If I Had 50 Million Dollars

Money TreeIf I had any poetic talent, I would have done this in rhyming couplets set to the music of the Barenaked Ladies but sadly today you are left with my prose.  Hum along with me anyway.

If you work in the area of Open Government, Open Data, Transparency,  or even just ICTs and Development in general, you have probably heard of the Making All Voices Count (MAVC) initiative.  MAVC is a Grand Challenge for Development which brings together the UK Department for International Development (DFID/UKAID), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Omidyar Network (ON), and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) to create a $50 million fund to “support innovation, scaling-up, and research that will deepen existing innovations and help harness new technologies to enable citizen engagement and government responsiveness.

On Saturday, in response to an increasing number of interactions around MAVC that I’ve had over the last few weeks, I tweeted the following:

which garnered a few reactions.  Most interestingly @wayanvota issued a challenge to speak up and say just what was wrong with MAVC.  I was a little surprised by his reaction as I thought there were some fairly self-evident problems, mostly related to what happens when there is a large pot of money on the table.  It then occurred to me that perhaps this was perhaps not self-evident to all or perhaps even that I was simply jaded and cynical.  My first thought was to blog about the challenges that I think MAVC will face.  But frankly it’s easy to be a critic and anyone engaged in the field of philanthropy knows that it is hard, very hard indeed to do well.  If I had the time, I could pick holes in development initiatives all day.  Like shooting fish in a barrel but not as much fun.

So, perhaps more challenging, more constructive, and more fun would be to say, well *what would I do*. That is to say if someone said, here take this bag of 50 million dollars and go forth to create more open governance in the South.  A challenging prospect.  Achieving impact through the giving away of money is much more difficult than achieving impact in the private sector. Philanthropy lacks that marvellous feedback loop called the market which provides plenty of data for self-correction.  This doesn’t, as some suggest, make philanthropy bad. It just makes it more challenging.  So herewith my suggestion as to how to most effectively spend 50 million dollars on Open Government in the South.

My recipe is very simple.  I would pick 10 universities, one each in 10 countries in the South.  I would endow a chair for Cyber Law and Governance in each university for 10 years giving each university 5 million dollars.  That’s it.  Maybe I’d keep a million or two back to fund and facilitate networking among the universities but that’s it.  Here is my rationale:

  1. Open Governance, if it happens at all, has to be home-grown.  The power imbalance in development assistance hasn’t gone away.  Putting southern researchers in control of the agenda is a start towards mitigating that problem.
  2. Open Governance is still in its infancy.  There is no significant body of evidence of it making a difference in the South.  Granted MAVC plans to fund research, as do others, but what is really needed is sustained dialogue in the south between informed civil society and government.  Think of the role that someone like Michael Geist plays in Canada or Rufus Pollock in the UK.  Universities were and are the critical enablers for them.  We need more of that in the South, that is to say dialogue not solutions.  Solutions emerge naturally from constructive dialogue.
  3. Open Government is complex.  There is a kind of naive optimism around Open Government which comes from the forty thousand foot view that many donors have.  Kenya, the poster child for Open Government in Africa, has experienced its own challenges with Open Government. There are vested interests, entrenched centres of power, contradictory priorities (protection of privacy, cyber security, etc), lack of capacity and many other issues, all of which take time and engagement to deal with.  This calls more for sustained local dialogue, engagement, and capacity building than for entrepreneurs building open data apps.
  4. Most countries in the South have a critical lack of institutions that can engage on cyber governance issues.  It is not just Open Government but digital privacy, surveillance, cyber security, Internet governance and a host of other issues that demand a generation of researchers and policy-makers with the interest and capacity to lead their countries and probably the world to better decision-making on these issues.  Invest in those institutions and you will get Southern leadership on these issues and make it easier for future funders to find the right places to engage.
  5. Policy work is a long game.  Institutions need to know they can commit beyond a few years.  This would allow them the time and resources needed to bring about real change.

My 2 cents or 50 million dollars as the case may be.

 

Unpacking Our Mobile Broadband Future ITU Y U NO LIKE WIFI?

ITU Y U NO LIKE WIFI?The future is mobile.  We all know that.  We read it everywhere.  In the UN Broadband Commission‘s recently published report entitled, The State of Broadband 2012: Achieving Digital Inclusion For All, ITU analysts boldly announce their belief that:

“mobile broadband could prove the platform for achieving the boost needed to get progress back on track – at end 2011, there were already almost twice as many mobile broadband subscriptions as fixed broadband connections.”

But what does it actually mean and is it really true?  When talking about our mobile broadband future, it is essential to distinguish between devices and networks.  The two things are not necessarily the same thing.

The Future is Mobile Devices

This future I believe in.  Small, low-power wireless devices whether phones or tablets are taking over the way we interact with each other and with content.  New markets and services are being created every day for mobile devices.  The world of app and apps stores are creating new opportunities for innovation and adding value.

The Future is Mobile Networks

This is the future mobile operators would like you to believe in but the evidence is increasingly not in their favour.  Here are some statistics that may change your perspective of our mobile broadband future.

Global Smartphone-originated Data Traffic

Global Smartphone-originated Data Traffic
January 2012 – Source: Mobidia

A recent study by Mobidia revealed that about 70% of smartphone data traffic travelled via WiFi and not mobile networks.  Keep in mind that this research was not done in Africa, it was done in the industrialised world.  What we are seeing overwhelmingly is WiFi become the default form of data access and cellular access being relegated to those times when WiFi is not available, an increasingly rare phenomenon in the rich world.

The figures are even higher for tablet traffic.  And while we’re at it, since when are tablets “mobile” devices?  Of the fifty million tablets sold in the United States, only 8% have mobile capacity.  The tablet is not a mobile device, it is a WiFi device.  Google’s Nexus7 tablet is WiFi-only.  Both Microsoft’s new Surface tablet and Apple’s new iPad Mini are likely to launch as WiFi-only devices.  Why would Apple and Microsoft do that?  Well, one reason might be to avoid the painful process of negotiating mobile carrier agreements.  Imagine if computer manufacturers had to negotiate ISP agreements to connect a computer to the net.  The latest tablet is also a whole lot cheaper than a smartphone.  Compare a $200 Nexus7 tablet with an $800 Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone.

So what’s my point here?  My point is that the UN Broadband Commission’s recently published report on Achieving Digital Inclusion mentions WiFi exactly twice, both times parenthetically.  Mobile operators would like you to believe that the future of mobile broadband lies in the LTE networks that they are building.  And certainly that is partly true but only partly.  If the Mobidia stats are to be believed, about 30% true.

Mobile operators have no interest in WiFi because they currently have no control over WiFi networks although that is beginning to change in the U.S.  And we get reports like the one from the UN Broadband Commission because the dialogue at the ITU is dominated by operators.  The Broadband Commission itself is chaired by Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world.  The irony of putting the richest man in the world in charge of a commission to connect the poor appears to be lost on the UN.

In any discussion about the mobile broadband future of Africa, WiFi is simply not part of the discussion.  Yet the evidence is before our eyes of the strategic importance of WiFi to our “mobile” devices.  It’s cheap and fast and grew to solve the problem of affordable access by chance not by design.  It happened because WiFi is an open space for technology developers to innovate.  No carrier agreements required.

Also not mentioned in the UN Broadband Commission’s report is the potential of Television White Spaces spectrum, a space for with the potential for massive innovation in rural access.  Another area not controlled by mobile operators.

The benefits of WiFi go beyond just cheaper access.  They also create the opportunity to eliminate the weakness of a single point of failure that mobile networks create.  WiFi infrastructure can make it harder to wilfully shutdown communication in a given geographic region.  The key to resilient networks is plurality of access and WiFi is already embedded in every smart device you can think of.

It would be nice to see WiFi recognised for the powerful role that it is already playing in mobile broadband and to see it figure in national strategic broadband plans for the future.

35 Reasons to Worry About Privacy in Africa

Image courtesy of the fabulous Keep-Calm-o-MaticOver the last five years there has been a steady trend for African governments to implement mandatory SIM card registration policies.  This means that you can’t buy a SIM card for a mobile phone without producing an ID document and proof of address.  South Africa was one of the first African countries to do this but many have followed including Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria and many others.  At last count, no less than 35 African countries (see list below) have implemented obligatory SIM card registration.

The implementation of mandatory SIM card registration has been justified as necessary in order to assist law enforcement agencies in tracking down criminals.  Images are conjured up of thieves executing elaborate plots with the aid of disposable mobile phones.  In the post 9/11 zeitgeist, this is an argument that most find easy to digest.  Indeed, so much so that I am unaware of these policies being buttressed by any research evidence linking SIM card registration to a drop in crime or an increase in solved criminal cases.  Most news articles seem to provide as rationale the fact that other countries in the region are implementing such policies. A search through Google Scholar reveals very little research on this.  And indeed the only research I could find on mandatory SIM registration in Africa focused primarily on its economic impact on subscriber growth.

So what’s to worry about?  The classic rebuttal to objections to this kind of data collection is that if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.  And indeed, the “intent” of most legislation around SIM card registration is to clearly define and control when and how this information might be accessed by law enforcement agencies. But what is worrying is not so much lawful interception but rather when those rules get bent or broken.  We have seen countless examples now around the world of sensitive data being unlawfully accessed from email accounts to credit cards.

The very act of collecting data carries the responsibility to provide adequate methods and oversight for securing that data.  When organisations propose to collect potentially sensitive data, the burden of proof should be on them to justify the need for such data collection as well as their ability to keep that information secure.  I don’t believe the case has been clearly made for SIM card registration.  Certainly I don’t think the benefits outweigh the dangers.  Here is an example of why.

IMSI Catchers

There is a paradigm shift going on in the world of electronic surveillance.  It has gone from complex, expensive, and sometimes unreliable to simple, inexpensive, and highly accurate.  Increasingly surveillance technology has become commoditised.  The device advertised at the left is a great example of this.  It is an IMSI catcher, a device that listens passively to mobile phone traffic and picks up the identity of all of the phones in a given area.  It can be purchased for a few thousand dollars.  About the size of a suitcase, it can be installed on the bottom of a helicopter or on top of an apartment building.  In many countries, the passive nature of the IMSI catcher often means that using one does not legally constitute interception and thus they can be used with oversight by law enforcement agencies.

Now imagine that the government of the beautiful democracy that you live in does the unthinkable and implements some legislation that you object to.  You decide to exercise your free speech by participating in a public rally objecting to this legislation.  A helicopter hovers in the distance with an IMSI catcher attached to it.  Now your phone is in a database that has been collected of everyone who participated in the rally.  Without mandatory SIM registration, that database is just a list of phone numbers.  With it, it is potentially a list of names and addresses of people who the government has now identified as troublemakers.  Perhaps that sounds a little paranoid?  For a healthy democracy it probably is but there is plenty of evidence of authoritarian regimes using these tools and others.  And maybe your country is a democracy now but will it always be?

Naturally such violations of privacy couldn’t happen if the rules for accessing the SIM registration database were observed but that is precisely my point.  I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that the rules won’t ever be broken in the name of “security”.

Time To Ask Questions

The point of this post is to suggest that the time is now for civil society organisations in countries where mandatory SIM card registration has been implemented to starting asking questions, such as:

  • Does adequate technological and policy oversight exist to prevent SIM card registries from being misused?
  • What evidence is that that SIM card registries are actually contributing to crime reduction?
  • Are law enforcement agencies already using passive surveillance technologies like IMSI catchers?
  • Are passive surveillance technologies covered under existing legislation concerning the interception of communication?

And of course this is just the tip of the iceberg as we begin to understand the many ways in which in which the ever smarter mobile technologies create new possibilities for the invasion of personal privacy.  In the rich world, organisations like Privacy International and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are working hard to ensure that rapidly evolving communication technologies do not end up compromising our right to privacy.  Every country in Africa needs a civil society voice to ensure that individual right to privacy is not eroded with a phone call.

A List of African Countries with Mandatory SIM Card Registration

Country SIMRegistration Required?
Algeria Yes
Benin Yes
Botswana Yes
Burkina Faso Yes
Burundi Yes
Cameroon Yes
Cape Verde Yes
Central African Republic Yes
Chad Yes
Cote d’Ivoire Yes
Egypt Yes
Eritrea Yes
Ethiopia Yes
Gabon Yes
Gambia Yes
Ghana Yes
Kenya Yes
Liberia Yes
Mauritius Yes
Mozambique Yes
Niger Yes
Nigeria Yes
Republic of the Congo Yes
Rwanda Yes
Senegal Yes
Seychelles Yes
Sierra Leone Yes
South Africa Yes
Sudan Yes
Tanzania Yes
Togo Yes
Uganda Yes
Zambia Yes
Zimbabwe Yes
South Sudan Yes

Cape Town to Lunenburg

Yesterday I touched down with my family in Halifax, Canada, our new home for the next few years.  Well, actually near there, a small town south of Halifax called Lunenburg.  When you have a foot in more than one country, choosing where to live can be complicated.

In this case, the choice was not so hard.  Our boys are at an age (6,6, and 7) where spending some time growing up closer to their grandparents is going to make their lives a much richer experience.

From a professional perspective this is a little complicated as all of my work with Village Telco, spectrum advocacy, among other things, is focused on affordable access to communication infrastructure in emerging markets.  Managing my carbon footprint over the next couple of years is likely to be challenging.

I am gutted to have left South Africa when there feels like so much unfinished business for me there but I hope to be back there often enough to stay engaged and maintain my dual identity.

If you’re a Nova Scotian and are interested in Africa, hacking, open source, and wireless technologies, I’d love to meet you.  All of the above would be amazing but I’d happily settle for any subset. :-)

Just shoot me.

The Complexity of the White Industrial Saviour Complex or The Rules of White Liberal Do-Gooder Club

Just shoot me.Allow me this moment of white liberal angst. I’ll try not to let it happen again.

This post is inspired by the whole KONY2012 debacle and in particular by Teju Cole‘s piece “The White Industrial Saviour Complex”, which is a fairly searing indictment of those who seek to do good in far away places. A piece all the more cutting for being close to my white bones. This paragraph from his article cuts to the heart of the issue:

…there is much more to doing good work than “making a difference.” There is the principle of first do no harm. There is the idea that those who are being helped ought to be consulted over the matters that concern them.

It reminds me, as I am reminded often, of Henry Thoreau’s famous quotation from Walden:

“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life…”

and he was clearly thinking of Africa at the time as the text continues:

…as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the Simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes till you are suffocated.

But I am getting ahead of myself. First I need to say something about my identity because this post is about identity and what my identity affords me.

Identity

I am the freckly-white son of a South African father and Welsh mother. I was born in Canada and grew up in Northern Ontario. I got “involved” in South Africa and the continent in general when I came to work among NGOs involved in the mass democratic movement in South Africa in 1991. I claimed a South African passport in 1994. Since then I have been involved in one way or another in world of technology and development or what came to be known as Information & Communication Technologies for Development or ICT4D or ICTD, an acronym that carries a lot of baggage.

To make a long story short, I’ve been involved in the “doing good” business in Africa for a while. I spent a number of years working for one of the better development organisations mostly funding African researchers investigating both the challenges and the impact of access to information and communication infrastructure.

This post is about me and people like me who grew up in the industrialised world in comfortable middle-class homes yet have found themselves involved in one way or another in “doing good” on the African continent. I should also make it clear that it is not about white South Africans for though we have much in common and I am proud to have a South African passport, I do not come from the same place as them.

The Problem

Recently I attended a conference in Cape Town called Open Forum, put on by the Open Society Foundation. One of the best talks at the event was given by Mona Eltahawy, a brilliantly articulate feminist and Egyptian. She spoke with passion and clarity about the challenges facing Egypt as it struggles to re-define itself as a nation. The poignant part for me though came when she was asked “What can the West do to help?” and she recalled what Malcolm X said to a young, white, liberal woman in the early sixties, who believed in his cause, and who asked him what she could do to help. To which Malcom X replies “nothing”, or at least that’s what he says in the Spike Lee movie.

I had a similar feeling then as I had reading Cole’s piece. I understand (I think) the place from where Mona Eltahawy spoke, the need for Egyptians to claim their own future, to solve their own problems and also the deeply problematic manner in which assistance from foreign nations is often given. Whether through arrogance or ignorance or embedded political agendas, even good intentions often end up doing more harm than good.

Oddly it reminded me of breaking up with someone you like but don’t love. You still like the person you’ve broken up with and want to be there for them but you are the cause of their pain. You’re the one person who can’t help them through that particular situation.

It made me wonder, not for the first time, whether I should pack up for Northern Ontario and try and be useful there. But Northern Ontario never felt like home and my wife isn’t from there either so where do I fit in? Do I need to be Egyptian to do something good in Egypt. Must I be African to be useful in Africa?

Increasingly there are fewer and fewer people who are just from one place. More and more people have a foot in two or sometimes more countries. I love this. Having another culture and/or language to draw on makes you a richer person. You feel more, taste more, can say more, and in general have more empathy for people who may not share your outlook. I learnt a lot from Ethan Zuckermans thoughts on xenophiles and culture bridges.

But how I envy Mona and so many others the purity of their sense of identity. Their ability to assert their identity through their tribe. This is fundamental to us humans, our need to belong to something. Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind is a fascinating exploration of this.

So poor me, Western child of privilege doesn’t know who his tribe is. In a very real sense it is laughable to talk about this sort of angst in the context of say the average mother from Khayalitsha who shoulders daily burdens and responsibilities that dwarf my imagination. That was a bit of a digression but it brings me to my fundamental question. Is it legitimate for white middle-class North Americans and Europeans to come to Africa with the intention of “helping” of “doing good”? I think the answer to the question phrased in that particular way is a resounding “NO”. It isn’t legitimate because nobody really wants to be “done unto” and it reeks of paternalism and power imbalance.

Let me try another question then. Is it legitimate for white middle-class North Americans and Europeans to fall in love with a part of Africa and want to be useful? The answer to this question is a resounding “YES” but with qualifications. It ain’t easy and there are some important rules which are true most of the time except when they aren’t. And knowing when they’re true may take a lifetime.

And indeed this perspective is validated by Malcolm X who later regretted his reaction to that young white co-ed and who went on to say:

Brother, remember the time that white college girl came into the restaurant—the one who wanted to help the [Black] Muslims and the whites get together—and I told her there wasn’t a ghost of a chance and she went away crying? Well, I’ve lived to regret that incident. In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument.

So, coming back to Cole’s piece, I remember my first reaction was a certain savage glee at the brutally eloquent manner in which Cole questions the motives and assumptions of those who set out to do good. This was followed by the sort of feeling you get when you laugh at a joke until you realise it’s about you. Being a contribution in the world matters to me and there was a time when being involved in international development or the “doing-good business” made me feel pretty good about my life. Here was work where I could do good in the world, get paid for it and get to travel to exotic places and meet interesting people. How good is that?

It turns out that giving money away to people and having real good come out of it is quite hard. In fact, giving money away and not having things turn out worse on balance than if you had done nothing can be a challenge. My doubts about “do-gooding” have led me a little way out of international development world and into the somewhat confused world of social entrepreneurship which attempts to mix doing-good with market forces.

But rather than just leave you with that little burst of white liberal angst, let me try to dredge something useful out of it.  So herewith my rules for children of privilege white, black or otherwise who want to make a difference in Africa. The irony is that while I think these rules are generally true, the opposite is sometimes also true and only experience will tell you when. The parable of the Chinese farmer comes to mind.

The Rules

Rule #1 Be Rosencrantz not Hamlet

The first rule of White Liberal Do-Gooder club is you don’t talk about White Liberal Do-Gooder club. You may play a small yet important role in moving the plot but more than anything, this not your script and not your play. You are not Hamlet. Attempts to cast yourself in that role will only result in comedy, farce, or worse, tragedy. Embrace the notion of service in the best sense of the word. Be useful, enable, and try not to get in the way. I don’t mean this in a self-denigrating manner but I do mean humility.

Contradiction: Sometimes you may be able to leverage your position, your network to make something good happen. Sometimes shouting helps. Also, no one is completely altruistic. We all want to be recognised for our contribution, our expertise. Just be self aware.

Rule #2 – Tell A Different Story

If you really want to make a difference in Africa, then help change the stories that get told about Africa. Nigerian poet and novelist Ben Okri puts it best in his collection of essays, “A Way of Being Free”. He says:

“stories are the secret reservoir of values: change the stories individuals or nations live by and tell themselves, and you change the individuals and nations.”

and

“to poison a nation, poison its stories. A demoralised nation tells demoralised stories to itself.”

The story of Africa has been poisoned but it is changing now. Help to point at and celebrate those amazing stories of transformation that are going on all over the continent. And if the empiricist in you resists the idea that this is important, read this interesting piece on Esther Duflo‘s conclusion about what happens when people begin to tell a different story about themselves.

Contradiction: Clearly it is important at times to point out the worst as well. Exposing wrongdoing, corruption, exploitation of the weak is critically important. But for long term change, I think it is easier to inspire people with great stories than to scare them with bad ones.

Rule #3 – It’s a Marathon not a Sprint

Real change takes time. No matter how much you are tempted, and this is particularly true for us geeks, to believe that your intervention is going to transform things overnight or in a year or two years, iI won’t. Real change does not happen overnight. One need only look at Egypt to understand that. The real work in Egypt is only beginning. So, if you care and you want to really make a difference, you had better gird your loins for a long engagement. You need to be the antidote to two-year funding cycles, to the changing fashions of development and you can be by staying engaged geographically or thematically or both.

Development is complex which means that cause and effect are only obvious with hindsight and outcomes are unpredictable, emergent. More than a little due diligence is required, a deep grokking of the situation is needed to make even vaguely smart decisions. It takes deep knowledge to gain a sense of how to intervene effectively. This is your Malcolm Gladwell 10,000 hour kind of expertise.

Contradiction: I think really effective development also requires a startup sensibility that recognises failures fast and pivots to evolve based on feedback. As your knowledge deepens, you will get luckier with your first tries, you will smell failures more quickly and adapt more effectively. But expertise can also be a trap. I named this blog Many Possibilities to remind myself of the buddhist saying, “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few.” Balancing experience with fresh outlooks is key.

Rule #4 – Pull Trumps Push

If you have worked in international development or philanthropy for any length of time you realise how much harder it is to do it well than in the private sector. This is not immediately intuitive. What could be easier than giving away money? I like to use the analogy of a piece of string. Giving away money is like feeding out a piece of string. Without someone pulling on the other end, all you get is a pile of string. As you get involved in international development or philanthropy, you will begin to have ideas about what might bring about positive change. You might even start encouraging your partners to run with your ideas. Stop that. It will only end badly. Look for leaders on the ground and work to enable them.

Contradiction: If you absolutely must implement your own idea, start a company. Let the market decide whether you have value to offer.

Rule #5 – Stop “doing good”  Settle for “being good”

The personal is the professional. The same rules that serve you in your personal life are valid for your professional life. Take care of your relationships. Treat people honestly and with respect. Listen. Be careful and thoughtful. If you take care of these things you are far more likely to end up doing good than if you actually set out to do it.

Contradiction: This should not stop you from “acting”,  from being an agent in the world. One of the great contradictions for me of the KONY2012 campaign is that much as I disliked it for breaking virtually all of all of the rules above, I cannot get away from the fact that they acted, they DID something about an injustice they saw in the world. If you cannot say the same, you have no place to criticise them from.

Rule #6 – Don’t Take Yourself So Damn Seriously

I borrow this rule directly from Ben and Ros Zander. In fact, according them, there are no other rules and perhaps they’re right.

It is easy to begin to see yourself as doing something weighty and important. After all saving the world is serious work. Relax. Get over it.

If you really want to make a difference, get out there and embarrass yourself and laugh at yourself on a regular basis. Not being afraid to look like a fool will help you learn faster, will make others more comfortable around you and empower them to make their own mistakes and learn too.

Failing to acknowledge and learn from your mistakes is the only real blunder you can make.

Contradiction: I don’t do this nearly as often as I should and it still requires a supreme effort of will to expose my white boy moves when dancing with Africans.

Conclusion

So nobody’s perfect.  I definitely broke Rule #1 and came perilously close to ignoring Rule #6 in this post and possibly a few others.  And of course, the above are not rules at all but rather reminders to think about these things as often as is practical.  I’m still looking for my tribe.  Perhaps the best thing is to do as Seth Godin suggests and make your own.