Posts
As a follow-up to my post last week Familiarity trumps understanding (dealing with Neophobiacs), John Sheridan has made me aware of a Sydney Morning Herald article by Chris Berg on One hack of a crime wave, or so they say.
The article argues that while claims have been made that online hacking and cybercrime industries are up to the size of Germany's economy (US$3 trillion per year), these are often made by consultants and, as a Microsoft report discovered, "the bulk of what we know comes from tiny surveys. The authors found at least 75 per cent of losses were extrapolated from just one or two unverified, cases."
Sunday, June 26, 2011
How much risk is really attached to cybercrime and hacking? | Tweet |
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Familiarity trumps understanding (dealing with Neophobiacs) | Tweet |
Arthur C. Clarke, a famous science fiction and futurist once said,
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
I believe we reached that point quite some time ago in our civilisation. While most people watch television, drive cars, use electrical appliances, fly in jet aircraft, use computers and surf the internet, few understand how any of these technologies actually work, or the science that sits behind them.
In some cases many in society actively deny or denounce the science behind their everyday tools while still partaking of its benefits. They simply don't recognise or understand the disconnect.
Over in the Gov 2.0 Australia Group, Stefan Willoughby recently stated, in reference to Eventbrite and other online tools,
I just don't understand why it is so hard to convince people that these tools are valuable and not nearly as risky as they think.
Many of us working in the online space have encountered similar attitudes over the last 10-15 years, often from otherwise highly intelligent people.
I can't legitimately call this behaviour 'risk-aversion'. Those refusing to consider the use of online tools or expressing concern over the 'risks' often have little or no understanding of whether there are any risks (and of what magnitude), or whether the risks of these tools are less than the risks of the tools they are using now.
It is simply a 'fear of things new to me', without any intellectual consideration of the relative risks and benefits. This is a known phobia, Neophobia - the irrational fear of anything new.
I've thought about this issue a great deal over the years and tried a number of tactics to educate people on the uses and actual risks of online tools.
After 16 years I've come to the conclusion that explaining how online tools work simply isn't the right way to overcome irrational fears in most cases.
People don't really want to understand how the tools of our civilisation function - they just want to feel confident that they work consistently and in known ways.
In other words, familiarity trumps understanding.
To begin experimenting with a technology many people simply want assurance that 'others like me' have used it previously in a similar manner safety and successfully. Their comfort with its use then grows the more they use the tool themselves and the less new it feels.
They don't really care about the science or machinery under the hood.
Therefore as internet professionals our task isn't to share knowledge on the mechanics of online tools. It is to build a sense of comfort and familiarity with the medium.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't use evidence, explain how online tools differ and can be used for different goals or effectively identify and mitigate the real risks. This remains very, very important in familiarising people with the online world.
However we should spend less time on the technical details, explaining the machinery of how information is transmitted over the internet, how servers secure data, or how dynamic and static web pages are written and published. These things 'just work'.
Instead we need to focus on helping people use the tools themselves, provide examples of use by others and demonstrate practically how risks are managed and mitigated. Support people in understanding and trusting that each time they push a particular button a consistent result will occur.
Once people are familiar with a particular online tool and no longer consider it new it becomes much easier to move on to an accurate benefit and risk assessment and move organisations forward. Even if they don't really understand how it all works.
Friday, June 24, 2011
ACT (finally) outlines open government plan | Tweet |
I am writing this piece as a resident in the ACT, with shades of my Gov 2.0 advocacy cap. And I should say, as a partially disappointed resident.
The ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, has finally laid out the ACT Government's vision for open government.
It's about time. The ACT has been a tailender at the State and Territory level for quite some time in the open government space, with occasional sparks of excitement quickly fading back into embers.
However rather than an auspicious start focusing on the benefits of openness to citizens and the Territory, Gallagher's media release focuses on political benefit.
"The plans outlined in a Ministerial Statement to the Assembly today, are set to make the ACT Cabinet the most open in the nation"The most open cabinet in the nation... Not the most open government, or even the most effectively and sustainably open government.
I commend the step the ACT government is taking to establish an "open government website" - although a three month timeframe, if the website is starting now, leaves little room to build something meaningful or matching citizen expectations. I hope that the developers can pull off a miracle and develop something of substance, however I feel for them and the timeline they've been given.
I get worried at the announcement of a "commitment to hold a Virtual Community Cabinet on Twitter next month".
Twitter is not an effective mechanism for this type of endeavour. I would prefer to see a liveblog, supported by moderation, through a tool with strong archival and management mechanisms and on a more broadly used medium - such as CoverItLive.
And the step to "release a weekly report on key issues discussed and decisions taken by the Cabinet, starting in the first week in July" is a classic Gov 1.0 tactic transferred online.
The government could have been doing this type of informing at any time using other mediums - newsprint, radio or even television. Placing a transcript or list of topics and decisions online doesn't add much and certainly isn't in the spirit of Gov 2.0.
ACT has the highest concentration of Government 2.0 talent in Australia - with many Commonwealth agencies now launching and successfully managing these initiatives.
We should be the most advanced open government jurisdiction in Australia.
However this announcement by the Chief Minister doesn't support this view.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Empowering citizens to lead public governance reforms in developing and developed nations | Tweet |
One of the assumptions often applied to government funding for aid and governance reform programs is that the funding must be granted to established corporations, NGOs or not-for-profits that have hierarchies, governance structures, offices and methodologies for achieving outcomes.
It only makes sense - when investing government money into development activities there needs to be ways to mitigate risks and ensure accountability.
Surely a well-established organisation, with structural integrity and processes, must be well-equipped to manage and deliver change outcomes.
A ten-year research study from the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability (Citizenship DRC), has found that the assumption that an established organisation is better equipped to deliver governance reform is just that - an assumption.
As reported by Nick Benequista in the website of the Institute of Development Studies, the Citizenship DRC's report, Blurring the Boundaries: Citizenship Action Across States and Societies (PDF):
"argues that "the 'good governance' agenda that has persisted in international development since the early 1990s is itself due for a citizen-led upheaval."
Benequista's article, How a citizen-led approach can transform aid to governance, points to over 150 cases highlighted on the Citizenship DRC website where bottom-up citizen-led initiatives have been effective in achieving governance change in different countries, circumstances and on different issues.
Perhaps this is an area we need to explore more of in Government 2.0.
How can we rebalance the relationship between governments and citizens through development funding to achieve better outcomes.
Is giving money to established organisations the best approach, or do governments need to listen more directly to citizens and listen less to intermediaries.
With the emerging knowledge and experience in this area around the world it will be interesting to see whether Australian governments are willing - or able - to reframe their approach to development.
To finish with Benequista's words,
The good governance agenda of the 1990s has already overstayed its usefulness. The question now is whether what comes next will finally give citizens the role they have been demanding.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Could the fear of adopting social media be due to a fear of death? | Tweet |
Dr Travis Kemp of the Teleran Group presented at the National Stakeholder Engagement and Community Relations Officers' Forum 2011 in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago.
He provided an interesting view on how people identify for or against certain policies and worldviews, how bad humans are at accessing risks, and illustrated how it was possible to for someone to move from a position of 'this is new and different' to 'It will kill me' in less than ten steps.
He discussed how this type of powerful fear can dramatically influence how willing people are to consider new ideas, accept change or adopt new approaches, as well as how it distorts risk management processes, greatly exaggerating the risks of the 'new and different' and underrating the risks of the 'tried and true'.
One of his points was that the resistance to the use of social media may be due to a fear of death.
Here's an example of how a typical thought process for a senior official in a government agency might go...
What do you think - is this a far-fetched or realistic explanation for fear of social media?
And what is really at the root of this fear?
By the way - I also presented at the forum (not on as dramatic a topic) and you can see my presentation on Slideshare here.
He provided an interesting view on how people identify for or against certain policies and worldviews, how bad humans are at accessing risks, and illustrated how it was possible to for someone to move from a position of 'this is new and different' to 'It will kill me' in less than ten steps.
He discussed how this type of powerful fear can dramatically influence how willing people are to consider new ideas, accept change or adopt new approaches, as well as how it distorts risk management processes, greatly exaggerating the risks of the 'new and different' and underrating the risks of the 'tried and true'.
One of his points was that the resistance to the use of social media may be due to a fear of death.
Here's an example of how a typical thought process for a senior official in a government agency might go...
- Social media channels are new and different
- I don't understand these channels well enough to understand the risks and pitfalls
- As I don't understand the risks and pitfalls, I could make mistakes, or allow mistakes to be made
- Mistakes could embarrass or diminish the reputation of the agency or the Minister
- If the agency or Minister are negatively impacted by use of social media in my area, I will be held responsible
- If I am held responsible for a social media mistake I will lose the respect of my manager and confidence of my agency and Minister
- If I lose the respect and confidence of my manager, agency and Minister, I could lose my job
- If I lose my job I could lose my house, family and friends
- If I am left homeless and friendless, I am likely to die.
- Therefore, if I use or allow the use of social media channels I am likely to die.
What do you think - is this a far-fetched or realistic explanation for fear of social media?
And what is really at the root of this fear?
By the way - I also presented at the forum (not on as dramatic a topic) and you can see my presentation on Slideshare here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
