Category Archives: Gov 2.0

A Day in the Life of Twitter: Jakarta glows as brightly as New York and San Francisco

Posted on by

1

.bbpBox10716694204911616 {background:url(http://s.twimg.com/a/1290538325/images/themes/theme2/bg.gif) #C6E2EE;padding:20px;} p.bbpTweet{background:#fff;padding:10px 12px 10px 12px;margin:0;min-height:48px;color:#000;font-size:18px !important;line-height:22px;-moz-border-radius:5px;-webkit-border-radius:5px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata{display:block;width:100%;clear:both;margin-top:8px;padding-top:12px;height:40px;border-top:1px solid #fff;border-top:1px solid #e6e6e6} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author{line-height:19px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author img{float:left;margin:0 7px 0 0px;width:38px;height:38px} p.bbpTweet a:hover{text-decoration:underline}p.bbpTweet span.timestamp{font-size:12px;display:block}

#Indonesia has the highest percentage of web users on #Twitter. Blogging/micro-blogging has been adopted and adapted in powerful ways here.less than a minute ago via txtAlec Ross
AlecJRoss

You can see that activity flare brightly in this extraordinary visualization of mapping a day in the life of Twitter by Chris McDowall.

From the video description of “Mapping a Day in the Life of Twitter” by Chris McDowall on Vimeo.

Last week I hooked a computer up to the Twitter data streaming API and, over the course of a day, grabbed every tweet that had geographic coordinates. I wrote a Python script to parse the 2GB of JSON files and used Matplotlib with the Basemap extension to animate 25 hours of data on a world map. The resulting animation plots almost 530,000 tweets — and remember these are just tweets with geo-coordinates enabled.

I recommend you full-screen this video, turn scaling off and high definition on.

The animation begins at 5am on November 18, Greenwich Mean Time (United Kingdom). This corresponds to midnight Eastern Standard Time, 9pm Pacific Time (Nov 17) and 6pm in New Zealand (Nov 18).

There are some interesting things to note:
– It is possible to infer the passage of the sun across the map as data begins to stream out of mobile phones and desktops and previously dark patches of the map begin to glow white.
– At 8:00, 9:00 and 10:00 GMT waves of tweets pass across the United States from East to West. This is an automated Twitter service that tweets local news for specific ZIP codes.
– Turn your attention to Indonesia. Jakarta glows as brightly as New York and San Francisco.
– Note the black spots. With the exception of a few cities, such as Lagos and Johannesburg, Africa remains the dark continent.

Food for thought and a feast for the eyes as the weekend draws near.

U.S. House to hold online privacy hearings on “Do-Not-Track” legislation

Posted on by

0

Yesterday, the FTC online privacy report endorsed a “do not track” mechanism for Web browsers. This morning, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection in the United States House of Representatives will hold a hearing on “Do-Not-Track” legislation. The hearing will e”xamine the feasibility of establishing a mechanism that provides Internet users a simple and universal method to opt-out from having their online activity tracked by data-gathering firms (a.k.a. a ‘Do Not Track List’).”

A livestream of the hearing is available, along with testimony:

The subcommittee has posted a memo that sets the stage for the hearing, which is embedded below. Notably, the document heavily references the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “What Do They Know?” series on digital privacy.

In the Internet age, each keystroke or click of a mouse can betray the most mundane or even sensitive details of our lives, and those details are being collected and packaged into profiles by a data-gathering industry with an increasing hunger for information that can be sold and used to target consumers based on their tastes, needs, and even perceived desirability. Many Americans don’t know that the details of their online lives are being gobbled up and used in this way, much less how to stop it in the event that such collection offends their expectations of privacy.

This summer, the Wall Street Journal began reporting about the online gathering of information about Internet users in an ongoing investigative series called “What They Know.” For its first piece, the Journal uncovered the extent to which Internet users’ activity is being tracked. The Journal found that visiting the top 50 most popular websites in the U.S. resulted in the placement on a single test computer of 2,224 files by 131 companies that track Internet users’ activity across the Internet. In addition, not only is tracking of Internet users pervasive, but it has become more invasive through the use by some in the tracking industry of more sophisticated technologies that can keep tabs on an Internet users activity on a website (rather than collecting just the fact that the website was visited) and some can even re-spawn themselves if an Internet user tries to delete them.

If you haven’t read the series, take some time over the weekend or holiday. And if you’re interested in what the federal government is considering in the context of digital privacy, tune in to the livestream and follow the #DNTrack hashtag on Twitter for the live backchannel.
http://widgets.twimg.com/j/2/widget.js //

DNTrack House Briefing memo.12.01 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

What was the story of the first FTC online privacy chat? 17 questions and answers.

Posted on by

1

http://storify.com/digiphile/the-federal-trade-commissions-first-twitter-chat.js

FTC online privacy report endorses “Do-Not-Track” mechanism for Web browsers

Posted on by

1

The Federal Trade Commission released an online privacy report today that will reshape how companies, consumers and businesses interact on the Internet. The agency will take questions from reporters at 1 PM EST and from the public on Twitter in its first Twitter chat at 3 PM EST. The recommendation that “companies should adopt a ‘privacy by design’ approach by building privacy protections into their everyday business practices” is a key direction to every startup or Global 1000 corporation that comes under the FTC’s purview as the nation’s top consumer protection regulator.

The new FTC privacy report proposes a framework that would “balance the privacy interests of consumers with innovation that relies on consumer information to develop beneficial new products and services,” according to the agency’s statement, and recommends the implementation of a “Do Not Track” mechanism, which the agency describes as “a persistent setting on consumers’ browsers – so consumers can choose whether to allow the collection of data regarding their online searching and browsing activities.”

“Technological and business ingenuity have spawned a whole new online culture and vocabulary – email, IMs, apps and blogs – that consumers have come to expect and enjoy. The FTC wants to help ensure that the growing, changing, thriving information marketplace is built on a framework that promotes privacy, transparency, business innovation and consumer choice. We believe that’s what most Americans want as well,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

The report states that industry efforts to address privacy through self-regulation “have been too slow, and up to now have failed to provide adequate and meaningful protection.” The framework outlined in the report is designed to reduce the burdens on consumers and businesses.

“This proposal is intended to inform policymakers, including Congress, as they develop solutions, policies, and potential laws governing privacy, and guide and motivate industry as it develops more robust and effective best practices and self-regulatory guidelines,” according to the report, which is titled, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.”

“Self-regulation has not kept pace with technology,” said David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Consumer Protection Bureau, speaking this morning about the proposed online privacy rules. “We have to simplify consumer choice and ‘do not track’ will achieve that goal,” he said. “I don’t think that under the FTC authority we could unilaterally mandate ‘do not track.'”

One of the nation’s top technology policy advocates approved. “The FTC report hits all the right notes. It sets out a modern and forward looking framework for privacy protection that moves beyond a narrow focus on notice and choice toward a full set of fair information practices and accountability measures,” said Center for Democracy and Technology president Leslie Harris. “The FTC has provided the blueprint. Now it is time for Congress and industry to follow suit.”

“We are very pleased to see the FTC exerting strong leadership on privacy,” said CDT Privacy Project Director Justin Brookman. “This report should bolster efforts to enact a privacy bill next Congress. Its recommendations are consistent with what is being discussed on the Hill.”

In a novel move, the FTC tweeted out “key points” from the report, embedded below, using @FTCGov.

“FTC proposes new framework 2 guide policymakers & industry as they develop legislation & other solutions. Self-regulation on privacy has been too slow. Important privacy choices should be presented in relevant context, not buried in privacy policy. Baseline protections of FTC’s proposed framework include reasonable security & accuracy, confidence that data collected or kept only 4 legitimate needs & privacy considered at every stage of product development. Privacy notices should be clearer, shorter & more standardized to better understand privacy practices & promote accountability. Consumers should have reasonable access to data upon request. Commission supports a more uniform mechanism for behavioral advertising: a so-called “Do Not Track”. Do Not Track could signal consumer’s choices about being tracked & receiving targeted ads.”

Below are the prepared remarks of the FTC chairman, followed by a liveblog of the press call. Audio of the FTC online privacy press call is available as an MP3.

FTC Chairman Privacy Report Remarks

FTC Online Privacy Press Conference

FTC Online Privacy Report

FCC proposes new framework for an open Internet and net neutrality

Posted on by

0

Today in Washington, FCC Chairman Genachowski delivered a statement on a new net neutrality proposal that he says will preserve an open Internet. The statement, which was shared with selected media outlets last night, has already received considerable attention. As Wired reported, the FCC now has a net neutrality order for its December meeting on the 21st. According to the New York Times, this proposal for a net neutrality framework will “will allow broadband companies to impose usage-based pricing.” It will not reclassifiy broadband services under Title 2. The new net neutrality proposal will, according to the Washington Post, “bars the operators of broadband lines into homes from blocking Web sites, applications or any devices that attach to their networks. It would also prevent carriers from “unreasonable discrimination” that would, for example, serve up Comcast’s Internet video service Xfinity faster and at better quality than that of rival Netflix.”

The Center for Democracy & Technology released the following statement on the proposal: “We commend Chairman Genachowski for recognizing that the time to act is now,” said CDT President Leslie Harris. “The Internet is and should remain a medium that is open to innovation, not one where big network operators get to pick winners and losers.  This rulemaking is about preserving the characteristics that have made the Internet such an overwhelming success. It is a first step but a critical one. At the same time, adopting these historic rules will not be the end of the Internet Neutrality debate, it will be just the end of the beginning. The Commission will need to vigorously enforce the new rules. And it will need to address the critical question of protections for wireless Internet users, which appear limited in the current proposal.”

Genachowski’s full remarks are available at OpenInternet.gov or posted below.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
REMARKS ON PRESERVING INTERNET FREEDOM AND OPENNESS WASHINGTON, DC
December 1, 2010

Good morning. After months of hard work at the FCC, in other parts of government, in the private sector, and in the public interest community, and after receiving more than 100,000 comments from citizens across America, we have reached an important milestone in our effort to protect Internet freedom and openness.

Yesterday, I circulated to my colleagues draft rules of the road to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet. This framework, if adopted later this month, would advance a set of core goals: It would ensure that the Internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation; it would empower consumers and entrepreneurs; it would protect free expression; it would increase certainty in the marketplace, and spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks.

I am gratified by the broad support this proposal has already received this morning — including from leading Internet and technology companies, founders and investors; consumer and public interest groups, unions, civil rights organizations, and broadband providers.

The proposed rules of the road are rooted in ideas first articulated by Republican Chairmen Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, and endorsed in a unanimous FCC policy statement in 2005. Similar proposals have been supported in Congress on a bipartisan basis. And they are consistent with President Obama’s commitment to “keep the Internet as it should be – open and free.”

Their adoption would culminate recent efforts to find common ground — at the FCC, in Congress, and outside government, including approaches advanced by both Democrats and Republicans, and by stakeholders of differing perspectives. In particular, this proposal would build upon the strong and balanced framework developed by Chairman Henry Waxman, which garnered support from technology and telecommunications companies, big and small, as well as from consumer and public interest groups.

The animating force behind all of these efforts is a shared appreciation for the Internet’s wondrous contributions to our economy and our way of life.

Millions of us depend on the Internet every day: at home, at work, in school — and everywhere in between. The high-speed networks we call broadband are transforming health care, education, and energy usage for the better. It’s hard to imagine life today without the Internet — any more than we can imagine life without running water or electricity.

The Internet has been an unprecedented platform for speech and democratic engagement, and a place where the American spirit of innovation has flourished. We’ve seen new media tools like Twitter and YouTube used by democratic movements around the world.

Not only is the Internet becoming a central part of the daily lives of Americans, the Internet has been a strong engine of job creation and economic growth.

Internet companies have started as small start-ups, some of them famously in dorm rooms and garages with little more than a computer and access to the open Internet. Many have become large businesses, providing high-paying, high-tech jobs in communities across our country. It’s the American dream at work.

Small businesses and start-ups have accounted for more than 22 million new American jobs over the last 15 years. And broadband has played a central part, enabling small businesses to start, to lower their costs, and to reach new customers in new markets around the country and, indeed, the globe.

Why has the Internet proved to be such a powerful engine for innovation, creativity and economic growth? A big part of the answer traces back to one key decision by the Internet’s original architects: to make the Internet an open platform.

It is the Internet’s openness and freedom — the ability to speak, innovate, and engage in commerce without having to ask anyone’s permission — that has enabled the Internet’s unparalleled success.

This openness is a quality — a generative power — that must be preserved and protected. And the record in the proceeding we’ve run over the past year, as well as history, shows that there are real risks to the Internet’s continued freedom and openness. Broadband providers have natural business incentives to leverage their position as gatekeepers to the Internet. Even after the Commission announced open Internet principles in 2005, we have seen clear deviations from the Internet’s openness — instances when broadband providers have prevented consumers from using the applications of their choice without disclosing what they were doing.

The proposed open Internet framework is designed to guard against these risks, while recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of broadband providers.

In key respects, the interests of edge innovators – the entrepreneurs creating Internet content, applications and services — broadband providers, and American consumers are aligned.
Innovation at the edge catalyzes consumer demand for broadband. Consumer demand spurs private investment in faster broadband networks. And faster networks spark ever-cooler innovation at the edge.

A central goal of the proposed open Internet framework is to foster this cycle of massive investment in both the edge and the core of broadband networks, to the benefit of consumers and our economy.

Protecting Internet freedom will drive the Internet job creation engine.

The crux of the proposal, which would establish open Internet rules for the first time, is straightforward:

First, consumers and innovators have a right to know basic information about broadband service, like how networks are being managed. The proposed framework therefore starts with a meaningful transparency obligation, so that consumers and innovators have the information they need to make smart choices about subscribing to or using a broadband network, or how to develop the next killer app. Sunshine can help solve problems early, reducing the number of issues that even come to the FCC.

Second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic — to go where they want and say what they want online, and to use the devices of their choice. Thus, the proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network.

Third, consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. No central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick which ideas or companies win or lose on the Internet; that’s the role of the market and the marketplace of ideas. And so the proposed framework includes a bar on unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic.

The proposed framework also recognizes that broadband providers must have the ability and investment incentives to build out and run their networks. Universal high-speed Internet access is a vital national goal that will require very substantial private sector investment in our 21st century digital infrastructure. For our global competitiveness, and to harness the opportunities of broadband for all Americans, we want world-leading broadband networks in the United States that are both the freest and the fastest in the world.

To this end, broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks — for example, to deal with traffic that’s harmful to the network or unwanted by users, and to address the effects of congestion. Reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and architecture involved.

Our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing.

The record in our proceeding reflects both the importance of openness principles to mobile broadband, and the appropriateness of recognizing differences between fixed and mobile broadband. This is not a new point, but one that I’ve made consistently since the beginning of this proceeding. For example, mobile broadband is at an earlier stage of development than fixed broadband, and is evolving rapidly.

Accordingly, the proposal takes important but measured steps in this area — including transparency and a basic no blocking rule. Under the framework, the FCC would closely monitor the development of the mobile broadband market and be prepared to step in to further address anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct as appropriate.

The work of the FCC staff on this proceeding has been exceptional, no more so than in connection with the complex legal issues. Informed by the staff’s additional legal analysis and the extensive comments on this issue over the past year, the proposal is grounded in a variety of provisions of the communications laws, but would not reclassify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service. I am satisfied that we have a sound legal basis for this approach.

I want to emphasize that moving this item to a vote at the Commission is not designed or intended to preclude action by Congress. As always, I welcome the opportunity for the Commission to serve as a resource to Congress.

The Commission itself has a duty and an obligation to fulfill — a duty to address important open proceedings based on the record, and an obligation to be a cop on the beat to protect broadband consumers and foster innovation, investment, and competition. I believe the proposed framework advances this mission, and that its adoption will provide increased certainty and benefits to the American public.

I look forward to ongoing work with my Commission colleagues on this and other issues. We have very important work to do for the American people in the months ahead, as we strive to harness the opportunities of broadband and communications for the benefit of our economy and for all Americans.

Thank you.

FTC to release online privacy report, host first Twitter chat at #FTCpriv

Posted on by

2

This fall, online privacy debates have been heating up in Washington. Tomorrow, the Federal Trade Commission will finally deliver its long awaited online privacy report. Chairman. Over the past year FTC has explored new online privacy frameworks and examined the strength of cloud computing privacy in a series of privacy roundtables.

The FTC has issued a privacy advisory for tomorrow, stating that FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz, Jessica Rich, deputy director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and Edward W. Felten, the FTC’s new chief technologist, will answer reporters’ questions “about a new FTC report on privacy that outlines a framework for consumers, businesses and policymakers.”

This FTC online privacy report will be one of the most important government assessments this year. Look for widespread reaction to its contents across industry and technology media. Particular attention likely be paid to two events here in Washington:

First, David Vladeck, the FTC’s director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection Protection, will speak tomorrow at Consumer Watchdog’s policy conference on the future of online consumer protections. You can watch live here (if you can stream Windows Media files.)

Second, House of Representatives will hold a hearing on “Do-Not-Track legislation, which would consider whether citizens should be able to opting of from Web tracking

Will online privacy look different by the end of the day? As Jamie Court, Author, President of Consumer Watchdog, wrote in the Huffington Post:

There are few issues 9 out of 10 Americans agree on. A Consumer Watchdog poll shows that 90% of Americans agree it is important to protect their privacy online. 86% want a “make me anonymous” button and 80% want the creation of a “do not track me” list online that would be administered by the Federal Trade Commission.

The release of the FTC online privacy report also comes with a new media twist: According to @FTCGov, the agency’s Twitter account, the nation’s top regulator will also host its first Twitter chat at 3 PM. It remains to be seen how civil citizens are in the famously snarky medium. The agency has suggested the #FTCpriv hashtag to aggregate tweets. UPDATE: Although the White House OpenGov account and FTC tweeted on Wednesday that the chat would be at #FTCpriv hashtag, not #FTCpriv, the chat ended up being at the original hashtag.

Breaking News! Tomorrow we will release our #privacy report & host our 1st Twitter Chat to answer Qs. More details to come. #FTCprivless than a minute ago via webFTC
FTCgov

http://widgets.twimg.com/j/2/widget.js // <![CDATA[
new TWTR.Widget({
version: 2,
type: 'search',
search: '#FTCpriv',
interval: 6000,
title: 'FTC Privacy',
subject: 'What are people saying about the FTC Privacy report?',
width: 'auto',
height: 300,
theme: {
shell: {
background: '#094561',
color: '#ffffff'
},
tweets: {
background: '#ffffff',
color: '#444444',
links: '#1985b5'
}
},
features: {
scrollbar: false,
loop: true,
live: true,
hashtags: true,
timestamp: true,
avatars: true,
toptweets: true,
behavior: 'default'
}
}).render().start();

http://widgets.twimg.com/j/2/widget.js //

Is Wikileaks open government?

Posted on by

21

Aeschylus wrote nearly 2,500 years ago that in war, “truth is the first casualty.” His words are no doubt known to another wise man, whose strategic “maneuvers within a changing information environment” would not be an utterly foreign concept to the Greeks in the Peloponnesian War. Aeschylus and Thucydides would no doubt wonder at the capacity of the Information Age to spread truth and disinformation alike. In November 2010, it’s clear that legitimate concerns about national security must be balanced with the spirit of open government expressed by the Obama administration.

The issues created between Wikileaks and open government policies are substantial. As Samantha Power made clear in her interview on open government and transparency: “There are two factors that are always brought to bear in discussions in open government, as President Obama has made clear from the day he issued his memorandum. One is privacy, one is security.”

As the State Department made clear in its open letter to Wikileaks, the position of the United States government is that the planned release of thousands of diplomatic cables by that organization today will place military operations, diplomatic relationships and the lives of many individuals at risk.

As this post went live, the Wikileaks website is undergoing a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, though the organization’s Twitter account is far from silenced. A tweet earlier on Sunday morning noted that “El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel, Guardian & NYT will publish many US embassy cables tonight, even if WikiLeaks goes down.”

In fact, Wikileaks’ newest leak, through the early release of Der Spiegel, had long since leaked onto Twitter by midday. Adrien Chen’s assessment at Gawker? “At least from the German point of view there are no earth-shattering revelations, just a lot of candid talk about world leaders.”

The New York Times offered a similar assessment in its own report on Wikileaks, Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels: “an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.”

The Lede is liveblogged reaction to Wikileaks at NYTimes.com, including the statement to Fareed Zakaria by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, that “the leak would put the lives of some people at risk.”

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=world/2010/11/26/gps.zakaria.mullen.wikileaks.cnn

The Lede added some context for that statement:

Despite that dire warning, Robert Gates, the defense secretary, told Congress in October that a Pentagon review “to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure,” of the war logs by WikiLeaks.

The Guardian put today’s release into context, reporting that the embassy cable leaks sparks a global diplomatic crisis. Among other disclosures, the Guardian reported that the cables showed “Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN’s leadership … a major shift in relations between China and North Korea, Pakistan’s growing instability and details of clandestine US efforts to combat al-Qaida in Yemen.” The Guardian’s new interactive of diplomatic cables is one of the best places online to browse the documents.

Is the “radical transparency” that Wikileaks both advocates for – and effectively forces – by posting classified government information “open government?” The war logs from Afghanistan are likely the biggest military intelligence leak ever. At this point in 2010, it’s clear that Wikileaks represents a watershed in the difficult challenge to information control that the Internet represents for every government.

On the one hand, Open Government Directive issued by the Obama administration on December 8, 2009 explicitly rejects releasing information that would threaten national security. Open government expert Steven Aftergood was crystal clear in June on that count: Wikileaks fails the due diligence review.

On the other hand, Wikileaks is making the diplomatic and military record of the U.S. government more open to its citizens and world, albeit using a methodology on its own site that does not appear to allow for the redaction of information that could be damaging to the national security interests of the United States or its allies. “For me Wikileaks is open govt,” tweeted Dominic Campbell. “True [open government] is not determined and controlled by govts, but redistributes power to the people to decide.”

The New York Times editorial board explored some of these tensions in a note to readers on its decision to publish Wikileaks.

The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match… The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

…the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.

It seems that the Times and Guardian decided to make redactions from the diplomatic cables before publication. It’s not clear how that will compare to what will be posted on Wikileaks.org alongside the War Logs and Afghan Diaries.

Open government, radical transparency and the Internet

More transparency from the military, Congress and the White House regarding the progress of wars is important, desirable and perhaps inevitable. Accountability to civilian leadership and the electorate is a bedrock principle in a representative democracy, not least because of the vast amounts of spending that has been outlaid since 9/11 in the shadow government that Dana Priest reported out in Top Secret America in the Washington Post.

Wikileaks and the Internet together add the concept of asymmetric journalism to the modern media lexicon. File asymmetric journalism next to the more traditional accountability journalism that Priest practices or the database journalism of the new media crew online at the Sunlight Foundation and similar organizations are pioneering.

As Tim O’Reilly tweeted, “wikileaks *challenges* [open government government 2.0] philosophy. Challenges are good if we rise to them.” No question about the former point. Governments that invest in the capacity to maneuver in new media environment might well fare better in the information warfare the 21st century battlefield includes.

Open government is a mindset, but goes beyond new media literacy or harnessing new technologies. The fundamental elements of open government, as least as proposed by the architects of that policy in Washington now, do not include releasing diplomatic cables regarding espionage or private assessments of of world leaders. Those priorities or guidelines will not always be followed by the governed, as Wikileaks amply demonstrates.

Increasingly, citizens are turning to the Internet for data, policy and services. Alongside the efforts of government webmasters at .gov websites, citizens will find the rich stew of social media, media conglomerates or mashups that use government and private data. That mix includes sites like Wikileaks, its chosen media partners, the recently launched WLCentral.org or new models for accountability like IPaidABribe.com.

That reality reinforces that fact that information literacy is a paramount concern for citizens in the digital age. As danah boyd has eloquently pointed out, transparency is not enough. The new media environment makes such literacy more essential than ever, particularly in the context of the “first stateless news organization” Jay Rosen has described. There’s a new kind of alliance behind the War Logs, as David Carr wrote in the New York Times.

There’s also a critical reality: in a time of war, some information can and will have to remain classified for years if those fighting them are to have any realistic chances of winning. Asymmetries of information between combatants are, after all, essential to winning maneuvers on the battlefields of the 21st century. Governments appear to be playing catchup given the changed media environment, supercharged by the power of the Internet, broadband and smartphones. This year, we’ve seen a tipping point in the relationship of government, media and techology.

Comparing the Wikileaks War Logs to the Pentagon Papers is inevitable — and not exactly valid, as ProPublica reported. It would be difficult for the military to win battles, much less wars, without control over situational awareness, operational information or effective counterintelligence.

Given the importance of the ENIGMA machine or intercepts of Japanese intel in WWII, or damage caused by subsequent counterintelligence leaks from the FBI and elsewhere, working to limit intelligence leaks that damage ongoing ops will continue to be vitally important to the military for as long as we have one. Rethinking the definitions for secrecy by default will also require hard work. As the disclosures from the most recent release continue to reverberate around the globe, the only certainty is that thousands of State Department and Defense Department workers are going to have an extra headache this winter.

Sunstein: Plain writing should be seen as an essential part of open government

Posted on by

2

For government to be more open, the language it uses must be understandable to all citizens. For those who cover government technology, or the many who tried to interpret the healthcare or financial regulatory reform legislation posted online over the past year, the issue is familiar. Government documents, written by lawyers or functionaries, is all too often dense and extremely difficult to understand for regular citizens.

With the passage of the Plain Writing Act of 2010 and a stroke of President Obama’s pen on October 13, 2010, there’s a new reason to hope that the business of government will be more understandable to all.

As a report on the Plain Language Act by Joel Siegel at ABC News reminded citizens, however, this law follows decades of similar efforts that haven’t achieved that desired outcome.

The movement to bring clarity to complex government documents began decades ago, when a Bureau of Land Management employee named John O’Hayre wrote a book after World War II called “Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go.”

In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon ordered that the “Federal Register” be written in “layman’s terms.”

The Clinton administration even issued monthly “No Gobbledygook Awards” to agencies that ditched the bureaucratese. Vice President Al Gore, who oversaw the effort, called plain language a civil right, and said it promoted trust in government. The effort gave birth to a government Web site that still operates, www.plainlanguage.gov.

There are reasons to be hopeful. For one, the Federal Register was relaunched this year, in a “historic milestone in making government more open.” “Federal Register 2.0” itself only came about after an effort that deputy White House CTO Beth Noveck observed is “collaborative government at its best. The new beta of the FederalRegister.gov continues to evolve.

This week, Cass Sunstein, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, issued a memorandum that provided further guidance.

Plain writing is concise, simple, meaningful, and well-organized. It avoids jargon, redundancy, ambiguity, and obscurity. It does not contain unnecessary complexity.

Plain writing should be seen as an essential part of open government. In his January 21, 2009 Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, President Obama made a commitment to establish “a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.” Transparency, public participation, and collaboration cannot easily occur without plain writing. Clear and simple communication can eliminate significant barriers to public participation in important programs for benefits and services. Avoiding ambiguity and unnecessary complexity can increase compliance simply because people understand better what they are supposed to do. Plain writing is no mere formal requirement; it can be essential to the successful achievement of legislative or administrative goals, and it promotes the rule of law.

Preliminary Guidance for the Plain Writing Act of 2010 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=43925019&access_key=key-qoahr7f12t2p29pj3uk&page=1&viewMode=list

Among other things, the memorandum provides initial guidance to federal agencies on where to start with plain language, including making government officials accountable for implementing plain language and resources for advice. Key documents are also designated as necessary, each of which includes processes citizens need to understand:

“those that are necessary for obtaining any Federal Government benefit or service, or filing taxes; those that provide information about any Federal Government benefit or service; or those that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement that the Federal Government administers or enforces.”

If you can’t understand how to do something, good luck accomplishing the task. The same is true of benefits or legal requirements. To date, there are few aspects of regulations as clear as a red light or Stop sign. If the requirements of this law are carried out in good faith, perhaps more Americans will see more of them.

Booting up Startup.gov: Mint.com meets healthcare.gov at the new CFPB

Posted on by

4

There’s a new startup in Washington. It’s not part of the Gov 2.0 Startup Lab at GWU, the contracting community or a spinoff from AOL. It’s not a scrappy venture within Big Window Labs, which Clay Johnson just founded, or Code for America, which provides the geektastic source code graphic that adorns this post.

It’s the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB. And they’re hiring, as Merici Vinton highlighted again today:
.bbpBox7499011304988672 {background:url(http://a1.twimg.com/profile_background_images/130563296/1zp5s8i.jpg) #1A1B1F;padding:20px;} p.bbpTweet{background:#fff;padding:10px 12px 10px 12px;margin:0;min-height:48px;color:#000;font-size:18px !important;line-height:22px;-moz-border-radius:5px;-webkit-border-radius:5px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata{display:block;width:100%;clear:both;margin-top:8px;padding-top:12px;height:40px;border-top:1px solid #fff;border-top:1px solid #e6e6e6} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author{line-height:19px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author img{float:left;margin:0 7px 0 0px;width:38px;height:38px} p.bbpTweet a:hover{text-decoration:underline}p.bbpTweet span.timestamp{font-size:12px;display:block}

Want to work for a federal agency that’s also a startup? Hiring coders -python, ruby, mobile etc http://bit.ly/bV1CPx #gov20 /pos closes Friless than a minute ago via webmerici
merici

What’s the vision for the new agency? Vinton put it in an email, “think mint.com meets healthcare.gov with a really fun team and an agency with a wonderful mission.”

To get there, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau needs to track down some smart web and mobile developers, and soon. According to Vinton:

We are looking for individuals who love creating new and interesting tools online and are passionate about creating an engaging experience for web visitors.  We need people who get a kick out of taking really complex financial consumer products, terms and issues and turning them into a really cool online tool that makes the data/info make sense. The downside for a talented, high demand developer is that there isn’t an IPO or acquisition at the end of this rainbow. The upside is– creating this agency and getting it right from day one is important work. The next two years at this agency will probably give the person who takes this job an amazing future full of IPOs and acquisitions. It’s a launchpad for someone who wants to be remarkable.

Why is the hiring announcement significant? Go back to Elizabeth Warren’s plans to leverage technology to stand up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as defined by her speech at the University of California at Berkeley:

Technology can be used to help the agency become an effective, high-performance institution that is able to update information, spot trends, and deliver government services twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week,” said Warren y. “If we set it up right from the beginning, the agency can collect and analyze data faster and get on top of problems as they occur, not years later. Think about how much sooner attention could have turned to foreclosure documentation (robo-signers and fake notaries) if, back in 2007 and 2008, the consumer agency had been in place to gather information and to act before the problem became a national scandal.

If the CFPB is truly going to be a “21st century regulator,” it will need the tools and the people to match the title. The first “Startup.gov” in decades has its sights on using crowdsourcing, big data and mobile technology to detect and address consumer fraud before it causes the next great financial crisis.

That’s a tall order.

If Uncle Sam can inspire a more civic coders to hack smarter government from the inside, maybe they’ll have a shot.

UPDATE: On February 3rd, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched ConsumerFinance.gov. The bureau sent out a new call for developers on February 7th, with vacancies open through midnight. They’re looking for coders who can “write code from scratch for a highly-trafficked web site, using either an open source MVC development framework such as Django or Ruby on Rails; or an open source Javascript framework such as jQuery or Prototype” and who can work with database and system admins on tools to handle “big data,” including MySQL, Hadoop, CouchDB or MongoDB.

Gov 2.0 Startup Lab at George Washington University

Posted on by

0

Today at George Washington University, GW Office of Entrepreneurship & iStrategyLabs is hosting a “Gov 2.0 Startup Lab” to highlight the opportunities around civic entrepreneurship. According to the event organizers, the event “will stimulate new ideas and bring together collaborators for the 2011 GW Business Plan Competition with $50,000 in prizes, and further establish GW as a hotspot for innovation and entrepreneurship.” The livestream is embedded below:

Liveblog here:

Gov 2.0 Startup Lab at GW

Follow the #Gov20gw hashtag for the Twitter backchannel:

new TWTR.Widget({
version: 2,
type: ‘search’,
search: ‘#gov20gw’,
interval: 6000,
title: ‘#gov20gw’,
subject: ‘Gov 2.0 Startup Lab’,
width: 600,
height: 300,
theme: {
shell: {
background: ‘#07415c’,
color: ‘#ffffff’
},
tweets: {
background: ‘#ffffff’,
color: ‘#444444’,
links: ‘#1985b5’
}
},
features: {
scrollbar: false,
loop: true,
live: true,
hashtags: true,
timestamp: true,
avatars: true,
toptweets: true,
behavior: ‘default’
}
}).render().start();