最近、改めてInfoDevのWebサイトを見ている。2年前、マンチェスター大学でICT4Dを専攻していた当時、プレゼンやエッセイといった課題に取り組むときには、まずInfoDevのWebサイトをチェックして関連する記事やレポートに目を通していた。そんなこともあり、大学院卒業後は、なんとなく掲載されている記事を知っていたこともあり、あまり見るとことがなかった。

で、最近改めて見てみると新しい記事ばかりで面白い。
そんな中で、Information and Communication for Development Report (IC4D 2009)というレポートが紹介されていた。2009年7月作成のレポートなので全然タイムリーじゃないのですが。。。
このレポートのサマリーで、高速インターネット普及率が10％向上すると、経済成長率が1.3％向上するということが書かれていた（中身を読んでないので、どういう数字なのかの詳細はわからないが、とりあえずそういうことらしい）。そのほかのハイライトとしては、以下の点が挙げられていた。

• インターネット普及（低所得層への普及）のために、政府は民間と協力するべきである
• 情報社会は特に若者に仕事の機会を与える
• 電子政府は効率、透明性、信頼性の点で（電子政府じゃない政府よりも）優れている

全てが「その通り」と思える一方で、「ほんとに？」というちょっと穿った見方も出来そう。特に、電子政府については色々と問題がありそうな・・・。
と、興味をそそられたので、頑張って少しづつ読んでみようかと思います。

Interested in how goverment can change using social media? Tap into the discussions at the personal democracy forum going on in Barcelona right now.

You can ask questions and post comments on twitter searhing for code #pdfeu.

Se abstract and programme at The Personal Democracy Forum 2009 website

Sound from the conference: http://civicolive.com/pdfeu/

From November 9 through November 22, 2009, a beta test is being held of Regulation Room, “a pilot project,” sponsored by the Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative (CeRI) and hosted by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), “that provides an online environment for people and groups to learn about, discuss, and react to selected rules (regulations) proposed by [U.S.] federal agencies.”

During the beta test, “users can read and respond to daily ‘Have Your Say Posts’” about “a proposed National Highway Transportation Safety Administration rule: Tire Efficiency Consumer Information Program.” “They can also ‘Dig In’ to specific issues in the rule and comment on particular aspects of the agency’s reasoning.” “During the week of Nov. 23, the CERI research team will post a summary of the discussion. Users will then be able to react to that summary.”

HT Georgetown Law Library Blog.

Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, Angela Smith

We are just making the final preparations for our participation in the European eGovernment Awards 2009, which are being held to coincide with the 5th Ministerial eGovernment Conference in Malmö, Sweden on 19th/20th November.

One of the national public procurement websites that we operate, Public Contracts Scotland, has been chosen as a finalist in the catchily titled category ‘eGovernment enabling administrative efficiency and effectiveness.’ We’re one of only three finalists from the UK, the others being KentTV, a publicly funded broadband TV channel and Liverpool City Council’s eGovernment services which are delivered through their website.

We are pleased to have received a congratulatory message from the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer at the Cabinet Office and Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, Angela Smith, will also be visiting the Public Contracts Scotland exhibition stand during the conference.                               

I have been thinking about council websites, specifically around the issues of – whether we need them, what management of them should look like, how we structure them, and which audiences we are really trying to serve. Some of this was prompted by an excellent post by Sarah Lay from Derbyshire on “Do Councils need websites” and some by various conversations that have been happening recently and building on from a previous post of mine about social media points the way for corporate website development.

I started to wonder what council websites would look like and how they would have evolved, if we didn’t have the drive from eGovernment, to make all of our services (including information) 100% e-enabled.  I’m sure some would have developed into real community based websites and portals with a good blend of transactional service and online community. My key point here is, without any external pressure, would councils have taken a more community based approach to their websites instead of being forced to deliver services online that offered no value initially.

The Better Connected Review by SocITM has helped drive forward the development of sites in a consistent way, identifying good practice and leading councils, but i’m wondering whether the focus has been too much on “Council Service” and not enough on “Community Service”.

I think it might be good if i try and explain what i perceive to be the simple differences between “Council” and “Community” in a website context. I’m sure this is pretty obvious but i think it needs saying.

Council: A politically driven site, with information about all of the councils services and access to online transactions.

Community: an issue led, community driven site, with information about the local area, to share issues and to build community relationships.

Ok, they are crude and i’m sure most will agree that some councils websites are attempting to do both. But should they? and if so does it work under a “.gov.uk” domain?

My view is that we seem to be operating from a perspective that says “council websites must have a strong presence online in our local area”. I think this view is fundamentally flawed.

I live in a community, and my local councils (City and County) are only a part of that community – it includes other public sector bodies (Police, Fire, Health etc), other residents, other professionals, trades people, shop owners and all the other wonderful people who make up communities.

In a community site, local participation and dialogue makes more sense then it does on a council site. To be honest, who goes to the council offices for a casual meeting with their friends and starts talking about “stuff” that bothers them in their community. I don’t and i don’t know anyone who does, but i do know many people who converse in places they feel comfortable, community places, cafe’s, pubs, outside schools, in the street, online in social networks – everywhere except the council offices.

So starting from that viewpoint, a “local website” would need to include all of those factors and considering the pressures on Public Sector Budgets, why are Public Sector Web Professionals battling to do all of it and in most cases failing to deliver any of it. I’m certainly not undermining my web professional peers as i was Web Manager for 6 years and it was a bloody hard job and i never got the site how i would have wanted to see it for the people of Devon. This was due to the conflicting pressures of what people wanted, or we found out they wanted through surveys and consultations and what the council wanted to do in terms of political PR, communications and reputation management. I can see both sides and both are legitimate and in fact, it is sometimes possible to balance both views, but not all of the time.

Shouldn’t we take the same approach as we do in the “real” world and position our information and services as part of the community and not expect people (and i include myself here) to have to visit a local council website to access information or perform a transaction. I include another reference to a previous post about mashing up council websites altogether “social media points the way for corporate website development“. After all aren’t councils and public sector bodies just as much part of the community as everyone else?

Maybe, and i can’t really believe i am saying this but it tends to make more sense to me (if you disagree please tell me as i feel i’ve gone to the dark side with this one) why don’t we develop and support more than one site. I’ll explain how i would see this working and why i think it will be where we have to go but i’m also happy to be challenged. So i’ll start with a straw man and share my thinking.

The following breakdown does not assume that these are all physically separated in terms of content. They could all be hosted centrally, to enable data reuse etc.  However with search engines supporting and moving toward more of a federated approach and a search integration platform, as in linking information across systems, it doesn’t assume they are all in the same system either.

1. Public Sector site : this would acknowledge that people are citizens and therefore need opportunities to participate, feedback and be part of service design and development across all public sector organisations. This would essentially be a “total place” view and would probably link to most Local Strategic Partnerships etc and provide information on the priorities, performance, meetings, minutes, webcasts etc.
2. Community Site: this would provide all of the community information right down to the hyper local context. It would also include the transactions of all the public sector bodies so that people could access information and services as part of their normal routine and conversations. This element would also provide the links and integration with either public social networks such as twitter and Facebook as well as hosted community networks.

The challenge with the above is “who starts it all off”? Well some areas already have very well-developed community sites, and we ought to engage with those sites much more, very much like the approach people talk about with Social Media, we need to reach out to already existing networks and contribute in those instead of building empty places where no one wants to come. That leaves the council site, this would mean radically reducing the “huge amounts of content” that exists within the “.gov.uk” domain and pushing most of it into community sites either through mash-ups, RSS or other means. That way we could work with communities to take over the ownership of local content and Public Sector Web Professionals could focus on just the content that needs to be their from a public sector point of view.

I appreciate this is all very much “a dream” but i’m convinced that over the coming years the pervasive nature of social media, alongside the need to reduce costs, will mean that we will inevitably need to refocus what councils websites offer and why they are there and how we can ensure that what we do provide online is used and embraced by the local community.

So what does this mean for website management? – well in my opinion, we have an opportunity to bring together the expertise within a local area and provide a “shared” service or a “combined” service for public sector organisations. It will mean that we need to think more about aligning across organisations, focusing more on the actual communities we serve. Some councils are starting to do this internally around shared internal services such as HR, Finance etc. So we are already in the arena of shared intranets across multiple organisations – this is simply the next logical step.

This also gives greater emphasis in my opinion on the need to create and support the development of Public Sector Web Professionals across the board -  development, learning, competencies, networking etc.

All of the above will require strong leadership from across the public sector as well as third sector partners, if we want to deliver excellent opportunities,  services and information locally.  Directgov has shown that consolidation across a sector is possible (albeit painful) but it does deliver a better interface into Central Government. So there is hope.

Dette innlegget kan også leses i Kapital i november 2009.

For kort tid siden ble det kjent at NAV ikke fikk godkjent sitt regnskap for 2008, og at Riksrevisoren mildt sagt var skeptisk til hvordan NAV og forsåvidt også andre offentlige etater brukte teknologi til å koordinere tjenester på tvers av ulike organisasjoner, eller siloer som det er blitt hetende i det offentlige planbyråkratiet.

Dette er en betimelig kritikk, og det er på tide at vi setter søkelyset på hvordan vi kan bruke teknologien til å skape betydelig større effektivitet i offentlig sektor. Dette er rett og slett en dyd av nødvendighet, om vi skal kunne betale framtidige pensjonsforpliktelser og opprettholde våre særs gode syke- og trygdeytelser også I framtiden..

En av de beste bøkene om ”IKT i offentlig sektor” med tittel eGovernment begynner slik: ”Most eGovernment projects fails”.
Og undersøkelser fra flere land viser at dette gjelder mellom 60 og 80 % av alle IT-prosjekter i offentlig sektor. De er enten
helt mislykkede eller de bidrar ikke til å nå de målene som de skulle i tilstrekkelig grad. Og mye av årsakene til dette finner
vi i dårlig prosjektering og manglende innsikt i konsekvensene av de beslutningene som fattes. La meg illustrere dette med et eksempel:

I en større norsk kommune ønsket de at innbyggerne skulle kunne søke barnehageplass på nettet. Fagetaten kontaktet
leverandøren av systemet som holder orden på alle barn og foreldre, det som kalles fagsystemet. Leverandøren sier at
dette ønsket er det eneklt å oppfylle, o g de selger kommunen en modul som gjør at foreldre kan søke barnehageplass over nettet.

Når systemet er i drift, finner arkivleder i kommunen ut at dette ikke kan avgi data til arkivet, slik de er pålagt å gjøre. Det må derfor tilpasses slik at de kan levere data i det standardformatet som alle arkiver benytter. På dette tidspunktet begynner også IT-avdelingen å interessere seg for prosjektet, og de finner at den valgte teknologiløsningen ikke spiller på lag med øvrige systemer, fordi den bygger på andre prinsipper for arkitektur, for å snakke i IT-folkets termer. Det betyr i praksis at informasjon i andre kommunale registre, slik som adresser, familieforhold, informasjon om andre tjenester eller rettigheter, ikke kan kobles sammen med fagsystemet uten at det gjøres helt spesielle og kostbare tilpassninger, noe som er helt nødvendig dersom en skal kunne skape en effektiv drift av de enkelte tjenstene.

Så prosjektet som i utgangspunktet så enkelt og billig ut, ble både mer kostbart og tok mye lengre tid enn antatt.

Dette er en situasjon som har paralleller i norske kommuner og offenlige etater hver eneste dag. 429 kommuner sitter i stor grad og sysler med de samme utfordringene. Noen har riktignok outsourcet IT-drift til et interkommunalt selskap, men også dette skaper utfordringer, for da må IT-ansvarlige i disse selskapene forholde seg til administrasjonen og politierne i alle oppdragskommunene, og det er ikke alltid like enkelt.

Det er liten tvil om at det kastes bort enorme summer på måten overgangen fra industri- til digitalt nettsamfunn er organisert på i Norge. Vi mangler organisatoriske enheter som hjelper kommunene med disse prosessene, som gjør det unødvendig å finne opp hjulet i hver eneste lille kommune og som gjør det mulig å gjenbruke smarte løsninger på en enkel måte.

Dette er et ansvar som kommunalministeren må ta. Hun bør opprette et utvalg som får i oppdrag å kartlegge problematikken, og hun må bidra til at den enorme sløsingen med offentlige midler som finner sted fordi en ikke har egnede systemer til hjelp i saksbehandlingen blir kraftig redusert. Og hun må bidra med midler til å heve kompetansen på gjennomføringen av slike IT-prosjekter i de mange kommunene som faktisk har ansvar for å gjennomføre endringsprosjektene.

Den kommende samhandlingsreformen i helsevesenet er helt avhengig av slik kompetanse, og antakelig er det de færreste kommunene som i det hele tatt er i stand til å gjennomføre de tiltakene som vil måtte komme.

Derfor er det betimelig at RIksrevisoren setter søkelyset på IT-bruken i NAV. Noen burde gjøre det samme når det gjelder kommunene. Der er potensialet for tjenesteforbedring og reduserte kostnader svært høyt. For det er et paradoks at en kan få lån på 1 million kroner (eller avslag på det samme) på to minutter, mens det mange steder tar tre måneder å få svar på om du kan få sette et ekstra vindu inn i garasjen din. En stor andel av saksbehandlingen i kommunene kan automatiseres, fordi den utelukkende er basert på regler. Dette arbeidet må komme i gang snarest. Og kommunalministeren bør kjenne sin besøkelsestid og ta de nødvendige initiativene.

Applications, with deadline of February 22, 2010, are invited for the Oxford Internet Institute’s Summer Doctoral Programme (SDP) 2010.

Applications are invited “from advanced doctoral students in any discipline whose work in the field of Internet research engages with the OII’s research priorities of Everyday life, Governance and democracy, Science and Learning and Shaping the Internet. Reflecting the disciplinary base of the OII, most of the seminars will draw on Internet-related research in the social sciences, but some may also cover aspects of the department’s projects in the humanities and computer science.”

“Up to 27 places are available and will be awarded on a competitive basis. Preference will be given to students at an advanced stage of their doctorate who have embarked on writing their thesis. All teaching will be in English, so all applicants should be able to demonstrate their competence in this language.

“All student applications must be supported by one or more of the students’ current doctoral programme advisors or dissertation supervisors. References will be requested for all students who are offered a place on the programme. Similarly, students should be able to clearly explain how their doctoral studies will benefit from the programme.”

For more information, please see the announcement.

Only a few days left until the 5th Ministerial eGovernment Conference: Endorse the Open Declaration; http://j.mp/EPS-OD

A call for papers, with submission deadline of March 19, 2010, has been issued for EKAW 2010: The 17th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, to be held October 11-15, 2010, in Lisbon, Portugal. The conference theme is “Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management by the Masses.” Papers are invited on the following topics, and the organizers expressly invite papers on legal informatics topics:

• “Knowledge Management:
• Methodologies and tools for knowledge management
• Aspects of collaboration, distribution and evolution of knowledge in KM
• Advanced knowledge modeling languages and tools
• Best practices / experiences in KM
• Foundations of KM
• Entity-oriented approaches to KM
• Layered intelligence in knowledge management
• Provenance, reliability and trust in knowledge management
• Knowledge management for collaboration and decision support
• Methods for accelerating take-up of KM technologies
• Corporate memories for KM
• Case-based reasoning for KM
• Knowledge Engineering and Acquisition:
• Methodologies for knowledge engineering
• Knowledge acquisition, ontology learning
• Knowledge sharing
• Knowledge evolution
• Collaborative knowledge engineering
• Design patterns
• Techniques for knowledge acquisition based on machine learning, NLP etc.
• Uncertainty and vagueness in knowledge modeling
• Knowledge engineering and software engineering
• Ontology localization
• Ontology alignment
• Evolution of knowledge (including ontology evolution)
• Knowledge acquisition from non-ontological resources (thesauri, folksonomies, lexica etc.)
• Knowledge acquisition and knowledge integration from heterogeneous sources (multimedia and 3D data, databases, sensor data streams, social interaction data)
• Knowledge authoring and knowledge markup languages
• Ontology evaluation
• Dynamic, distributed and process knowledge (including web services, grid services, P2P systems, rules and business processes, problem solving methods, procedural knowledge)
• Agent-based approaches to knowledge management
• Knowledge mashups
• Knowledge In Use: knowledge management and engineering for:
• Retrieval and proactive delivery of pertinent knowledge
• Multimedia applications
• Life and E-sciences
• E-Government and public administration
• Health and medicine
• Automotive and manufacturing industry
• Semantic desktop applications
• The legal domain
• Cultural heritage applications
• Digital broadcasting and film, game and 3D media content production and sharing
• Digital libraries
• Virtual worlds
• Storytelling
• Management in critical applications
• Organizing user-contributed content
• Transition across organizations
• Social and Cognitive Aspects of Knowledge Engineering:
• Sustainability and cost analysis of knowledge engineering
• Human-knowledge interaction
• Cognitive systems and knowledge engineering
• Knowledge ecosystems
• Knowledge and social network analysis & modeling
• Knowledge in trust networks
• Personal sphere in knowledge engineering and management
• Collaborative and social approaches to knowledge management and acquisition
• Special focus: Knowledge management and engineering by the masses:
• Human-machine synergy in knowledge acquisition
• Incentives for knowledge creation and semantic annotation
• Enhancing human productivity (e.g. knowledge workers)
• Social and human factors in knowledge management
• Collective and collaborative intelligence in knowledge management
• Social tagging and folksonomies, social networks
• Web2.0 approaches to KM (including semantic wikis, folksonomies, etc.)
• Games with a Purpose and KM
• Linked Open Data / Web of Data”

For more information, please see the call for papers.

HT Dr. Rinke Hoekstra.

I’m not the only one in Spain who follows and admires the work done by David Osimo. It is certainly one of the main leaders of the Government 2.0 European scene  and perhaps I only miss some more posts on his blog, through which many of us were initiated on the subject. His latest feat has been promoting the development of “An Open Declaration on European Public Services”.

I must express my solidarity with the principles that the Declaration proposes for the governance of public services in Europe, but I think David, this time, has fallen short. Too much emphasis on giving a place to the society in developing them and little (none) space dedicated to changing organizational model of public administrations. The change of the model is essential to progress towards the improvement of many public services, for instance electronic government services.

Forgetting is logical given that virtually all of the actors who have worked with David are not part of the Public Administrations. I do not want it to be understood as corporatism, but as self-criticism toward those of us who have not worked hard enough in the issue. This is a clear signal that the evolution of European public services it is only possible through an evolution in our ways of working.

After this speech of contrition, coming out of time, I provide David this belated contribution to the effort. A fourth principle that  in my opinion should also govern European public services:

Intelligent Public Administrations, collaboration between public organisations and most active civil servants are cornerstones in building european public services. Greater fluidity in the relations and exchange of information between public organizations, will allow to build public services more adapted to the needs of society and that require less administrative burdens on citizens. It is needed to take advantage of and enhance the internal capabilities of public organizations with a more efficient and effective use of civil servants, changing their ways of working through tools that allow them greater contact between them and with citizens who serve.

Anyway, I have endorsed the declaration. And You?

The government of Greece has begun to make draft legislation available for public comment on its Website, opengov.gr. Professor Ioannis Iglezakis of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Law School provides background information and commentary on his Information Law blog.

Open Cities and Social Media

In 1940 the French declared Paris an “open” city so the invading Nazi Army would not destroy it while capturing it. Today modern cities are starting to declare themselves “open” in slightly more trusting ways, by exposing their data and information to all citizens and, indeed, to anyone on the Internet. By declaring ourselves “open” we hope to marshal an army of citizens, developers and analysts to give us new insights into governing and better engagement with the people we serve.

I’ve had the opportunity to participate in a couple of fascinating conferences lately. One was the Open Cities conference sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation in Washington DC. The other was “Future in Review”, Mark Anderson’s FiReGlobal conference held in mid-October, for the first time here in Seattle.

The theme is consistent: city governments, by opening their information, their data, their engagement processes, can generate a wealth of new ideas and understandings which make them more efficient and effective, and more robust, exciting places, with improved quality of life.

The old model, used for 250 years or more, is for a City is to collect as much data as possible about problems, its responses, services it provides and the general city environment. Then the typical city hires analysts or consultants – experts, if you will – to pore over the data and discern patterns. These experts then make recommendations for policy, action or changes.

Oh yes, we try not to forget regular citizens in this. We’ll present the experts’ ideas to citizens in public meetings for their “input”. And citizens can give feedback, one at a time, for two or three minutes each, in a public forum. A terrifying (or wonderful) example of this is a recent Seattle City Council budget hearing, 205 minutes of 2 and 3 minute mini-speeches, most focused on just one or two topics (cutback of Library hours) out of a $4 billion budget. If you have a spare three+ hours, watch it here.

Most such public hearings are very one-way – experts or city officials talking at people, citizens talking back individually to elected officials and experts. This is extraordinarily inefficient as dozens or hundreds of people “watch” the mini-speeches, while waiting their turn to speak. Far too much air time is taken up by one-issue, professional gadflies (“citizens in comfortable pants”), often with off-the-wall opinions not representative of most people. Almost as bad, often the only people with time or interest to show up are often homeowners and others who NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) the ideas, a negative dynamic. And this whole process is virtually the same as the process we used at the birth of the nation, in 1776, when our largest city was Philadelphia with 50,000 people.

Enter the Internet, and, more specifically, enter Web 2.0. All of a sudden, now in 21st Century America, there is tremendous computing power in the hands of ordinary people – smartphones, desktop and laptop computers. And those devices are connected, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now you hear ordinary people talk about formerly obtuse technology concepts like databases and spreadsheets and pivot tables and Wi-Fi. And suddenly (at least in historic terms) there are millions of people and trillions of dollars involved in computing and software and development of applications.

In Seattle, for example, 84% of homes have access to the Internet. Nationally, there are 255 million cell phones , 21 million iPhones , and 101,000 iPhone applications . Cities are getting on the bandwagon. Many are publishing detailed crime statistics and even the details of 911 calls on their websites. You can find restaurant inspections and building permits and census statistics.

Public engagement, however, is still broken. We still hold public meetings with death-by-PowerPoint presentations and long lines of people trooping up to the microphone to give their 2 minute NIMBY mini-speeches.

Isn’t there a better way?

There are beginnings of better ways. Fedgov websites like Citizens Briefing Book and local sites like ideasforseattle allow some limited input online input from people – allowing people to post their ideas, view each others ideas, and rank them. More robust applications for engagement are emerging, from Seattle’s own Ideascale and companies like Athena Bridge. These applications allow people to shape ideas and develop them, commenting and ranking along the way.

But we need even more robustness – we need to bring such software to public meetings, so that, as officials or citizens are presenting ideas and talking, everyone in the room, or gee, anyone on the Internet watching the meeting, can be commenting, tweeting, and ranking, and the results are immediately displayed. The gadflies will quickly see their ideas have little public support.

In many other cases, obscure and even anonymous ideas and unique solutions to problems will emerge and be developed. Then, with open data feeds and citizen-developed applications, those solutions can be quickly tested against the real data published by a city which defines the problem. Almost as fast, options will emerge and consensus may develop on the right approach.

This new, emerging world of public engagement via the Internet and technology is not a panacea. It will take a lot of tweaking and mistakes before usable software emerges and public officials understand how to use it. And it won’t work in every case or to address every problem.

Yes, the hordes and armies of citizens are about to invade. So let’s declare our cities “open” and embrace them.

P.S. Those readers who are astute will make comments that Seattle is one of the major cities with no data.seattle.gov. Believe me, THAT will soon change!

Bundesregierung

Der Koalitionsvertrag ist unterschrieben, vieles wurde vereinbart und einiges davon betrifft den Datenschutz. Hier ein Überblick:

BDSG Novelle II:
Wie es hier weitergehen soll steht ja bereits geschrieben, fraglich ist aber, ob die neue Regierung dies so 1zu1 auch umsetzen wird oder doch kippt. Was nicht zwingend eine Verbesserung bedeuten muss, da es in Tendenzen gibt, das BDSG zu verstärken/auszubauen. Gerade die FDP ist allgemein gegen Datenhandel.

Datenschutz allgemein:
Die Regierung will unter der neuen Justizministerin Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger eine „Stiftung Datenschutz“ ins leben rufen, die sich um den Datenschutz im Internet kümmert. Die Stiftung, die nach dem Vorbild „Stiftung Warentest“ arbeiten soll, wird Web-Angebote mit einem Prädikat versehen. Siehe dazu auch den gesonderten Artikel hier.

Sicherheit im Internet:
Ziel ist es, mit Aufklärung den „Selbstdatenschutz“ zu erleichtern. Betrugs- und Identitätsdiebstahl im Netz sollen „konsequent verfolgt“. Zur verbesserten Strafverfolgung im World Wide Webe sind „Internetstreifen durch die Polizei“ vorgesehen, sowie sogenannte „Schwerpunktstaatsanwaltschaften für Kriminalität im Internet“.

eGovernment:
Die Schwarz-Gelbe Regierung will ein eGovernment-Gesetz. Der elektronische Personalausweis soll beispielsweise im Netz als freiwilliger Identitätsnachweis genutzt werden können. Geschäftsprozesse zwischen Unternehmen sollen mithilfe des De-Mail-Services elektronisch abgewickelt werden können. Der Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Informationstechnik soll deutlich gestärkt werden.

Internetsperren:
Zunächst auf ein Jahr beschränkt, soll bei kinderpornografischen Inhalten im Internet die Losung gelten: „Löschen statt Sperren“. Hierfür sollen die Polizeibehörden in Zusammenarbeit mit der Internetwirtschaft (u.a. auch der deutschen Internetbeschwerdestelle sowie dem Providernetzwerk INHOPE) die Aufgaben übernehmen. Nach einem Jahr soll dieses Verfahren ausgewertet werden, um auf dieser Grundlage eine Neubewertung erstellt werden.

Vorratsdatenspeicherung:
Der Zugriff der Behörden auf die gespeicherten Vorratsdaten der Telekommunikationsunternehmen soll bis zur Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes komplett ausgesetzt werden. Bis dahin lautet die Anweisung einfach: Zugriffe nur zur Abwehr einer konkreten Gefahr für Leib, Leben und Freiheit.

Breitbandversorgung:
Diese soll in Deutschland sowohl in der Fläche als auch in der Leistungsfähigkeit ausgebaut werden. Die Nutzung freiwerdender Frequenzen u.a. des Fernsehrundfunks soll dazu beitragen, kurzfristig Versorgungslücken zu schließen.

Wenn Sie weitere Informationen zum Thema besitzen oder einzelne Punkte anders interpretieren, freue ich mich auf Ihr Feedback hierzu.

Mit besten Grüßen aus Essen,
Jan-Philip Ziebold
http://www.dz-media.de

John Naughton follows up Tim O’Reilly’s post that the White House website is now powered by Drupal with the following comment:

Particularly interesting is the fact that the team cites greater security as one of the reasons for moving. this suggests a pretty sophisticated — for policymakers, anyway — understanding of the argument that proprietary software is, paradoxically, likely to be less secure than open software.

Somehow, I can’t see the UK government getting that. Brown & Co still think Microsoft is cutting edge.

They may well do John. But its the geeks, not the politicians, that push these things on. Have you not noticed all the WordPress love around Whitehall over the last two years?

Dr. Luciano Batista & Dr. Marc Cornock, both lecturers at The Open University Business School, have published Information Sharing in E-Government Initiatives: Freedom of Information and Data Protection Issues Concerning Local Government, 2009(2) Journal of Information, Law & Technology (JILT). Here is the abstract:

“In e-government initiatives, the sharing of information is crucial for empowering citizens and boosting joined-up services. The lack of clear guidance on how to share government data can potentially harm Freedom of Information and or Data Protection rights. This article addresses this issue by drawing from the main concerns governments have when dealing with Freedom of Information and Data Protection issues. As illustration, we comment on the findings of a case study we have conducted in a Local Authority in the United Kingdom (UK). Our findings show that local government managers might be struggling to adequately implement Freedom of Information and Data Protection aspects. Cultural aspects are subtly present in this context, as managers’ values and beliefs regarding public access to information might be biased toward either information disclosure or information withholding.”

Legal informatics researchers may be particular interested in the discussion in the article of difficulties government officials may be experiencing in interpreting and applying the UK Freedom of Information and Data Protection statutes. The authors argue that this difficulty in processing and using legal information may be a key factor resulting in undesired limitations on public access to government information.

An interesting piece on the impact of polling on public policy in the US from my colleague Jeff Weintraub on our Public Affairs blog that is worth checking out here.

In contrast, I am not sure we need an online poll to establish whether polling has a big impact on the outcomes of public policy decisions at an EU level. I’ve discussed the fact it isn’t used more in previous posts.

In any case, it is an interesting debate in an EU context. Should advocates and policymakers in this town be making more use of polling both in advocacy and in making their policy decisions?

I’d be interested in your views and indeed examples of where it has proved valuable/not valuable.

James

The devil, they say, is in the detail and it is interesting how the debate on e-government is developing in the UK. This article from the BBC website talks about the move on from a starry-eyed reaction to Obama-esque digi-campaigning (or Election 2.0) to a practical, cost-driven desire to drive all access to government and government services online. It is this, they argue, more than anything which is driving Government pressure on suppliers to push broadband out to everyone. It may be exciting to exercise one’s democratic rights online, but it may be more useful to be able to get the bins emptied too.

Nick A

Judul artikel ini sama dengan judul sebuah buku yang diterbitkan oleh Majalah E-Indonesia pada bulan April 2006. Buku tersebut berisi kumpulan makalah seminar nasional tentang Single Identity Number (SIN) yang diselenggarakan bulan Oktober 2003 serta tulisan-tulisan tentang SIN yang pernah dimuat di majalah E-Indonesia edisi April 2005 hingga Mei 2006. Dalam buku ini tergambar optimisme bahwa paling lambat tahun 2007 SIN akan diterapkan di Indonesia. Namun kenyataannya hingga awal 2009 ini, tanda-tanda penerapan SIN masih belum nampak.

Ditengah ketidakpastian penerapan SIN oleh Pemerintah Pusat, tanggal 7 Pebruari 2009 lalu, Pemerintah Kabupaten Jembrana meluncurkan Jembrana Identitas Diri (J-ID) dalam wujud Kartu Tanda Penduduk multifungsi. Inikah implementasi SIN di daerah?

Apa dan Mengapa Harus SIN

Di jaman modern yang serba cepat dan praktis, masyarakat ingin dimudahkan dalam segala urusannya. Mereka tidak mau ribet bila mengurus sesuatu. Pelayanan yang cepat, mudah, dan transparan, itulah yang dikehendaki. Sayangnya, di Indonesia, pelayanan publik belum semuanya mencerminkan hal tersebut. Prosedur berbelit yang jauh dari praktis, masih banyak mendominasi layanan publik yang digelar di negara ini. Salah satu faktor mengapa layanan publik belum berjalan dengan baik adalah belum diberlakukannya SIN.

Untuk diketahui, saat ini terdapat nomor identitas yang dikeluarkan oleh sekitar 32 institusi, antara lain No KTP, Kartu Keluarga, Paspor, SIM, BPKB, NOP, Akta Kelahiran, Nomor yang dikeluarkan PDAM, PLN, Telkom dan masih banyak yang lainnya. Karenanya jangan heran, masyarakat acapkali mengeluh lantaran dibuat pusing dan repot oleh nomor yang beragam tersebut.
Sebagai nomor identitas tunggal, SIN adalah sebuah identitas unik yang dimiliki oleh setiap individu. Di dalamnya tidak hanya memuat jati diri individu, tapi juga informasi lain yang terkait dengan data keluarga, kepemilikan aset, data kepolisian, perbankan, pajak dan masih banyak lagi yang lain. Artinya SIN bukan saja sebatas nomor individu atau ID Card melainkan identitas yang bisa mengakses ke identitas lain seperti halnya Social Security Number (SSN) di Amerika Serikat. SIN harus bisa mengakses seluruh sumber informasi di Indonesia yang saat ini tersebar di sekitar 32 institusi. Guna mewujudkan SIN, dibutuhkan suatu sinergi informasi. Keterpaduan dalam sistem informasi merupakan syarat utama adanya nomor identitas tunggal.

Banyak keuntungan yang dapat diperoleh dengan adanya SIN. Selain meningkatkan pelayanan publik karena adanya data terpusat, integrasi nomor identitas juga memberikan nilai strategis. Institusi yang terlibat dalam sistem ini dapat melakukan ekstraksi informasi lintas sektoral. SIN juga dapat digunakan sebagai instrumen pengawasan terhadap kepatuhan warga negara dalam memenuhi kewajibannya. Dan yang tak kalah pentingnya, SIN memiliki kontribusi besar karena memiliki kandungan informasi yang detail mencakup sosial, ekonomi dan lingkungan serta berperan sebagai instrumen untuk melakukan penelusuran dan analisis potensi-potensi sumber pendapatan, terutama yang berkaitan dengan perpajakan.

Membuat SIN Tak Sekedar Wacana

Ego sektoral, mungkin ini yang menjadi batu sandungan kenapa hingga kini SIN belum bisa diwujudkan. Memang dalam mewujudkan SIN dibutuhkan serangkaian aktifitas yang berbasis proses, yang membutuhkan serangkaian kerja sama lintas sektoral secara cepat dan intensif. Ketika serangkaian proses membutuhkn kerjasama inilah, masing-masing lembaga yang memiliki nomor identitas merasa memiliki hak untuk mengelola SIN.

Bagaimana dengan implementasi SIN di Jembrana? Apakah J-ID (Jembrana Identitas) yang dilaunching tanggal 7 Pebruari lalu merupakan implementasi SIN?. Mari kita lihat beberapa institusi yang mengeluarkan nomor identitas di Jembrana. Dinas Kependudukan mengeluarkan Nomor Identitas Kependudukan (NIK) berjumlah 16 digit yang diwujudkan dalam Kartu Tanda Penduduk (KTP), Ada juga lembaga Jaminan Kesehatan Jembrana (JKJ) yang mengeluarkan nomor JKJ berjumlah 9 digit yang diwujudkan dalam kartu JKJ, kemudian ada institusi Rumah Sakit Umum Negara yang mengeluarkan nomor Rumah Sakit sejumlah 15 digit, demikian juga sekolah-sekolah mengeluarkan nomor induk siswa, termasuk juga kalangan swasta seperti Hardys Supermarket yang juga mengeluarkan nomor pelanggannya sejumlah 10 digit. Belum lagi nomor yang dikeluarkan oleh PLN, PDAM, Telkom dan lain-lainnya. Artinya seorang warga Jembrana bisa memiliki hingga 5 nomor identitas dalam wujud kartu untuk mengakses pelayanan publik, tinggal dihitung berapa biaya yang dihabiskan untuk membuat kartu-kartu tersebut.

Setelah mengetahui institusi yang mengeluarkan nomor identitas tersebut, selanjutnya apakah institusi tersebut sudah memiliki sistem informasi sehingga jika nomor identitas menjadi tunggal diberlakukan, semua institusi dapat diakses oleh nomor tunggal tersebut?. Dinas kependudukan yang mengeluarkan KTP sudah memiliki Sistem Informasi Administrasi Kependudukan (SIAK), JKJ sudah memiliki Sistem Informasi JKJ Online, demikian juga dengan Rumah Sakit Umum Negara sudah memiliki Sistem Informasi Manajemen Rumah Sakit (SIMRS), artinya ketiga institusi ini dapat diintegrasikan dalam satu nomor identitas. Dipilihnya Nomor Identitas Kependudukan (NIK) sebagai identitas tunggal di Jembrana merupakan langkah tepat, karena NIK bersifat unik dan pasti terdapat di database institusi yang lain. Kini, dengan diberlakukannya KTP dengan NIK didalamnya sebagai identitas tunggal pelayanan publik, maka JKJ dan Rumah Sakit tidak perlu lagi mencetak kartu dan mengeluarkan nomor identitas. Bagi masyarakat Jembrana, cukup dengan memiliki KTP saja, berbagai layanan publik bisa dinikmati, saat ini khususnya di bidang kesehatan.

Jika di Pemerintah Pusat, penerapan SIN masih sebatas wacana, di Jembrana SIN telah diimplementasikan dalam wujud J-ID. Kelancaran penerapan J-ID sangat dipengaruhi oleh stabilitas infrastruktur jaringan (J-Net) yang menopang sistem informasi di seluruh institusi yang tergabung dalam J-ID serta kesiapan sumber daya manusia yang mengoperasikan sistem informasi di masing-masing institusi tersebut. J-ID dalam wujud KTP yang berbahan smart card masih bisa terus diberi nilai tambah, bukan saja di bidang kesehatan, bisa di bidang pendidikan, di bidang bisnis dan lain sebagainya, tergantung apakah kita mau, bukankah kalau mau pasti bisa?

Tulisan ini pernah dimuat di Jembrana Post dan Beritabali.com

このブログでも何度か取り上げておりますが、途上国での携帯電話普及のインパクトって、最近良く話題になっとりますなぁ。EconomistのSpecial Report（9月26日）に、「Mobile marvels」という題名で、途上国における携帯の話題が掲載されてました。そのなかからちょいと気になった点をご紹介。

途上国で携帯が普及した条件（要因）として、大きく3つの要素が上げられています。
１．プリペイド方式・・・銀行口座を持たない人や信用度の低い人でも携帯が使えるようになった！
２．機器価格の低下・・・携帯電話の本体価格が安くなって、途上国の人も手が届くようになった！
３．通信市場の自由化・・・政府系通信公社の独占から民間（外国資本も）参入により競争化⇒低価格に！

このレポートでは上記の３点が上げられていました。ここで「なるほど」と感じたのは３．「通信市場の自由化」。
例として、エチオピアとソマリアの携帯電話普及率が取り上げられていました。
未だに政府系公社が通信市場を独占しているエチオピアの携帯電話普及率は、3.5％（2008年末：100人のうち3.5人が携帯使っているという意味）であり、アフリカの平均40％にほど遠い数値になってます。さらに、エチオピアの隣国ソマリアと比較すると、ソマリアの携帯電話普及率は7.9％！内戦でエチオピアよりも混乱している国なのに、携帯普及率はソマリアのほうが高いのです。その理由として、エチオピアの通信市場が独占状態なのに対し、ソマリアでは通信市場の規制がなく、複数の通信企業がしのぎを削っている点が指摘されていました。

また、このレポートでは携帯電話の普及による民主化についても述べられていました。
携帯電話によって選挙速報が各地の投票所からラジオ局に伝わり放送されることで、あとから投票数を不正することが防止されたり、民主化運動にテキスト（携帯メール）が利用されたり、といった例があります。
いつくか紹介されている例で最も興味深いのが、「Ushahidi」というWebsite。「Ushahidi」とはスワヒリ語で“証言”という意味。このWebsiteは2008年のケニアの選挙暴動を機に開設され、危険情報（暴動があったとか、発砲事件があったとか）を掲載し共有するためのサイト。これが携帯からもアクセス可能だという。（Ushahidiについて、http://greenz.jp/2009/09/28/ushahidi/に日本語で書いてあります）

ここで話が戻るのですが、携帯電話による民主化についても、やっぱり通信市場の自由化に代表される政府の政策がカギなんだろうと思う。自分も現地にいた2005年のエチオピア総選挙では、それまで利用できたテキスト（携帯メール）が、全く使えなくなった。勿論、理由は現政権が反与党派の活動を制限するため。うーむ・・・。今は再びテキストが利用可能になっていますが、2010年のエチオピア選挙時にどうなるのか？

Hasta el próximo 11 de noviembre se puede participar en la votación online, que la organización de los 4th European eGovernment Awards Public Prize organiza entre las 52 finalistas. Hay que votar tres candidatas, y entre los votantes participantes se sortearán 5 “entradas” a la Conferencia Ministerial sobre e-Government que se celebrará en Malmö. A mí nunca me tocó nada. Así que voy a intentarlo,..

Los proyectos españoles compiten en las siguientes categorías:

1. La administración electrónica en apoyo a los ciudadanos:

• Servicio ciudadano y administrativo 012 de Castilla y León.
• Enfoque de la administración electrónica en Cataluña centrado en el ciudadano.
• Participa en Andalucía.
• Geoportal de estaciones de servicio del Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio.

2. La administración electrónica potenciando la eficiencia y la efectividad:

• Sistema de Administración electrónica del Gobierno Vasco.
• e-Catalunya: impulso de la innovación en administración electrónica a través de las comunidades de conocimiento. 
• Plataforma de servicios electrónicos del Ayuntamiento de Barcelona.
• Red de Municipios Digitales (RMD).

Y también hay representación española en el apartado de Buenas Prácticas:

• OpenFWPA: Open Framework for the Public Administration (Spain) http://www.asturias.es/openFWPA
• Data Verification System (Spain) http://www.ctt.map.es/web/svdisvdr
• Guia LinEx: Local eGovernment Services with Open Source Platform (Spain) http://guia.linex.org/
• Information Systems on Mobile devices for Government employee (Spain) http://www.bcn.cat/

Más información:

Practicing what we preach, the European eGovernment Awards Consortium, ePractice.eu and the European Commission invite members of the ePractice.eu community to vote for their three favourite cases from among the 52 European eGovernment Awards 2009 finalists. These 52 cases are now published at the ePractice.eu portal and open to receive members’ votes and comments. In addition, this year the voters can win one of the five free admissions to the 5th Ministerial eGovernment Conference.  

The 4th European eGovernment Awards Public Prize is based on an online vote by ePractice.eu members for the best case from among the 52 shortlisted finalists. The prize is awarded to the finalist receiving the highest number of votes. The prize represents a unique opportunity to be part of the process, help the European Commission to select the best practices and support your preferred finalists in winning one of the prestigious European eGovernment Awards.  

Votes can be cast only online, using the voting facility on the ePractice.eu site. Voters are asked to cast votes for three finalists from at least two countries to strengthen the European dimension of the Public Prize. In order to vote, it is necessary to be a registered member of ePractice.eu (membership open to all) and have the minimum required user profile. Online voting closes on 11 November 2009 at 18:00 CET. 

Participate and win free admission to the Ministerial eGovernment Conference. 

Those who cast their votes for the Public Prize by 18 October 2009 have a chance to win one of the five free admissions to the 5th Ministerial eGovernment Conference. This high-level conference, to be held on 19-20 November 2009 in Malmö (Sweden), offers a unique learning and networking opportunity, bringing together more than 1000 prominent public and private decision-makers and experts from across Europe and beyond. This is a unique opportunity to be granted admission to this high-profile event: attendance is limited and by invitation only! The invitation includes admission to the conference only, i.e. all costs regarding travel and accommodation will NOT be covered. In addition, all voters who cast their votes before 11 November 2009 – the final voting deadline – can win some of our other prizes: USB phone chargers and computer screen cleaners.

 Further information:

Awards website: www.epractice.eu/awards

List of finalists: http://www.epractice.eu/en/awards/finalists

Online voting rules: http://www.epractice.eu/en/awards/rules

Awards Helpdesk: awards@epractice.eu