are nutrient-rich solids.

Several companies are trying various methods to do this:

• Improvements to digester designs mean future versions of today’s sewage plants could handle disposal of additional amounts of material, such as food waste from commercial food companies and even sludge from older sewage facilities.
• The OmniProcessor boils sewage, collecting the water vapor for purification, burns the remaining solids to generate electricity, and leaves behind ash that can be used to fertilize crops. See a video of how it works.
• A “microfuel refinery,” as its inventor terms it, microwaves sewage to dry it out, and then runs an electrical current through the dried waste. The vapor that’s produced can be condensed into a diesel fuel substitute.
• Sewage also has latent heat that can be recovered to provide heat and hot water for buildings.

These approaches don’t solve every problem relating to sewage, water or fertilizer. For example, the issue of latent toxics and pharmaceuticals in sewage solid waste remains, as does the potential for sewage-generated fertilizer to be applied in quantities that run off and pollute waterways.

But they make strong starts – and more importantly, encourage people to shift their thinking away from trying to solve individual problems, and toward thinking of the world as an interdependent system. Undoubtedly, new policy tools will be needed to help tap the potential of these silo-busting solutions.

Technology Can Help Solve Parking Problems

A Boston Globe investigation last week revealed two important reasons behind the city’s legendary parking woes.

The first, and the main subject of the article, is the city’s failure to manage demand for parking. There is, the Globe revealed, no limit on, nor any fee for, the number of permits a resident can get for on-street parking. One man reportedly “has residential parking permits for 10 cars, including two Ferraris, a Mercedes, and a Porsche” – a surprisingly valuable stable of vehicles to risk on the famously narrow streets of Boston.

More surprising to me, though, was this quote: “‘It's frustrating when you come home from work and have to drive . . . for an hour to find a space,’ said Ryan Kenny, who chairs the North End Waterfront Neighborhood Council’s parking committee.”

This is the second reason the article reveals underlying Boston’s parking woes: There is also a supply-management problem.

The North End is one of the most walkable and transit-accessible communities in the country, so its residents are less likely to need to drive than people who live elsewhere.

For those North Enders who do need to drive, they no doubt encounter a limited supply of parking, but that’s a feature, not a bug, of the dense development that makes the neighborhood a cherished destination for tourists and increasingly prized location for young professionals.

The city, however, is not managing the supply well. It can be done.

In nearby Dedham, changes to the parking fee structure – without adding any more spaces – have dramatically improved the situation in the town’s center.

Technological tools – analogous to those that are revolutionizing other aspects of transportation – are also available to help make parking more efficient.

In San Francisco, for example, real-time monitoring from the SFpark system allows people to see which areas of the city have parking garages with lots of available spots, as well as where on-street parking is priced at different rates.

That allows drivers to minimize the time they spend cruising for a space [PDF]. Instead, they can drive directly to a place with plenty of available parking, or know in advance they will need to spend more to secure a spot in a high-demand area.

In fact, Boston itself has made a start along this line in the South End, using similar technology, powered by the Parker app. The app not only knows where available spots are in rea time, but can give a driver turn-by-turn directions to get there.

Solving parking problems takes attention to all three aspects of the problem: limiting demand by either capping the number of permits issued to each resident, charging for permits, or some combination of both; expanding the use of technological tools to better manage the supply of spaces that do exist; and reducing individuals’ need to drive by developing transportation options that reduce the need for individuals to own (and therefore park) cars. Next week we’ll have a new report out exploring the latter issue – watch this space.