You can agree or not agree with the message of the author on YouTube – but this video is well done. The author, “damewse,” gave full credit to goes to Michael Marantz for his brilliant original, embedded below: EARTH: The … Continue reading
Digital Capital Week is coming back to the United States Capital on November 4th, 2011. In a livestream today, the organizers of the inaugural 2010 event announced the data and opened the gates for DC Week registration and ideas for … Continue reading
Today, Tim O’Reilly spoke about the power of platforms to the inaugural class of Code for America fellows.
What’s happening today is an “open data” movement, said O’Reilly. “That’s what’s going to build the next platform.” As he’s said before, he thinks we’re now in an interesting platform stage where “the Internet is the operating system.” As early adopters of the new Google Chrome netbooks, a material metaphor for that notion is now online.
You can listen to the audio of Tim O’Reilly (my publisher) or download the MP3. Video may be available. later. Editor’s Note: O’Reilly Media is a supporter of Code for America and its founder, Tim O’Reilly, sits on its board.
The notion of “government as a platform,” which Tim has been speaking about for years now, is founded in his understanding of how technology companies have historically grown and flourished. Many of the anecdotes and historical underpinning of Gov 2.0 are in the webcast, “What is Gov 2.0?” in the side bar of this blog.
Here are a couple of key points from today:
Lesson 1: Platforms spread when they are ubiquitous and barriers to entry are low
Lesson 2: Create an architecture of participation, like Unix.
Lesson 3: Small pieces, loosely joined, which drove the growth of the World Wide Web.
Lesson 4: Don’t (just) build websites, build Web services.
There’s a lot more in there that builds upon Tim’s platform paradigm for government. Give it a listen and, if you find some other insights that particularly strike you or apply to how you think about how government can leverage the power of platforms, please share it in the comments.
If the notion that data and simplicity can build the government platform sound familiar, it should: Tim talked with the first United States chief technology officer, Aneesh Chopra, about how these ideas apply to government last year:
Building on that, if you have a moment, head on over to the White House “ExpertNet” wiki and share your thoughts on how the federal government should be designing democracy, specifically with respect to creating an open governnemt platform for citizen consultation.
As reported today by the Washington Post, the Consumer Product Safety Commission will launch a public database of complaints this March at SaferProducts.gov.
The new public database of consumer complaints is mandated by Section 212 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The CPSIA requires the Commission to establish and maintain a publicly accessible product safety information database that is available to the public. In the 21st Century, that means online, searchable and accessible at SaferProducts.gov.
As Lyndsey Layton points out at the Washington Post, the implementation of the database is not without controversy or political context. Manufacturing and industry groups are concerned about fictitious complaints or inaccurate claims made by competitors. Opponents of the launch of SaferProducts.gov are working against it, arguing that the public database could add additional burdens for businesses in a difficult economic environment.
The CPSC already collects reports of defective products from a wide range of sources, including consumers, health-care providers, death certificates and media accounts.But most of that information is shielded from public view. Until now, the only way for consumers to access safety complaints is to file a public-records request with the CPSC. The agency is then required by law to consult with the manufacturer before releasing information about their products, and the company can protest or sue to stop disclosure. If the agency thinks a dangerous product should be pulled from the market, it must negotiate a recall with the manufacturer, a process that can take months or years.
Under the new system, consumer complaints will be posted for any reader to find at SaferProducts.gov within 15 days after they are filed. When a consumer files a complaint under the new system, the CPSC will have 5 days to notify a manufacturer, which then has 10 days to respond to the complaint by challenging it, submitting a response or arguing that it violates a trade secret. A response would be published online with the complaint at SaferProductsgov, while the CPSC would have to decide to withhold or publish a complaint if a company asserts a false complaint.
This Tuesday, at 10:30 AM EST, the CPSC will host a webcast showing the new SaferProducts.gov report form at SaferProducts.gov/live. Visit CPSC.gov or follow the @OnSafety account at Twitter for updates on the official launch of the site.
In the meantime, consumers can continue to make use of the mobile recalls app that the federal government launched last year at USA.gov. These product recall datasets have been some of the most queried data on Data.gov over the past year, no doubt helped in part by the connected applications.
The CPSC also has a widget that blogs (like this one) can embed with recall information:
Product Safety Recall Info
Beth Simone Noveck, director of the White House Open Government Initiative, and U.S. deputy chief technology officer, will return to academia as a professor of law at New York Law School on January 15th 2010.
Noveck is the author of “Wiki Government,” where she wrote about using social networking technology to connect people to policymakers.
People in the open government community began to thank her for her service today. “We’re lucky to have brilliant & dedicated leaders (& working moms!) like Beth Noveck serving our country. Thx, Beth & good luck!” tweeted Twitter’s Katie Stanton, a former colleague at the White House.
“Thanking Beth Noveck for 2 years of @OpenGov public service,” tweeted open government godfatherCarl Malamud. “Good luck on next gig, great job.”
More details will emerge on who will take on Noveck’s role at the White House in the coming weeks. For more on Noveck’s open government legacy, look back at her work on leveraging on the civic surplus, next steps for open government, the relaunch of the Federal Register and designing democracy with “ExpertNet,” a proposed a citizen consultation platform.
Also see coverage of Noveck’s resignation in NextGov, InformationWeek and FederalNewRadio.
UPDATEOn January 11, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation awarded Noveck a grant “to apply her expertise to developing a multi-year interdisciplinary research agenda to gauge the impact of digital networks on institutions,” including how society can use technology to strengthen democratic culture.
“The Foundation’s interest in public sector innovation as a potential longer term area for focused investment is testament to Beth’s success—through her research, writing, and public service—at putting the topic of 21st century democracy on the national agenda,” said Dean and President Richard A. Matasar. “We are delighted to have her back.”
According to the MacArthur Foundation, Noveck is now working with colleagues both inside and outside of government on the design for “IOPedia,” a platform for mashing up and visualizing public corporate accountability data and tracking the evolution of organizations.
“I am proud to have helped fulfill the president’s historic commitment to promoting an open and innovative government—one that uses openness and collaboration as core elements of governance and policy making,” Noveck said in a statemnt. “I look forward to working with students and the wider open government community to continue my research and advocacy to promote the adoption of public sector innovations.”
Earlier today, Congresswoman Giffords was shot in Tucson, Arizona, along with over a dozen other people, at least two of whom have died. On this tragic day, many citizens and media alike are trying to filter fact from fiction. Both the president and the speaker of the House have issued statements condemning the violence.
President Barack Obama takes part in a conference call in the Situation Room of the White House concerning the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Az., Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. Pictured, left to right, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, incoming Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer, and Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro. Also taking part in the call were Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and FBI Director Robert Mueller (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
From WhiteHouse.gov:
“This morning, in an unspeakable tragedy, a number of Americans were shot in Tucson, Arizona, at a constituent meeting with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. And while we are continuing to receive information, we know that some have passed away, and that Representative Giffords is gravely wounded.
We do not yet have all the answers. What we do know is that such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society. I ask all Americans to join me and Michelle in keeping Representative Giffords, the victims of this tragedy, and their families in our prayers.”-President Barack Obama
President Obama made a short statement to the nation from the White House in a live video address regarding the shooting in Tucson.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/all/modules/swftools/shared/flash_media_player/player5x2.swf
The president confirmed the death of at least five people in the shooting in this tragedy, among them federal judge John Roll, and a nine year old girl. [Emphases that follow are mine-Ed.]
THE PRESIDENT: As many of you are aware, earlier today a number of people were shot in Tucson, Arizona, including several who were meeting at a supermarket with their congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords. We are still assembling all the facts, but we know that Representative Giffords was one of the victims. She is currently at a hospital in the area, and she is battling for her life.
We also know that at least five people lost their lives in this tragedy. Among them were a federal judge, John Roll, who has served America’s legal system for almost 40 years; and a young girl who was barely nine years old.
I’ve spoken to Arizona governor Jan Brewer and offered the full resources of the federal government. A suspect is currently in custody, but we don’t yet know what provoked this unspeakable act. A comprehensive investigation is currently underway, and at my direction, Director Bob Mueller is en route to Arizona to help coordinate these efforts. I’ve also spoken to the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House.
Gabby Giffords was a friend of mine. She is not only an extraordinary public servant, but she is also somebody who is warm and caring. She is well liked by her colleagues and well liked by her constituents. Her husband, Mark Kelly, is a Navy captain and one of America’s valiant astronauts.
It’s not surprising that today Gabby was doing what she always does — listening to the hopes and concerns of her neighbors. That is the essence of what our democracy is all about. That is why this is more than a tragedy for those involved. It is a tragedy for Arizona and a tragedy for our entire country.
What Americans do at times of tragedy is to come together and support each other. So at this time I ask all Americans to join me and Michelle in keeping all the victims and their families, including Gabby, in our thoughts and prayers. Those who have been injured, we are rooting for them. And I know Gabby is as tough as they come, and I am hopeful that she’s going to pull through.
Obviously our hearts go out to the family members of those who have been slain. We are going to get to the bottom of this, and we’re going to get through this. But in the meantime, I think all of us need to make sure that we’re offering our thoughts and prayers to those concerned.
Thank you.
Today, the Speaker of the House, the President of the United States, and his opponent from the last election spoke from a united position. From Speaker.gov:
I am horrified by the senseless attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country.” – Speaker of the House John Boehner
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) made the following statement
“I am horrified by the violent attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and many other innocent people by a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion. I pray for Gabby and the other victims, and for the repose of the souls of the dead and comfort for their families. I beg our loving Creator to spare the lives of those who are still alive, heal them in body and spirit, and return them to their loved ones.
“Whoever did this; whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law.” – Senator John McCain
Senator McCain also made the following statement regarding the passing of Chief Judge John Roll:
“I am deeply saddened to hear that Chief Judge John Roll was killed today during the senseless act of violence against Congresswoman Giffords and other Arizonans. Words are inadequate to express such a profound loss to his family, friends, state and country, but it is appropriate to note that a man of great qualities and character was struck down today, and the wickedness of this atrocity, which included the murder of a small child, has broken the hearts of many and will be mourned for years to come. I am proud to have recommended Judge Roll to President Bush for the federal bench in 1991 and have been extremely proud of his work on the bench since then. I am most proud to have called him a friend. Judge Roll dedicated his life to public service and was admired by many for his integrity, kindness and love for the law, for the state of Arizona and our country. He began his career as a bailiff in the Pima County Superior Court and was at his death the Chief Judge for the District of Arizona since 2006. He distinguished himself in every office he held. He will be missed very much. Cindy and I are praying for his soul and for his beloved wife and children and the families of all the victims in this terrible moment of sorrow. Our state has lost a good man, a true and able advocate for justice for all and a great Arizonan. May God grant him perpetual peace.”
The White House blog also linked to statements from Vice President Joe Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.
Shortly before the shooting, Congresswoman Giffords tweeted that “My 1st Congress on Your Corner starts now. Please stop by to let me know what is on your mind or tweet me later.” The tweet will serve as a poignant reminder of the day. There will be a vigil at the Capitol and in Tucson for Giffords and other victims.
The first quote on Congresswoman Giffords’ Facebook page holds additional resonance today:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, …let us strive on to finish the work we are in, …to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” — President Abraham Lincoln
NPR’s Andy Carvin covered the emerging story using Storify:
Victoria Espinel, the White House intellectual property enforcement coordinator, wrote a blog post providing guidance to federal agencies on making technology neutral IT procurement decisions.
Each year, the U.S. Government spends almost $80 billion dollars buying information technology (IT); the software, computer equipment and network devices that help the Government run efficiently. It is important that those purchases be fair, neutral and based on an objective assessment of relevant criteria. To ensure that the agencies and the public are aware of our policy, today U.S. Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra, Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy Dan Gordon and I issued a statement to Senior Procurement Executives and Chief Information Officers reminding them to select IT based on appropriate criteria while analyzing available alternatives including proprietary, open source and mixed source technologies.
Aliya Sernstein, over at NextGov, extracted an interested headline from the guidance: “Kundra encourages open source.” Getting to that conclusion from the memo in question, embedded below, might be a stretch, though it is notable that a document signed by the United States chief information officer specifically said that agencies should “analyze alternatives” that include open source.
One key phrase in the memo gives a bit more insight here, in terms of the acquisition process: should “selecting suitable IT on a case-by-case basis to meet the particular operational needs of the agency by considering factors such as performance, cost, security, interoperability, ability to share or re-use, and availability of quality support.”
Open source software has both competitive advantages and disadvantages in those areas.
Here’s the memo from CIO.gov:
Technology Neutrality http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf
Possibly related: “Google wins: Interior forbidden to award noncompetitive contract to Microsoft” [Federal Computer Week]
And no, this isn’t the only outlet to wonder about that link: read Nancy Scola over at techPresident on the White House reminder to be technology neutral:
(So why the memo, and why today? It’s not entirely clear yet, but a smart source points out a related news item in the space: yesterday Google won a preliminary injunction in a case where it had argued that the U.S. Department of the Interior had inappropriately geared a nearly $60 million contract for cloud-based email and collaboration software tools to fit only Microsoft’s proprietary products. Again, though, we’re indulging in a bit of speculation here, and it’s worth pointing out that Google’s revelant products aren’t themselves open-source.)
By the way, if you’d like to stay instantly up on such developments, you might try following Kundra’s new Twitter feed. He’s only tweeted three times thus far, but once was an indeed a pointer to this memo. “Open source vs proprietary?,” he posted. Follow @VivekKundra here.
Blackberrys, cell phones and communications devices are tagged with post-its during a briefing on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Cabinet Room of the White House, March 26, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The upcoming release of the final version of the White House “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace” highlights three key trends that face the world in 2011: online identity, privacy and security. Governments need ways to empower citizens to identify themselves online to realize both aspirational goals for citizen-to-government interaction and secure basic interactions for commercial purposes.
Earlier today, Stanford hosted an event today where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and White House cybersecurity coordinator Howard Schmidt talked about the Obama administration’s efforts to improve online security and privacy at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). Here’s the NSTIC fact sheet the administration posted last year.
“As we look at the innovation engine that drives many of the things we’re doing, what does it mean to sit there as we’ve come together today,” asked Schmidt, “bringing these things together to overcome some of these risks associated with the technology we’ve deployed over the past 20 some odd years?”
The administration took public feedback on the document at NSTIC IdeaScale, which is now closed. (For a screenshot, see the story on IdeaScale on MSNBC.com.) “Every day at the end of the day. I would go back and read some of those comments,” said Schmidt today. “Some of them quite honestly were pretty silly. Other of them were very insight full and gave us some good thoughts about how can we do this right? How can we create a document that really does those things the secretary mentioned such as privacy enhancing but also giving us better trust?”
Schmidt took to the White House blog again today to announce a “National Program Office for Enhancing Online Trust and Privacy.”
Today, at Stanford University, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and I were pleased to announce that the Commerce Department will host a National Program Office (NPO) in support of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). As I’ve written previously, the NSTIC fulfills one of the action items in theCyberspace Policy Review (pdf) and is a key building block in our efforts to secure cyberspace.
This holiday season, consumers spent a record $30.81 billion in online retail spending, an increase of 13 percent over the same period the previous year. This striking growth outshines even the notable 3.3-5.5 percent overall increase in holiday spending this past year. While clearly a positive sign for our economy, losses from online fraud and identity theft eat away at these gains, not to mention the harm that identity crime causes directly to millions of victims. We have a major problem in cyberspace, because when we are online we do not really know if people, businesses, and organizations are who they say they are. Moreover, we now have to remember dozens of user names and passwords. This multiplicity is so inconvenient that most people re-use their passwords for different accounts, which gives the criminal who compromises their password the “keys to the kingdom.”
We need a cyber world that enables people to validate their identities securely, but with minimal disclosure of information when they’re doing sensitive transactions (like banking) – and lets them stay anonymous when they’re not (like blogging). We need a vibrant marketplace that provides people with choices among multiple accredited identity providers – both private and public – and choices among multiple credentials. For example, imagine that a student could get a digital credential from her cell phone provider and another one from her university and use either of them to log-in to her bank, her e-mail, her social networking site, and so on, all without having to remember dozens of passwords. Such a marketplace will ensure that no single credential or centralized database can emerge. In this world, we can cut losses from fraud and identity theft, as well as cut costs for businesses and government by reducing inefficient identification procedures. We can put in-person services online without security trade-offs, thereby providing greater convenience for everyone.
This is the world envisioned in the NSTIC. We call it the Identity Ecosystem. We will be working to finalize the NSTIC in the coming months, but that is only the beginning of the process. I’m excited to be working with Secretary Locke. The Commerce Department is perfectly suited to work with the private sector to implement the NSTIC. In addition, there are other departments and agencies with strategic roles to play as well. Above all though, we look to the leadership of the private sector. Therein lies the key to success. Now is the time to move forward with our shared vision of a better, more secure cyberspace.
The policy that the United States government makes towards the Internet has the potential to affect every person online in 2011, as advocates know, so how this is carried out bears close watching. The Center for Democracy and Technology filed key comments on NSTIC last year, including a key issue: “We alerted the Commerce Department to our concern about NSTIC’s current focus on the use of government credentials for private transactions: A pervasive government-run online authentication scheme is incompatible with fundamental American values,” wrote Heather West regarding the cybersecurity policy proposal.
The issue is at once simple and enormously complex, as Jim Dempsey from the Center for Democracy and Technology highlighted today. Government needs a better online identity infrastructure to improve IT security, online privacy, and support ecommerce but can’t create it itself, said Dempsey, outlining the key tension present. Dempsey advocated for a solution for online identity that lies within a broader trust framework and that is codified within a baseline federal consumer privacy law.
Some of the answers to the immense challenge of securing online privacy and identity won’t be technical or legislative at all. They lie in improving the digital literacy of for online citizens. That very human reality was highlighted after the massive Gawker database breach last year, when the number of weak passwords used online became clear. Schmidt highlighted the root caused of passwords today:
The reason most people do that is because we have to worry about remembering so many different passwords and then there’s so many layers of complexity and, complexity that we have to worry about, we have different time frame. We replace them every 30-day, 60 days, 90 days and it becomes really cumbersome. And recent survey found that 46% of the people surveyed never ever have changed their passwords and 71% use the same password with over and over and over again. From reading an on-line blog to doing sensitive financial transactions.
Others answers may be founded in creating online trust frameworks, which were a key initiative in 2010 for the federal government. Multifactor authentication, where more than one forms of identity are used in transactions, will be part of that vision. Schmidt described, loosely, what that might look like.
I go to a store. I go to a grocery store in some cases. I do some level of proofing, whatever I want to wind up doing, whether it’s the lowest level or the highest level to get an online identity stored on a token. A digital identity. Whether it’s on a USB drive or whether it’s on a smart card, I have the ability to do something beyond what I’m doing now. I go to log-in to these accounts. I use the USB device, I use a smart card. I use a one time password on my mobile device that no longer puts me in a position where I’ve been in the past where I can wind up making one small mistake and paying for it for years. But then I also get the log-in to my web mail account. That credential is passed on as well. So I have the ability to do these things seamlessly without all the baggage and overhead that goes with it. But then here comes the true test – this web mail – this phishing e-mail – comes in, and working together between the token and my digital identity and the browser, it stops me from doing things that are going to be harmful. And I had the ability to control that. I have the ability to set this up. And then it keeps me from becoming a victim of fraud.
That combination of physical tokens that interface with commercial and communications infrastructure to authenticate a consumer or online user are one vision of an identity ecosystem. Given the commercial needs of the moment, it should not be a surprise that the Department of Commerce is a key player. Secretary Locke offered perspective on the challenges that face the nation in 2011. [Full unedited transcript]
Let’s flash forward to today to 2011. Nowadays the world does an estimated $10 trillion of business online. Nearly every transaction you can think of is being done over the Internet. Consumers paying their utility bills, even from smartphones. People downloading music, movies and books online. Companies from the smallest local store to bed and breakfasts, to multinational corporations, ordering goods, paying vendors, selling to customers, all around the world. All over the Internet. E-commerce sales for the third quarter of 2010 were estimated at over $41 billion, up almost 14% over last year. And early reports indicate that the recent holiday buying season saw similar growth with year over year sales up by over 13%.
But despite these ongoing successes, the reality that the Internet still faces something of a trust issue. And it will not retch its full potential until users and consumers feel more secure than they do today when they go on-line. The threats on the Internet seem to be proliferating just as fast as the opportunities. Data breaches, malware, ID theft and spam are just some of the most commonly known invasions of a user’s privacy and security. And people are worried about their personal information going out and parents, like me, are worried about unwarranted sexually explicit material coming in before their children. And the landscape is getting more complex as dedicated hackers undertake persistent targeted attacks and develop ever more sophisticated frauds.
The approach that Locke outlined will apparently be housed within the Department of Commerce, a choice that is likely relevant to the scale and growth of e-commerce online:
The end game of course, is to create an identity ecosystem where individuals and organizations can complete online transactions with greater confidence, putting greater trust in the online identities of each other, and greater trust in the infrastructure that the transactions run over. Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about a national ID card. We’re talking about a government controlled system. But what we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing, and perhaps even eliminating, the need to memorize a dozen password through the creation and use of more trusted digital identities. To accomplish this, we’re going to need your help. And we need the private sector’s expertise and involvement in designing, building and implementing this identity ecosystem. To succeed we’ll also need a national program office at the Department of Commerce focused on implementing our trusted identities strategy.
For more context, look back to Schmidt’s introduction of the NSTIC at the WhiteHouse.gov blog last year:
Cyberspace has become an indispensable component of everyday life for all Americans. We have all witnessed how the application and use of this technology has increased exponentially over the years. Cyberspace includes the networks in our homes, businesses, schools, and our Nation’s critical infrastructure. It is where we exchange information, buy and sell products and services, and enable many other types of transactions across a wide range of sectors. But not all components of this technology have kept up with the pace of growth. Privacy and security require greater emphasis moving forward; and because of this, the technology that has brought many benefits to our society and has empowered us to do so much — has also empowered those who are driven to cause harm.
Today, I am pleased to announce the latest step in moving our Nation forward in securing our cyberspace with the release of the draft National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). This first draft of NSTIC was developed in collaboration with key government agencies, business leaders and privacy advocates. What has emerged is a blueprint to reduce cybersecurity vulnerabilities and improve online privacy protections through the use of trusted digital identities.
The NSTIC, which is in response to one of the near term action items in the President’s Cyberspace Policy Review, calls for the creation of an online environment, or an Identity Ecosystem as we refer to it in the strategy, where individuals and organizations can complete online transactions with confidence, trusting the identities of each other and the identities of the infrastructure that the transaction runs on. For example, no longer should individuals have to remember an ever-expanding and potentially insecure list of usernames and passwords to login into various online services. Through the strategy we seek to enable a future where individuals can voluntarily choose to obtain a secure, interoperable, and privacy-enhancing credential (e.g., a smart identity card, a digital certificate on their cell phone, etc) from a variety of service providers – both public and private – to authenticate themselves online for different types of transactions (e.g., online banking, accessing electronic health records, sending email, etc.). Another key concept in the strategy is that the Identity Ecosystem is user-centric – that means you, as a user, will be able to have more control of the private information you use to authenticate yourself on-line, and generally will not have to reveal more than is necessary to do so.
This is all wonky stuff that may seem a bit dry to some readers, but it’s important. The intertwined issues of identify, security and online privacy are increasingly relevant to every citizens as more commerce, education, communication and elements of everyday life move onto the Internet and mobile infrastructure. This strategy is central to how the United States government will work with industry, nonprofits, citizens and other states to improve the status quo. On that count, Bob Gourley, CTO of Crucial Point, commented extensively on the NSTIC at CTOVision.
It won’t be easy. Supporting the creation of identity infrastructure and improvements to online privacy in the private sector has the potential to make the Internet more secure and convenient for users and consumers but could have unintended consequences if not carefully pursued. There’s a lot at stake. As the Stanford event organizers highlighted, “e-commerce worldwide is estimated at $10 trillion of business online annually.”
Wired’s Ryan Singel highlighted a key issue for the White House plan for online identity, perhaps even the fundamental one in today’s online identity landscape: Facebook.
Philip Kaplan, the outspoken founder of Blippy, AdBrite and Fucked Company, added a Silicon Valley developer voice to event’s panel, arguing that any system has to be simple to implement, so that developers working in their living room making a website can concentrate on building new features, not worrying about security.
The closest thing to that currently is Facebook Connect, which lets you use your Facebook credentials to login you in around the net and on mobile apps..
“I can put in one line of JavaScript and I have a login system,” Kaplan said. “But that doesn’t I’m not going to pay my taxes using Facebook Connect.”
Which is another way of it might be as dangerous for a single company to be the world’s online ID vault as it would for the government to handle that task.
And right now, with Facebook at 600 million users and $50 billion in valuation, that future seems much more likely than a standards-based, interoperative system built by geeks at the behest of the feds.
Whether an online trust framework can be a viable alternative to Facebook’s play to be the identity provider online is a first-order question, and one that deserved examination. Kudos to Singel for putting the event in that context.
Weekend Reading: The most recent version of the NSTIC follows. Look for more reporting, both here or at another outlet, once the final version is released.
National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf
Today, news that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs will be leaving to become an outside political adviser to the president and his re-election campaign. In the White House press briefing today, Gibbs reflected upon several ways that his role has changed as the speed of reporting has increased, particularly in the context of Twitter. Gibbs was the first White House press secretary to tweet, at @PressSec.
The two questions Gibbs answered today for #1Q centered on exactly the question: what’s next for Gibbs – and for his @PressSec account?
“None of these tools were developed for me,” said Gibbs. “They were developed for you.”
He implied that @PressSec will continue, though it’s not immediately clear whether he’ll transition the account. For more on his thinking on social networking, relevant excerpts from the transcript from the briefing follow.
Q: Thank you. Having been at this for two years, can you talk to us a bit about the value of the daily briefing? Do you think it’s helpful to the general public? Is it helpful to reporters? Is it helpful to the White House? Would you make any changes? Would you take it off camera? Do you like it being on camera?
MR. GIBBS: Look, we’ve experimented with a couple different things like — I do think there’s a great utility in doing some off-camera gaggles. We probably, truth be told, haven’t done enough of those. I think there’s an ability to talk about things slightly differently without all these fancy lights.
I think it’s important, though, as I said — I alluded to earlier, it’s important to, as a government, to come out here and talk about and answer the — talk about the policies and decisions that are being made and to answer the questions surrounding those.
Like I said, there are days in which — my guess is it will happen again this week — where you pick up that newspaper or you turn on your computer at 4:30 a.m. in the morning while your coffee is still brewing and you groan and, oh, God, what — you know, great, this is going — and then you get on your BlackBerry.
But I think there’s a usefulness to that. I think there’s a reason that this has been an enduring quality. I do think there is — look, I think there has to be — I think there should continue to be experimentation, again, with gaggles. We’ve tried more stuff on social networking that I think will continue long past my existence inside this building because that, too, is important.
You now have the ability to — look, I got on something like Twitter largely from watching you guys tweet while the President was standing right here. And it’s a fascinating concept. All this stuff moves much faster. I think that will endure. And I think the briefing will endure. And I think what gets added to and what complements the briefing in terms of breaking down any walls that exist between the people and their government will only accelerate.
Gibbs then took a question on his use of social media platforms, which, as the questioner pointed out, he used to call “the Twitter” and YouTube. Gibbs said that was “a joke.” Take a look at WhiteHouse.gov/1Q for an archive of his use of the two platforms.
Q: The use of these kind of platforms, to what degree can you gauge its effectiveness in terms of sort of bypassing us, who are filters —
MR. GIBBS: Well, here’s I think a great misnomer, because I think it’s important — social networking and the use of those type of tools I think — I don’t look at it as, boy, I can now talk to people and you guys — I’m going to go around you. I’ve neversaid that. Because, quite frankly, I subscribe to what you write; youguys subscribe to what I write. And I think what’s unique is we’ve done recently — and I’ve greatly enjoyed them, though I realize that — and I know you all agree — that very few of my answers conform to 140 characters. But I think it’s interesting that you can have a dialogue with people who are going about their daily lives, who have questions for the administration about what it’s doing, and you guys have written off of that.
And I think that’s — I just don’t think people should look at the increased transparency in their government, a greater explanation of the decisions that we’re making, as an effort to move around and go around you guys.
Food for thought. Hat tip to Nancy Scola at techPresident, who offers additional analysis. If you’re at all interested in what happens next to @PressSec, or how the new media aspects of today’s transition were handled, Scola’s post on the 112th Congress’ great Twitter handover is an absolute must-read.
If you missed the first two rounds of Gibbs taking extended questions from the public over Twitter, they’re captured here, along with analysis of what transparency really means in this context.
Fireworks begin as the Killers perform on the South Lawn of the White House, July 4, 2010, during the Fourth of July celebration. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Exploring what this year will hold for the intersection of government, technology, citizens and business is a fascinating – and immense – challenge.
That is, however, precisely what I plan on doing, here, at the Gov 2.0 section of O’Reilly Radar, The Huffington Post, ReadWriteWeb, National Journal, Mashable, Forbes and other outlets.
Yesterday, I participated in a discussion on Twitter that touched upon “Gov 2.0,” open government and social media. I include explanations for those terms below. Dozens of people participatedusing the #SMfastfwd hashtag on Twitter or at the #SMFastFWD room at TweetChat.com.
Be forewarned: there’s some jargon below, but then the organizer of the chat specifically asked for explanations. My answers and key considerations raised by several participants for the year ahead follow.
What is government 2.0? Government social software expert Maxine Teller described the concept succinctly: Gov 2.0 equals “leveraging emerging tools, techs & collaboration PRINCIPLES to improve efficiency & effectiveness,” she tweeted. “Today’s tools & tech enable us to return to founding principles: government for, by & of the people.”
That’s useful, since many days it can seem like there are as many definitions for Gov 2.0 as there are people. That’s what happens when a term edges towards becoming a buzzword, particularly anything with a “2.0” added on.
Tim O’Reilly, my publisher, has explained how Gov 2.0 is all about the platform. In many ways, Gov 2.0 could be simply described as putting government in your hands.
As I’ve previously observed in writing about language, government 2.0, jargon and technology, I believe the term should be defined primarily by its utility to helping citizens or agencies solve problems, either for individuals or the commons. Defining it in gauzy paeans evangelizing world-shaking paradigm shifts from the embrace of social media by politicians isn’t helpful on that level.
That’s particularly true when politicians are using platforms to broadcast, in the model of 20th Century, not having iterative conversations that result in more agile government or participatory democracy.
Craigslist founder Craig Newmark put it another way yesterday: “Open government includes much greater gov’t transparency, that is, tell citizens what’s going on,” he tweeted. “Gov 2.0 includes gov’t and citizens working together for better customer service, more accountability.”
That melds well with O’Reilly’s perspective, where government 2.0 is the “idea of the government as platform: how can government design programs to be generative, […] building frameworks that enable people to build new services of their own.”
In a Forbes column in 2009, he’d framed this as “the opportunities inherent in harnessing a highly motivated and diverse population not just to help [politicians] get elected, but to help them do a better job.”
“Citizens are connected like never before and have the skill sets and passion to solve problems affecting them locally as well as nationally. Government information and services can be provided to citizens where and when they need it. Citizens are empowered to spark the innovation that will result in an improved approach to governance.
In this model, government is a convener and an enabler–ultimately, it is a vehicle for coordinating the collective action of citizens.
This is the right way to frame the question of “Government 2.0.” How does government itself become an open platform that allows people inside and outside government to innovate? How do you design a system in which all of the outcomes aren’t specified beforehand, but instead evolve through interactions between the technology provider and its user community?
Open government relates to that but isn’t necessarily grounded in technology, although certain aspects of it under the Obama administration absolutely have been.
As Chris Kemp, NASA’s chief technology officer for IT, put it last year, “The future of open government is allowing seamless conversations to occur between thousands of employees and people … You can’t divorce open government from technology. Technology enables the conversation and supports the conversation. We’re finding that if we don’t stand in the way of that conversation, incredible things can happen.”
If you’ve been tracking the progress of the Open Government Directive since 2009, you know that it required federal agencies to take steps to achieve key milestones in transparency, participation, and collaboration. As 2011 begins, more of those plans are still, for the most part, evolving towards implementation.
The progress of open government in the United States has beeen slowed by bureaucracy, culture, and the context of a White House balancing wars abroad and immense macroeconomic pressures, a populace deeply distrustful of many institutions, and, at the end of 2010, the emergence and disruption presented by the more “radical openness” of Wikileaks.
It was clear back in September that in the United States, open government is still very much in its beta period. It was in that context, that, in December, the White House made a new, ambitious request of the American people: help them to design digital democracy by creating a platform for expert consultation on policy.
In doing so, the architects of initiative embraced the notion government acting as a convener or collaborator, trying to co-create better policy or outcomes. By its nature, such open government platforms are expressed as top down, where officials work to create more participatory, collaborative model of governance.
Gov 2.0, by contrast, is more often conceived as expressly technology driven, founded in the platform principles of Web 2.0, and buoyed by the efforts of citizens and civic entrepreneurs to build “do-it-ourselves” government. Both Gov 2.0 and open government can and do increase transparency.
Consider this detail from a webcast, “What is Gov 2.0?,” which combines open government and Gov 2.0 in action:
“The first person who really put Gov 2.0 on my radar was Carl Malamud. Carl is really the father of this movement in so many ways. Back in 1993, that’s pretty darn early in the history of the World Wide Web, he put the SEC online.He got a small planning grant from the National Science Foundation, which he used to actually license the data, which at that point the SEC was licensing to big companies.
He got some servers from Eric Schmidt, who was the chief technology at Sun. And he basically put all this data he’d gotten from the SEC online, and he operated that for something like two years, and then he donated it to the federal government. Carl’s idea was that it really mattered for the public to have access to SEC data.”
In that moment, citizens in the private sector helped government do something it had trouble accomplishing. That’s still happening today, as evidenced by Malamud’s work on Law.gov and House.Resources.org.
Ben Berkowitz, the founder of SeeClickFix, put it this way yesterday in a tweet: “Don’t just use social web platforms to communicate, restructure government to operate like a social platform.”
To extend that, and reiterate elements of the earlier answer, Gov 2.0 is a frame to rethink how citizens to participate in government using technology. Open government has been around for decades as both a philosophy and a practice.
Awareness of the concept was rebooted under the White House Open Government Initiative and new Gov 2.0 technologies and events, including numerous camps and the O’Reilly conferences in Washington.
Open government also relates to Federal Register 2.0, rules, passage of new legislation, and culture, a key aspect that requires change management that extends far beyond technology:
Social media is a key element of many emerging citizen engagement platforms. These platforms give citizens new voices and provides new channels for government workers and elected officials to to talk with them. Aides for the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, say that he reads Facebook and constituents, as do many of his colleagues in Congress. While Facebook is an imperfect platform for government engagement, with respect to privacy or identity issues, given the hundreds of millions of users and global reach, elected officials have effectively been forced to at least pay attention to what is being said about them there. Some politicians, like former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, are shaping the national media conversation through Facebook and other media channels.
Social media, however, goes far beyond giving politicians or workers new platforms to broadcast, though that has been the approach for many first use cases. In 2011, for instance, Twitter is now home to emergency social data, including earthquake warning systems, crowdsourced weather alerts and other disaster-related information.
That’s why social media and FEMA now mix, among other reasons. Deciding to use these platforms creates complex decisions around terms of service and commercial speech, however, since civic discourse is being hosted by a third party. Those issues won’t go away in 2011.
Enterprise versions of these tools also provide the means for government to government communications, just as they do in businesses. That includes blogs, wikis, social networks, video or new forms of social media. For instance, ediplomacy at the State Department is doing behind firewall is in many ways at least as interesting as external social media use.
Smarter, leaner, more transparent, accountable, efficient and agile government, with data-driven policy. I’m sharing the stories of innovators.
Open government will move more from theory to practice in 2011.
Certain policies, like net neutrality, will test open government goals in 2011.
In 2011, the growth of edemocracy platforms *abroad* will be fascinating.
The themes that made 2010 a huge year for Gov 2.0 will continue to matter:
Wikileaks will impact open government in the United States in 2011, as t affects “need to know” vs. “need to share.”
There will be both positive and negative outcomes from that emergence.
Gov 2.0 advocate and San Francisco public servant Adriel Hampton identified a key issue here: “Education. Negative perception of gov still huge, citizens unaware of gov 2. efforts, excited when informed,” he tweeted.
Privacy and identity will be a huge issue for Gov 2.0 and open government in 2011. Follow the FTC Do No Track debate for more there.
There will be significant challenges around open government data, given the role controlling costs will play in 2011.
Another point made about accepting failures came from Newmark: “lots of Gov 2.0 open gov challenges, including normal big organizational inertia. Also, failure is stigmatized.” A more agile government would require tolerating mistakes and iterating faster based upon the lessons learned.
Government social media consultant Maxine Teller raised another angle: “Challenge is: what incentive do existing gov leaders have to embrace collaborative principles. Current system=self-perpetuating,” she tweeted. “Too much focus has been on citizen engagement. Need more on enterprise 2.0 — INSIDE government.” That goes back to the work at the State Department referenced earlier.For context on that challenge, read MIT professor Andrew Mcafee‘s piece on Gov 2.0 vs the beast of bureaucracy.
A final consideration is an open question: will open government be able to tap into the “civic surplus” to solve big problems. That’s Clay Shirky‘s “cognitive surplus,” applied to citizens and government. For open government to succeed, conveners need to get citizens to participate. That won’t be easy, with historic frustration and lack of trust in institutions in many parts of the country.
For me, that’s easy: That Gov2.0 equals = social media. Many members of the media, marketers or consultants have further entrenched that perception, which is not true for Web 2.0 either.
There’s also a misperception that Gov 2.0 is all about D.C., or the White House. The state and local stories of Gov 2.0 are absolutely fascinating, as are international stories.
The public should know about Challenge.gov and the potential for everyone to work on huge issues using crowdsourcing and open government.
The conversation pulled in many informed voices but clearly showed the need to extend much further to resonate with the public. We “need to mainstream the discussion by focusing on impact of Gov 2.0 concepts on agency, community missions,” tweeted Teller.
The “sweeping Gov 2.0 concept isn’t newsworthy,” tweeted Teller. We “need to show RESULTS and impact of Gov 2.0 principles on gov MISSIONS.”
It’s substantially hard to argue with that assessment, although some tech news outlets have covered it. That’s why the Veterans Administration’s Blue Button is a genuinely big deal. Newsworthy, real impact.
So here’s my goal for 2011: explain what Gov 2.0 means for citizens, how it’s impacting agencies, communities, relates to mission and outcomes, and do so in outlets that extend awareness beyond Twitter or blogs. The good news is that other outlets are waking up, as legislation and initiatives move through Congress and pilots: the Washington Post covered the COMPETES Act and Challenge.gov recently.
E Pluribus Unum 