Is this the first eGovernment research paper? Published 1954

I've been reading the excellent blog post by Richard Heeks in ICTs for Development on The First e-Government Research Paper.

He discusses a research paper by W. Howard Gammon on "The Automatic Handling of Office Paper Work" published in 1954 that looks that the impact of ICT on government - noting at the time that there were approximately 40 computers in use by the US Federal public service.

What I find very interesting is that many of the points raised in Gammon's article - and highlighted by Heeks - reflect the situation we are in today with eGovernment and Government 2.0.

In a most insightful paper, Hammon identified the importance of understanding how and when to employ technology over understanding how to create or maintain technology, the need to re-engineer business processes rather than simply automate existing processes, the importance of 'hybrid' skills that combine an understanding of the ‘business’ of government with knowledge about the application of technology and the need for top management support, particularly to resist the politics of entrenched interests.

These factors remain of overwhelming importance today in government. We still have to contend with individuals and groups who struggle to effectively employ technology in the service of organisations, siloed business units who seek to protect their current practices out of fear of the consequences of change and there is an ongoing need to expand the ranks of strategic thinkers who can use their combined understanding of government business and technology to create positive change.

It is worth reflecting on why, after more than 50 years, we're still dealing with the same people issues despite having completely changed our environments.

Perhaps we need to collectively spend more time focusing on how we educate and empower our people to bring them along with us into the future.

Read full post...

View summary...

Dumbing down or lifting up - writing in plain English respects your readers

It makes me really upset when I visit a government website and find it written in dense technical or bureaucratic language.

I can appreciate the desire of public servants to be precise and accurate in their choice of words, but often the language chosen is incomprehensible to people without two degrees and ten years experience in government.

I've heard about - and witnessed - instances when experienced writers or communication professionals have translated complex text into plain English and been told 'you're dumbing it down'.

No they're not. They're lifting the language up.

Writing in plain English is about respecting your readers - writing for them, not for yourself or your boss.

When writing complex multi-syllabic diatribes, the writer is not demonstrating their intellectual superiority or eloquent grasp of sophisticated phraseology.

The writer is showing they don't have the writing skill and experience to lift their language out of government-speak to a level used by society, by their audience - a level used every day to share and explain some of the most complicated concepts and thoughts imaginable.

The writer is hiding behind their words, using them to conceal a lack of appreciation and respect for their audience and a lack of understanding of their topic. They are revealing their limits and fears - and they are not getting their message across.

One of the core capabilities for the Australian Public Service is to 'Communicate with Influence'.

'Influence' doesn't mean using big words, it means using effective words - words that can overcome the gaps in communication between writers and readers to convey meaning and understanding.

So when writing your websites and developing your documents, think about the invisible people in the room - your readers. Is your choice of words appropriate for their experience and education?

Will they be uplifted by your simple and clear language or left feeling 'dumbed down', lost and frustrated by your turgid turns of phrase?

Read full post...

View summary...

AGIMO announces finalists for 2011 Gov 2.0 individual innovator award

On Monday AGIMO announced the finalists for the 2011 Gov 2.0 individual innovator award, building on the award originally issued by the Gov 2.0 Taskforce last year.

I'm very proud to see the three finalists have all made significant contributions to Government 2.0 practice in Australia.

It is interesting to note that all three finalists are from state governments (not having seen the full list of entrants), however two have had roles which took on significant national interest - both through disaster management (Victorian bushfires and QLD floods and cyclones).

I feel that in the last year there hasn't been the same stand-out performance from individuals at a Federal level. While there are some fantastic Gov 2.0 projects and innovators in Canberra, often projects are quite large, requiring teams all doing their part, have long timeframes, or can face significant approval and scrutiny hurdles that may dilute of defy individual innovative activities.

Local government also struggles with scale, being smaller and more resource limited innovators often have a broader range of duties and may struggle to find the time to innovate, plus many innovations impact on a local level and, while often very significant, often don't attract a broader level of attention.

In my view state government in Australia is in a 'sweet spot' for many innovative Government 2.0 activities - large enough to be resourced and focused on direct citizen engagement to a greater extent than Federal - though, as always, time will tell.

Read full post...

View summary...

Australian internet users more social, connected and politically aware than non-users

As reported by ARN in the article It's official - the Internet is good for you: ANU poll, the eighth ANUpoll, The Internet and Civil Society (PDF), shows increased use of the Net is leading to a more politically engaged and socially inclusive Australian society.

The report asked whether virtual contacts (made over the internet) are less important than personal ones in building a strong society, and whether a reliance on virtual over personal contact had implications for the quality of citizenship.

In his foreword to the report, ANU vice-chancellor, Professor Ian Young, stated that,

“The results from ANUpoll are largely positive, and counter the pessimistic view that the Internet is undermining effective social relations and good citizenship.

Frequent Internet users are not more socially disengaged than their counterparts who rely on personal interaction. They are at least as good citizens, and report similar or higher levels of social capital."

Some of the key findings from the report included:

Household Internet use

• A total of 82 per cent of respondents reported having broadband access with only two per cent saying that they have dial-up access (2 per cent did not know and 12 per cent did not have internet access at home)
• Around two-thirds of respondents said they use the Internet at least once a day.
• Nearly two-thirds of Australians reported knowing how to use the Internet to download audio,
  video and image files.
• 21 per cent of respondents indicated they had used the Internet to design a webpage or a blog.

Internet use and social capital

• 35 per cent of respondents said that the Internet helped them interact with people of a different race from their own.
• Just over half (54 per cent) of respondents said that the Internet helped them interact with people from other countries.
• A relatively small percentage of respondents (15 per cent) felt the Internet helped them interact with people who share the same political views.
• 59 per cent of respondents felt the Internet helped them interact with people who they shared hobbies with.

Internet use and good citizenship

• The report concluded that frequent Internet use does not necessarily lead to a more atomised and individualistic society.
  
• 70 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was very important to support people who are worse off than themselves.
• 86 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was very important to report a crime if they witnessed one.
• Only 15 per cent of frequent Internet users felt that to be a good citizen it was extremely important to be active in politics, compared to 25 per cent of infrequent users and 21 per cent of rare users.
  
  However:
• Frequent Internet users were less willing than infrequent Internet users to accept that traditional norms of citizenship such as obeying laws and regulations, serving on a jury if called and being active in voluntary organisations are very important in order to be a good citizen.
  
  For example, only 38 per cent of frequent Internet users believe that to be a good citizen it was important to always obey laws and regulations, compared with 51 per cent of infrequent Internet users.

Internet use and political involvement

• Those who use the Internet more frequently are more likely to be involved in offline political activity such as contacting a local politician, signing a petition or buying products for a political reason. The findings showed that Internet use was linked with promoting offline and online political engagement.
  
  On that basis the report drew the general conclusion that online political activity complements, rather than replaces, traditional forms of political activity.
  
• Around one in four (27 per cent) respondents said they had visited the websites of political organisations or candidates and one in five said that they had forwarded electronic messages with political content (28 per cent of frequent Internet users).
  
• Those who use the Internet frequently are significantly more likely than those who use the Internet sparingly to be involved in political activity through virtual interactions.

Read full post...

View summary...

Battle of the sockpuppets (part of the discussion at Media140 Brisbane)

I'm at Media140 in Brisbane today on the panel Web 2.0 or Web too far? where six of us will be discussing how the internet can be used to "distort, misinform and distribute propaganda" and how we should use the web to democratise scientific knowledge.

This is a key topic for governments as well. The internet is a fantastic mechanism for democratising communication, giving every citizen a voice. However it can also be used to create a choir of false voices to amplify a given point of view or drown out legitimate perspectives.


These voices are often referred to as sockpuppets, a term Wikipedia defines as "an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community."

The first sockpuppets were used by individuals to pose as third parties in support of their views during a debate on an online forum or chat channel. This use, while annoying, was often detectable by other participants or administrators and often resulted in the perpetrator being named and shamed, suspended or even expelled.

With the growth of the internet as a mainstream media and with the rise of social media, sockpuppets  became important tools for people pushing particular views. By creating multiple personas, individuals were able to have a disproportionate influence over discussions on matters important to them, and sometimes matters of interest to the public.

As it has become easier to register domain names and build websites, generate hundreds - or thousands - of email addresses and program personas to provide differently worded statements supporting the same cause, sockpuppetry has grown from being the act of passionate or misguided individuals into a strategy used by groups seeking to amplify their voice beyond their active membership.

In the last few years sockpuppets has expanded into use by commercial and political interest groups. Sockpuppetry has become big business, with groups creating fake personas to emphasise points of view and influence government decisions and outcomes.

In some cases this approach has been embraced by governments, for example The Guardian recently revealed that the US military has tendered for the creation of sockpuppets to be used to spread particular messages online. Reported in the article, Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media, the article states that,

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
...
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".

These sockpuppets - or perhaps 'socksoldiers' - have been designed to go into battle against extremist and radical forces who, presumably, are using similar techniques to incite negative views and violence against the USA.

This specific approach is designed to target websites outside the US and the company involved has stated that the sockpuppets are not being designed to infiltrate Facebook, Twitter or US forums and blogs.

However there have been past claims and concerns that the US government has targeted citizens, such as in the below video regarding the possible use of sockpuppetry to deflect complaints about the Army Corp of Engineers after Hurricane Katrina.



Sockpuppetry may be illegal in certain countries, if you are impersonating a real (and usually living) person. However there may be loopholes regarding totally fake personas, 'anonymous' posts or people use pseudonyms, which could also be for legitimate purposes. I'm not a lawyer and can't comment on Australian law in this regard.

However, regardless of the legal position, it can be hard to detect well-executed sockpuppetry particularly where experienced operators are involved. It can also be difficult to prove offences and prosecute perpetrators, who may be based anywhere in the world.

While it may be very hard to detect the scope of sockpuppetry, its impact can be profound.

Imagine running an online government consultation on an issue where there's commercial interests and millions of dollars at stake. A business, or a lobby group representing them, could invest in the creation of a few hundred sockpuppets to emphasise a particular perspective or provide weak or offensive opposing arguments (known as a 'strawman sockpuppet' - used to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument by presenting an extreme or distorted view).

How about during the public (online) discussion of a policy initiative - such as a mining tax, carbon price, same-sex marriage, plain-packaging of tobacco products or limits on pokie machines. Lobby and pressure groups, political parties and corporations could all create hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of sockpuppets to represent their views. Or maybe they already are using these, and similar, tactics to create the perception of having public support.

These sockpuppets could even become well-defined personalities, expressing a particular set of views across a set of topics, interacting with both real people and other sockpuppets to coordinate and amplify particular views through Twitter, Facebook, blogs, forums and newspaper comment columns.

Due to the sophistication of modern sockpuppetry techniques, some simple sockpuppets - partial personas - could be partially or completely computer-generated and operated, providing short sloganistic comments on a defined range of topics, or amplifying the statements of more fully-formed human operated sockpuppets.

We could see a virtual arms war erupt between groups to design and construct the most influential and cost-effective sockpuppets. At the same time social media, forum and blog sites will be working to design the most effective sockpuppet countermeasures - software that can identify sockpuppets and block them (probably blocking some legitimate human voices in the process).

So to preserve the integrity of online consultations and engagements, what do governments need to do?

Firstly there's the need to educate public servants and politicians about the risk of sock puppets and how they may be used in attempts to derail legitimate policy and program discussions and consultations. People need to be educated on how to recognize basic sockpuppets and on how to implement preventative policies and barriers to screen out fake voices and personas.

Secondly government needs to consider its own countermeasures. Automated tools that can detect potential sockpuppets from their behavioral patterns, use of stock phrases and by who they follow, support and revile. These can provide flags for human moderation, after publication, of positively identified sockpuppets.

Finally, government needs to consider approaches to verify individual identities online (in its own consultation and engagement sites) which still permit anonymity and the use of pseudonyms, however present high barriers for sockpuppets to surmount. This can be done through human detection techniques, IP matching and semantic analysis, as well as by providing a facility for authenticated identities online while still protecting the privacy of participants.

For governments, still coping with moderation issues and the concept of consulting online, there needs to be significant thought and reflection put into the risk of sockpuppets - not to mention significant thinking on whether it is ever appropriate for government agencies to use their own.

Here's the panel presentation:

media140 Brisbane 2011 // Panel - Web 2.0 or Web too far? from media140 on Vimeo.

Read full post...

View summary...