It goes on to add that, “in addition to releasing data that citizens can use, governments are increasingly making themselves more available electronically to help them fight crime, by predicting where crime is likely to occur.” I have seen the IBM ads on this type of effort. It makes a lot of sense. Below is an excerpt from a post I wrote after attending Lotusphere 2011. I t shows another innovative effort by government.

Tracy Hackshaw, is the Chief Solution Architect for iGov for the government of Trinidad and Tobago. Tracy discussed how the government is using social business for more effective e-government efforts. There are 1.3 million people in Trinidad and Tobago. A main goal is to increase the engagement of these people with their government and have them more satisfied with what the government is doing. They often look for what the people want and more interaction was a request. Another was the simplification of information, which became another goal.

Within the country there is a high percentage of access to mobile phones so this was one channel they focused on. They wanted the user experience to be similar to what was offered on computers. One popular example was maps with the location of government offices and transit information on to reach them. Another was the reporting of such things as broken street lights or potholes in the roads. They have reduced the time that these issues are reported.

The different government agencies were each providing their own siloed source of information. So they consolidated this to offer a single, consistent point of access. Different agencies could collectively created content that they shared with the residents. They also built in more interactivity to get greater feedback. They wanted the government to be more accessible so they created interactive town hall sessions. They have achieved a 90% satisfaction rating from the residents and this is remarkable for government services. As you will see, each of these cases in their own way demonstrates the value of social business but, of course, I was already convinced. It is nice to see these tangible examples.

Comments

Join us at GIS for Government 2013 taking place June 24-26, 2013 in the Washington, DC Metro Area to find out everything you need to know about GIS.

Click here for more information

Comments

Google Glass coming to market is getting closer to reality. In fact, this week, Google picked winners of the #ifihadglass contest, who will be able to get the device. Eventually, anyone with the money to do so will be able to get their hands on one if they so choose.

But so far, the device has not even become available for people to buy yet. Should the use of the device while driving really be outlawed before we even have a chance to really see how it can be used?

H.B. 3057 was recently introduced in the West Virginia legislature. It would add existing traffic safety rules in the state, specifically including a ban on “using a wearable computer with head mounted display”. This is described as “a computing device which is worn on the head and projects visual information into the field of vision of the wearer.”

The bill doesn’t single out Google Glass, of course (there will be plenty of competing devices), but it is a response to Google’s much hyped device. The bill’s authors see the amendment as an extension of not texting while driving. It’s understandable that they would want to prevent more deaths from reckless driving before they occur. However, an outright ban on the device could potentially prevent lives from being saved too.

You have to take into account that at this point we have no idea what these devices are really capable of, and it’s highly likely that developers will create applications that actually enhance safety. Consider this talk from one of the Google Glass engineers, who was actually talking about this kind of technology as it pertains to contact lenses (but it still applies here).

During his presentation, he outlines possibilities for the future, which include several types of vision improvement, such as “super vision,” night vision and multi-focal electronic lenses. In other words, it’s possible that at some point, devices like Google Glass could actually be used to help the vision impaired see better and more clearly. It’s possible that they can enhance anyone’s vision at night. Obviously, any of these scenarios could actually prevent auto accidents.

But that’s all just speculation for a possible future. The point is, do we want to have these devices banned before we really know what they can do? For that matter, if the technology makes it to contact lens form, how would any law ever be enforced?

It’s also worth considering what Google Glass is already capable of today, and that is, for one, shifting the focus from devices that require you to look away from the road. You’re taking your eyes off the road when you look at your phone, or even your dashboard/console. With Google Glass, you’re not.

As Matt Peckham at Time says, “West Virginia already bans texting while driving or using a phone without a hands-free device…But isn’t Google Glass also a hands-free device for your eyes? A way of potentially freeing you from looking at things that might otherwise take your eyes completely off the road, whether glancing at your phone to check the time or answer a call or scan the weather?”

It’s entirely possible that Google Glass will only evolve to become even less of a distraction over time. Google’s Matt Cutts put out a video this week talking about where he sees Google in ten years, and among his ideas was a theory about a “brain interface”.

“In theory there could be a brain interface so you could be having a dialogue where some of it is audible and some of it is not,” he contemplates.

Can you think while driving?

This is just futuristic speculation and imagination at this point, but in reality, it’s not that far fetched of a scenario. Ten years is a hell of a long time, especially in Google time. Ten years ago, Google was just getting Gmail off the ground. Now, they have driverless cars.

Gary Howell, one of the bill’s authors, told CNET, “I actually like the idea of the product and I believe it is the future, but last legislature we worked long and hard on a no-texting-and-driving law. It is mostly the young that are the tech-savvy that try new things. They are also our most vulnerable and underskilled drivers. We heard of many crashes caused by texting and driving, most involving our youngest drivers. I see the Google Glass as an extension.”

Interestingly enough, a new survey from AT&T, which looked at 1,000 commuters, showed that 49% of adults admit to texting while driving, compared to 43% of teens in another study from the company.

Of course, none of this really proves anything. I, for one, have not had the pleasure of trying one of the devices on, much less driving while wearing and operating one. I can’t speak from first-hand experience. It’s entirely possible that it does create distractions, and maybe there is valid argument for a ban. But banning the devices this early seems like a snap judgment that doesn’t take into consideration all possible factors.

Let’s not forget that Google started creating self-driving cars to reduce the number of auto accidents and make the roads safer. Some states like the idea of these being legal. Of course, driverless cars are more accident prone when humans are involved.

What do you think? Would a ban on Google Glass while driving be premature, or do you think it really is in the best interest of public safety? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Comments

This, combined with the bevy of news coverage, led Rand Paul to gain an incredible amount of Twitter followers.

But just how many followers has he gained since yesterday? Over 40,000, actually.

TwitterCounter showed just over 96,000 followers for Senator Paul on Wednesday before the epic filibuster began. And as of the writing of this article, Paul has just over 140,000.

If you want to raise your influence on social media, it appears that a two-day filibuster isn’t a bad idea.

Thank you to my colleagues in the House & Senate, and to all the Americans who stood w/ me tonight in support of preserving civil liberties.

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) March 7, 2013

Comments

In the letter, Johnson says that Google’s sharing of consumers’ personal information with developers could have a number of negative consequences. Here’s the three he lists:

First, sharing certain personal information like a physical address may harm consumers. In the past, unscrupulous sellers have used physical addresses to threaten consumers who posted negative reviews of products or services online. According to an article in the New York Times in 2010, an online vendor of physical items used consumer information to threaten women who complained about overcharges and abusive customer service. In one instance, the vendor sent a photograph of the woman’s apartment with an email that warned “I AM WATCHING YOU!” to discourage further complaints. Although that instance involved a clear and present threat, the mere knowledge that criticizing an app is potentially harmful is also a threat to free and unencumbered speech. The harms of this chilling effect go beyond consumers. Developers use criticism and comments to improve products, resolve disputes, and grow as a company as they tinker with apps to improve them.

Second, sharing physical addresses may endanger the safety of children online. Many parents allow young children to use their parents’ mobile device for safety or financial reasons. It may concern or surprise these families to discover their child’s purchase of an app aimed to children also provides the child’s address. Beyond eclipsing parents’ expectations for children’s privacy on mobile device, these circumstances could also give rise to devastating harms.

Finally, over-sharing personal data may pose security risks. A third party may use paid apps that are purchasable through Google Play to cull personal data – physical location or otherwise – for identity theft. Just as a consumer has notice when app uses their geolocation, they should also have notice when their address is shared.

Now, Johnson doesn’t think developers are using consumers’ personal data in nefarious ways. He’s more or less curious as to why Google allows the sharing of this information in the first place. As such, he has posed a number of questions to Page in regards to the policy.

(1) Unlike some competitors in the mobile app ecosystem, Google acts as a marketplace for developers to exchange goods and services with consumers.
a. Please describe how an open marketplace benefits consumers.
b. How does a consumer’s experience on Google Play via a mobile device compare with their experience purchasing goods in other marketplaces?

(2) Please discuss the types of information shared with developers through Google Wallet.
a. How is this information necessary for developers to process transactions?
b. What other purposes does sharing this information serve?
c. How is the breadth of information shared proportionate to Google’s need to share it?
d. Have any harms or breaches of trust occurred because of this sharing?

(3) The Google Wallet Privacy Policy states that it only shares information with third parties like developers as permitted until the Google Privacy Policy or as necessary for transactions.
a. What is the process for the consumer to obtain notice in this statement or in the Google Privacy Policy?
b. Is there a moment during purchasing an app where they learn that their address is disclosed as part of purchasing an app through Google Play?
c. Was this also the policy for payment processing before Google Play?

(4) The Google Wallet Privacy Policy states that Google is not responsible for how developers or other third parties choose to use or share consumer information.
a. What precautions does Google take to avoid harmful uses of consumer’s data by third parties?
b. Are there any mechanisms in place to mitigate the exploitation of data by third parties?

Google has until February 28 to provide an answer. Knowing the company, it will probably address some of the questions posed by Johnson, but not all.

Comments

Google takes care of notifying users about legal demands when appropriate. However, sometimes they may be legally prohibited to do that or lack verified contact information.

The company has also released data about such requests that they receive from Governments across the world. They have provided details of legal processes that Governments use to compel them to force information.

Google calls for striking balance between the Governments’ need to pursue legitimate investigations and the users’ right of privacy.

Comments

As TechDirt points out, the most insane moment of the entire debate is when Sen. Dianne Feinsteine, the bill’s sponsor, said Wyden’s request to know how many Americans have been targeted by FISA must be kept secret for a secret reason. She claims to have a classified document that contains the reason, and she’s willing to show it, but isn’t willing to let anyone read it.

It’s ridiculous to think that a law that should only be targeting foreign communications is wrapped in so many secrets regarding its use in targeting U.S. citizens. It’s like the government is saying that you signed away your digital rights as soon as you started using the Internet or a mobile device. It seems that the only way to truly protect your privacy anymore is to completely remove yourself from the Internet, and only use forms of communication that are protected by the fourth amendment – like snail mail.

Comments

“I believe that Americans have the fundamental right to control who can track their location, and whether or not that information can be given to third parties. But right now, companies – some legitimate, some sleazy – are collecting your or your child’s location and selling it to ad companies or who knows who else.”

Franken’s bill appears to have made it through committee without much change from its original text. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa introduced an amendment that would have required state attorneys general to be transparent about hiring outside counsels, but it was defeated by committee democrats. Still, Grassley approved the bill, but remains concerned that its limits on tracking could hurt “commercial innovations.”

Other members on the committee expressed some concern with language in the bill, but have said that they’re willing to work with Franken to improve the bill before it goes up for vote in the Senate. Franken will also have to work with his colleagues in the House if he wants to ensure passage this year, but the current negotiations over the “Fiscal Cliff” will most likely push Franken’s bill to next year.

Regardless, it’s an encouraging sign to at least see a committee forward a digital privacy bill. There’s not enough legislation that addresses the current privacy concerns that have crept up with the advent of the Internet and mobile devices. Franken’s bill doesn’t address all of the concerns, but it’s a good start.

Comments

I’ve linked to the announcement, above. It will bring you the tweet you see in the screenshot. Yes, a tweet is the government announcement.

According to the BBC report on the appointment:

[...] Prime Minister David Cameron made the announcement via Twitter.

Are formal (official?) government announcements on Twitter getting to be common practice? We do have an extremely high profile example to set the bar.

I don’t know Downing Street’s tactical goal with this tweeted announcement. But note that it’s a promoted tweet rather than simply a regular one.

Twitter describes promoted tweets as “ordinary Tweets purchased by advertisers who want to reach a wider group of users or to spark engagement from their existing followers.”

They are clearly labelled as Promoted when an advertiser is paying for their placement on Twitter. In every other respect, says Twitter, “Promoted Tweets act just like regular Tweets and can be retweeted, replied to, favorited and more.”

Obviously Cameron didn’t do the tweet himself (as neither did Obama in his official announcement re the US Presidential Election outcome). I imagine the goal isn’t direct engagement with the named tweeter, more a broadcast communication aimed at stimulating sharing – commenting, retweeting, etc.

Expect to see a lot more of this.

Comments

This episode of Revolution features Jay Nath, who serves as chief innovation officer for the City of San Francisco. Nath works with Mayor Ed Lee to embrace the city’s vast pool of technology startups and entrepreneurs in order to drive more innovation within the government.

Nath is currently working with a “civic accelerator,” an independent initiative of Code For America designed to house, mentor and fund startups focused on using technology to improve government efficiency.

“I think it’s really important that the government reflect our citizens and the ethos and values that they have,” he says. “In our culture, it’s about agility, it’s about leanness — it’s really about [being] scrappy. And we expect government to be the same way.”

Comments