Week Four-Post #2

Computer Privacy

After reading the CRS Report for Congress entitled; The Privacy Act: Emerging Issues and Related Legislation, I thought I would continue week fours theme of privacy, and post my comments on this article. The Code of Fair Information Practice established to punish unfair information practice with civil and criminal penalties, to provide injunctive relief to prevent violations of safeguard requirements and to empower individuals to bring suits for unfair information practices.

The Privacy Act of 1974 clearly makes an attempt to legislate several aspects of personal privacy. In addition, the Crime Control Act of 1973 states “an individual who believes that criminal history information concerning him contained in an automated system is inaccurate, incomplete, or maintained in violation of this [law]… to review such information and to obtain a copy of it for the purpose of challenge or correction.”

The article went on to discuss that Federal agencies obtained personal information about visitors to their websites through the use of computer software known as “cookies” In response, OMB issued a memorandum indicating that cookies should not be used at Federal websites. However, in October 2000, press disclosures revealed that 13 federal agencies had ignored the OMB memorandum prohibiting the tracking of visitors to government websites.

After reading this information I began to question who has the power to enforce these agencies to conform to the OMB memorandum and why there isn’t a punishment in place when federal agencies violate this request. The article went on to indicate that “session cookies” were alright for agencies to collect, however, “persistent cookies” which may track web habits for long periods of time were not authorized to be collected.

By reading this I am able to determine that “session cookies” are okay to be collected, however, “persistent cookies” are not okay? How does a lay person know the difference when they visit a federal agencies website????

While compiling the data for my resent group project I became aware that agencies provide a privacy statement on their website. How many individuals actually review that privacy statement before browsing a site at will? And if they do read the privacy statement, are they able to determine the ever-so-slight difference between a “session cookie” and a “persistent cookie”?

Week Four-Post #1

Individuals Right to Privacy

Throughout the class I experienced numerous “Ah-Ha” moments when linking public policy topics to e-governance. I was a little overwhelmed regarding the possible subjects for posts because I had simply narrowed my focus on to simply the assigned reading, websites and my own views and analysis of those assignments. However, David’s expanded explanation of the potential topics drastically opened my eyes to topics that intrigued me.

For me, privacy is of the upmost importance while dealing with information services. One comment that stuck with me as I left class was that British citizens get their picture taken hundreds of times a day. I was very surprised and a little confused by that statement from David. After class I went home and discussed that topic with my boyfriend. He moved to the United States from London about ten years ago and we discussed the impact the lack of privacy has on individuals. I was adamant that being photographed was a violation on privacy, but he was quick to point out the advantages of such technology. He provided examples of crimes that could be committed and the usefulness of being able to pin-point the exact location of a crime, review the video footage and have an upward advantage on dealing with crime. He also pointed out other uses for debit cards, credit cards and the government having control over being able to view individual’s purchases.

While I fundamentally disagree with the government being able to monitor individual’s actions, the in-depth discussion with my boyfriend who had grown up in this type of environment made me see that there is a way to co-exist.

Week Two-Post #3 General Discussion of Best Practice Sites

General Discussion of Best Practice Sites

by David Tetta - Saturday, 5 April 2008, 08:54 AM

What sites do you think are best practice sites?

Look at best state, city, local sites based on either the CDG or Brown studies.
What are features that make this a best practice site?
Possibilities could be:

• Easy navigation
• Search features
• Useful services easy to find
• Foreign language options
• Citizen centric or department focused?
• Easy to find staff if want to use phone or email?

Post a response indicating one or two sites you think are evidence of this and why?

Utilizing the website evaluation criteria established in the Brown study I identified, Access Washington (www.access.wa.gov) as the best state website. The features that make Access Washington the best practice site are; the ease of navigation throughout the site, the content of the site and the usefulness of the information provided. This website is unique because it offers all three forms of government communication as address in our numerous handouts within class as well as the book.

There is information on the site for government to government communications, government to business communications and government to citizen communications. In addition, information is provided in six alternate languages, a search feature have retrieves information from all government websites within Washington State and content on the website is subdivided into seven primary categories depending on the type of service you are searching for (Living in Washington, working/employment, doing business, government, education/learning and visiting/recreation).

The main homepage is developed to similar standards as Rona addressed in her presentation. The homepage allows for a “What’s new?” section as well as commonly searched for topics. Overall I am extremely satisfied with this website and I personally use it for a primary point-of-contact when researching specific questions I have.

Week Two-Post #2 Public Information and E-Governance (Chapter Three/E-Democracy and Wikipedia Website Analysis)

Within chapter three of David Garson’s, Public Information and E-Governance, 6 primary layers of e-democracy were established; e-participation, e-civics, E-legislating, E-voting, E-campaigning, and e-activism. Two new subjects were brought to my attention that I had never heard of before: e-campaigning and e-activism. I discovered that e-campaigning was the use of electronic means to mobilize volunteers, raise funds, etc. E-activism is similar to that of e-campaigning, except that it is done in the interest of groups which seek to influence public policy. While reading this information I realized that I regularly participate in both e-campaigning and e-activism, however I knew there was an official name for them. I thought the sociotechnical theorist view regarding e-activism was interesting in that e-civics and e-participation were important layers to the process of team building.

I was surprised to discover that the first communities that experienced with e-activism were in the 1980’s and that even back then e-civics was being utilized through access to governmental information, reports, etc. I also thought it was interesting that e-campaigning does not always lead to political mobilization and that although citizen utilize the internet for the purpose of political participation, that does not necessarily make them more politically active.

Privacy also comes to mind when I read through Chapter three, especially when addressing the e-campaigning that utilizes cookies, mailing lists and other online forms to retrieve voter information for candidates. If parties can retrieve this information how can an individual feel safe while participating in e-activism and e-campaigning? Additionally, can e-voting be a safe and secure way for one to feel they are taking part in a voting process? Page 74 states “some electronic systems may compromise voter privacy and recount capability, a fact that many vendors and election officials do not want voters to know.” Then, it was interesting to read the Wikipedia website where again privacy was a large concern citizens expressed with citizen-to-government interactions. After reading chapter three and the Wiki website I am ultimately left with the feeling ‘is it really worth it to participate within e-democracy, but to potentially loose the primary right to privacy?

The Wikipedia website also addressed concerns of the digital divide providing a disadvantage for utilizing the internet as a political medium for direct democracy. I thought it was great that this website covered this concern. As I was reading through chapter three and the website I was wondering if Generation Y (as being previously defined as those most likely to utilize internet access) has more e-democracy action than those who have low access/social disparities. If the internet was the primary political medium would the low access population have less say in our current democracy? I think this week’s assigned reading (for me) has brought up more questions than answers.

Week Two-Post #1 My Current Favorite Government Sites!

Local

Thurston County Website

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/index.asp

Mason County Website

http://www.co.mason.wa.us/default.shtml

City of Olympia

http://www.olympiawa.gov/

City of Lacey

http://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/

City of Tumwater

http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/

State

Access Washington

www.access.wa.gov

Higher Education Coordinating Board

http://www.hecb.wa.gov./Links/colleges/collegesindex.asp

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (K-12)

http://www.k12.wa.us/maps/SchoolURL.aspx

Secretary of the State (Locate a library)

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/library/search_library.aspx

Federal

U.S. Government’s Website

http://www.usa.gov/

U.S. Senate Homepage

http://www.senate.gov/

U.S. House of Representatives Web page

http://www.house.gov/

Week One-Post #3: A Primer on E-Government

The summary section defined e-government as “automating the delivery of Government services” and I’m not sure how I feel about that statement exactly. It seems that advancements in technology are leading to extremely impersonal and formal means of communication with constituents, which are ultimately customers. It to me that this approached is almost similar to that of a ‘come and get it” mentality. Perhaps I am reading more into this statement than necessary….

I appreciated that the article outlined that there are three primary sectors of communication: government to government, government to business and government to citizen. As I have referenced in an earlier posting, the government website I utilize the most is Access Washington and it seems to have captured all the sectors of communication this article is referencing.

I thought this article was extremely practical and provided useful information. It provided a solid background of the development and implementation of e-government and the utility of the document seems endless.

Week One-Post #2: Information Searches that Solve Problems

This article examined in depth how people utilize information sources to address problems within their life. I appreciated that the article addressed a wide spectrum of problems that individuals seek answers too (school, work, health, business, etc.) and felt that covering each of these topics made it clearer just how important accessing information on the internet truly is. One of my most favorite websites is Access Washington. The site can be found at www.access.wa.gov. It does a fantastic job at interlacing the information individuals are seeking such as the items listed above and it’s done in a way that is extremely easy to navigate and ‘user friendly’. It seems to be one-stop-shopping for individuals seeking a plethora of information. I also thought that it was great that the report covered some common problems that have connections to government agencies and programs. The article did a great job at addressing disparities in relation to internet access. Particular attention was paid to the 36% of Americans who have ‘limited access’ to the internet. I was surprised to discover that 23% of American’s do not have internet access and 13% of American’s don’t have broadband. This statement really surprised me because it addressed this population as ‘low-access.” The article also indicated that these individuals are “less successful than those with high-access to the internet in getting the material they need to address their problems.” Being a non-broadband user myself, I am intrigued to find out how exactly am I less successful in retrieving information than those with high-access to the internet? Page three reports that “those with limited access or no access to the internet are older, less affluent and less well educated.”.

The article did an excellent job at address who utilized public library services. I was actually surprised to read that ‘household income is a less powerful predictor of library use than access to the internet is.” (page 10). I would have assumed income barriers would be the ultimate reasons individuals utilize public library services. After all, the library does offer free internet access, free movies, DVDs, books, books on tape, magazines, newspapers and more (‘free’ being the key word in the sentence). I utilize services from the public library on a weekly basis. And I have often wondered about the statistics of the types of individuals who utilizes the services offered there. It is interesting to note that I fit into almost all of the criteria listed for frequent users of the library (generation Y, low-access/non-broadband internet user, and parent of a school-aged child).

The statistical data supplied within the report was a little much to digest, but I feel that I comprehended clearly the ideas put forth within the report. But I believe that further exploration of the social and economic differences among those who utilize high access internet versus those who have limited access needs further investigation. It is clear that measuring citizen participation in e-government and also evaluating its successes and shortcomings will aid in the improvement of online services. By the responses from individuals polled for this report, there is an increasing awareness of various means to deal with the government and information technology could be key to customer satisfaction when connecting with government entities.

Week One-Post #1: Public Information and E-Governance (Chapter Two)

Chapter two of David Garson’s, Public Information and E-Governance provides an overview of public-sector information technology policy. The book describes the development of governmental efforts to establish a retention schedule for government produced documents with areas that posed storage concerns. It was difficult to manage the abundant amount of documents that were being retained and poor storage lead to decomposing paper. The utilization of electronic technologies for military purposes was also addressed. Page 29 states “There is a direct line of development of federal information policy form the wartime concerns of 1813 to the launch of electronic publication formats in the 1990’s.”

It is clear that from 1986 to now, information technology policy is in the forefront of congressional attention. Policy issues addressed in the book, such as public access to electronic information; public participation in e-government, accessibility for the disabled, individual privacy, modernizing education, regulating e-vice, securing intellectual property, electronic voting and regulating the outsourcing of IT jobs all weigh heavy on today’s government entities.

I was very surprised to read that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (page 40) was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2002. The history of this extremely important topic seems to be of high interest now that access to the internet and information technology has increased. I look forward to reading more on how the government aims to protect vulnerable individuals from such exploitation.

The chapter addresses four policy making benchmarks for success in the information technology policy within the United States. These include; increasing public access to information; increasing public participation; protecting citizen’s rights and establishing a comprehensive approach to the management of public information systems.