Posts
I've previously discussed how actively the US has taken up Twitter as a communications tool in government circles - as have the UK, Canada, Israel and several other countries.
Looking at the website Who Politicians Tweet, there are now more than 130 US Federal politicians using Twitter, or around 24% of all 535 elected members (Reps 435, Senate 100).
In Australia I can only find twelve Federal members using Twitter, or about 5% of the combined 226 elected members (Reps 150, Senate 76).
However more Australian councils are adopting the service - with more than 20 now actively using Twitter, up from only three a few months ago.
You can see a full list of Aussie politicians and political parties on Twitter at Oz Pollie Tweeters.
From my commercial experience I have normally considered Australia as running about two years behind the US for the online channel. I am curiously watching to see if this also holds true in the public arena.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Follow US political activity online - over 130 federal members on Twitter | Tweet |
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Australian internet usage 20% greater than TV - Nielsen | Tweet |
I've just come across a media release from Nielsen (PDF) from March this year indicating that internet use by Australian internet users reached 16.1 hours per week in 2008, soaring ahead of TV at 12.9 viewing hours per week (radio sits at 8.8 hours).
This suggests that the average Australian internet user is spending 20% more time online than they do in front of the television - although there is also a high instance of multi-channelling - 61% of Australians watch TV and use the internet at the same time and 50% listen to the radio while surfing the net.
Nielsen's media consumption chart is below.
Also this morning the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Google is on target to crack $1 billion in revenue in Australia - a larger revenue than the entire Australian commercial radio segment, or magazines and outdoor advertising markets.
With the new financial year approaching it might be a very good time to reweigh communications strategies and budgets to ensure that they are being spent on the medium where Australians are spending most of their leisure time.
Where should government go with single sign-on? | Tweet |
Single sign-on is often seen as one of the Holy Grails of the internet - the ability to use a single logon to access all your secure online accounts and conduct transactions with whoever you choose.
This is seen as a way to make life easier for citizens/customers, allowing them to move easily from provider to provider, just as they may choose to move from store to store in a mall. It also reduces 'password fatigue', where users have too many passwords to remember and, correspondingly, is expected to reduce the IT cost of lost passwords.
The main risk of single sign-on solutions is also related to passwords - having a single logon for everything stored in a central location theoretically makes it easier for a hacker or identity thief to completely compromise an individual.
It might appear that the public sector has an advantage in moving towards a single sign-on for egovernment services. We have the dollars, expertise and computing power to pull together large IT projects, we don't have internal competitive pressures and possess the legislative power to change any laws necessary to allow citizens to access all government services via a single logon.
In contrast the private sector is fragmented between thousands of entities, potentially all competing for their slice of the online pie. Different online services are tied up with different intellectual property and sharing this IP would seem counter-intuitive to increasing profit margins.
However in practice the situation has been very different.
In the commercial world large and small organisations have been lining up behind a single standard for single sign-on, OpenID.
The OpenID Foundation estimates there are already over 1 billion OpenID-enabled web users and that more than 40,000 websites globally support the system.
OpenID is supported by the biggest online, authentication and IT players, including Microsoft, IBM, Verisign, PayPal, Google and Yahoo and was recently implemented by Facebook.
The system is fast becoming the global ID standard for authenticating users to websites - although I am unaware of a single case around the world where a government has adopted the same system.
On the government front single sign-on services are less developed. In Australia we've had the proprietary MyAccount service available for sometime now, linking Centrelink, Medicare and CSA customer accounts. MyAccount requires users to register separately for each agency's online service then link them together by registering a separate (fourth) account. This separate account can then be used to log into the online services for each of the agencies.
This service is presently being expanded. Australia.gov.au has indicated that they will be adopting the same single sign-on mechanism and that more agencies will be coming shortly.
The UK government has similarly been working on an independent single sign-on solution. This has encountered issues that I am sure Australia will also face - different services require different security levels, and stepping between the security necessary is more complex than simply offering a username and password.
The question in my head is whether it is possible for government to adopt the (free and open) OpenID standard rather than spend the time and money required to develop and expand a separate proprietary system.
In other words, do we need the government to continue to invest in a second 'single' sign-on when the commercial world is already well-advanced in a global solution?
The issue isn't that simple unfortunately. There are many reasons why a government may wish to own its own authentication system, such as national security, protection of citizen privacy, custom ways to 'step-up' to higher security levels (though this is also possible in OpenID).
However it is important to reconsider the value of a separate government system is from time to time, particularly if the commercial world is heading in a different direction.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
What does 'transparent' mean for government? | Tweet |
eGovernment, or government 2.0, is often discussed as a means to create greater transparency in government.
However has there been a clear definition of what transparency really means for government in Australia?
At the furthest extreme transparency would be like living in a glass house with glass furniture - everyone could see in and view everything that was taking place at all times.
This approach clearly isn't practical for governments. Some processes are hidden to prevent foreign nations taking advantage of local changes - such as defense force movements. Others are hidden to protect the privacy of citizens, public servants or politicians and reduce the risk of pressure being placed on individuals by unscrupulous parties - witness protection, fostering and adoption processes spring to mind.
Moving along the scale of transparency, at some point the level becomes too low to sustain democratic processes. When a government hides its budgets there is no accountability to the public, if voting is secret it is easily rigged.
Transparency is also influenced by time and access. For example, the Register of Members Interests for the Australian Federal Government has been publicly available for years. However to see it required physically traveling to Canberra and going to the office where it was available.
Not until recently, when OpenAustralia (a non-government not-for-profit organisation) scanned a copy of the paper-based Register and placed it online was it easy to access without travel.
Timeliness may still be an issue - I'm not sure of the processes whereby OpenAustralia is informed of updates to the Register so they can rescan it to keep the online version current.
Accessibility may also still be an issue - scanned documents are not as accessible as digitally encoded online information. They are harder to transmit or reuse.
Taking the above into account in order to move to a more precise definition, I would define transparency in government as:
Making government data, processes, decisions and activities available in the most timely and accessible formats available at the time - except where making it available would cause direct harm to the nation or its citizens.
This definition is still flawed - 'direct harm' is subject to interpretation.
The definition doesn't consider the cost/benefit - someone must pay to make available data that may only be accessed a few times per year.
Others will see other flaws in my definition - and I would welcome a better one.
However, taking my definition above into account, I see a shift in how government needs to look at its data, processes and decisions.
Firstly, governments need to stop asking IF data should be publicly available and instead take the approach that everything should be available EXCEPT IF it would cause direct damage.
Secondly, governments need to ensure that every system they put in place allows data and processes to be readily exposed in a timely and accessible manner. In my mind this means web-enablement. Legacy systems and processes also need to be bootstrapped into the modern age.
The question I finish on is what will transparency mean for governments?
By nature governments are risk-adverse and prefer to analyse and consider all of the consequences of action before they act. This is a good thing when considering the impact legislation can have on peoples' lives, a mistake in a law can drive thousands into poverty, allow criminals to prosper, or create other severe side-effects.
However in the case of transparency the consequences remain unclear.
Certainly transparency can be seen as a threat - suddenly politicians and government agencies can be held publicly accountable for more of their decisions and actions. Inconsistencies, poor decisions and mistakes can be blown-up into conspiracy theories and lead to unwarranted scalpings. Everyone makes mistakes and all systems need to have built-in tolerances to allow mistakes to be made.
Transparency can also be extremely costly to implement and the benefits are not always clear. Who in the public gains from knowing about some of the low level processes at work in government? Will they provide a net benefit for democracy after taking into account the time and resources required to make the process visible? Will the public even care?
I don't have easy answers to these questions. I don't think any government or individual does.
Here are some other thoughts on the topic of transparency in government:
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Improving access to government through better use of the web | Tweet |
The W3C has published an excellent paper named Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web. I commend it to anyone developing egovernment policy.
As stated in the foreword,
This document is an attempt to describe, but not yet solve, the variety of issues and challenges faced by governments in their efforts to apply 21st century capabilities to eGovernment initiatives. It provides examples of existing, applicable open Web standards. Where government needs in the development of eGovernment services are not currently met by existing standards, those gaps are noted.
I found the paper extremely insightful and deserving of several reads. It accurately depicts the issues governments face when engaging online, provides insights into why governments should engage citizens online and details strategies for enabling effective government engagement.
