I just played the simulation game spent about 10 times. http://playspent.org/ The game represents a living situation many Americans (14 million unemployed currently) experience now - especially given our current economic situation. The game makes the player think of what they would do having only $1000 to live on for the month and only having low income jobs as options for employment. As much as I tried, I could not get the higher paying temp job typing (I wonder if anyone in the class was able to?). So I took jobs as a warehouse worker or a waitress. Only two times out of 10 could I get through the game with enough money to pay my next months rent. However, it was quite obvious that the choices I made to get through the month (no health insurance, car registration, or enough food) could sustain me long term - perhaps not even more than a month. Overall this game brought me back to the vulnerabilities I faced as a kid and still face today. In a clever and consise way, the game Spent demonstrates that pervasive financial vulnerabilites and insecurities in America are a symptom our government, capitalist society, and culture.
The game's format for presenting knowledge greatly impacted comprehension of the information. However, it wasn't necessary for the game to make me realize that it is hard to make it financially in America. I consider myself blessed to have a high paying job and a partner who also has a high paying job and even we are challenged financially with just the basics - (a mortgage, 2 car payments, health insurance, utilities, student loan payments). It can be easy for me to see that people would easily go without what I (and the game) consider basic costs and there was a time when I was also in that situation and with our current economy I can imagine most Americans are stressed that they will face similar tough times - if they aren't already.
I liked how the game required a choice and then would give a bubble of information surrounding American experience about that choice. I felt guilty that I opted to not to register my vehicle in the game - but after reading the bubble that said many Americans don't, it hit home how challenging it is for many people. I particularly found interesting the bubble of information that indicated that many primary school children choose not to eat to avoid being labeled as poor. I was that kid. My family qualified for reduced lunch and I was mortified to have to stand in line for reduced lunch tickets - I'm probably still scarred to this day about that experience because of the way that other kids judged me on the basis of what my parents had. I probably would have gone hungry myself had I not needed to pick them up for my brothers as well. It is interesting that a large part of American culture is obsessed with material things and yet so many of us do not have many material things. In some ways the social stigma for being poor is worse than the physical consequences. I have to say that the game highly impacted me because it made me feel that vulnerability and rejection I felt as a kid again...Ouch. However, feeling that feeling makes me a better person because it also drives me to helps me to be very empathetic - and a much better public servant.
I don't think the game is necessarily biased for Americans, although it gives a narrow situation with narrow choices. In actuality we would have more choice, but it gets its point across. I think it would be very interesting to see a simulation with facts about a different country. For instance, it could represent Europe, India, and China for instance with relative job opportunities, rent, insurance costs, as well as represent legal and social consequences for decision making. We may see in Europe that it is easier for those who are less fortunate to make it through the month while those in poverty in certain areas of India may have it much worse than those with even slim job opportunities in the United States.
My entry in the 10,000 Solutions competition sponsored by ASU was influenced by the Spent game. I wrote:
"Many primary age students would rather go hungry than face the social stigma affiliated with taking reduced or free lunches. As one of the kids who was stigmatized by the way my school handled these lunches, I realize the solution should fix the discrimination of the poor overall - but that problem has deep roots in our culture and will take a broad shift in thinking.
A practical approach is for schools to receive funding to put computerized systems in place that would take e-lunch cards if they don't already have a system. The cards should carry "points" instead of dollars. Each "hot lunch" or ala carte item would be a number of points instead of a dollar amount. Parents with reduced lunch eligibility would purchase a number of points for a reduced dollar amount. Kids who qualify for free lunches would have a set amount of points. The point system removes the differences children face at the lunch register. The transactions are only visible between the parent and the school."
These three entries caught my attention:
1) Rape Defense - Africa
This was an interesting entry because it is such a profound problem in Africa. I don't think the solution - to teach women self defense, or give women a whistle will help much with the problem because Africa does not have the same public safety backing like we have in the US. If a girl whistles - who is going to come to her defense? However, I do think it is a good start and would be interested in additional solutions to the problem.
2)Reverse Groupon was selected as the solution of the week by 10000 solutions. It suggests that people request bargains instead of companies offering them and highlights that this would be highly popular with college students. I would be in on this idea!
3)Another solution of the week is the "Adopt Don't Shop" concept. I am an animal lover with three adorable dogs myself. The "Adopt Don't Shop" concept encourages pet adoption by displaying pictures donated from a professional photographer in Memorial Union. I think this makes adopting a pet just as or more exciting as purchasing one. Although I would be afraid that a small fraction of college students would not be responsible pet owners.
I was involved with the project as an ASU employee during it's inception phases when it was called ASU Challenges and it is interesting to see how the ASU Challenges concept has evolved. It originally started with the idea that the number of challenges would be fixed and ASU would take on the top 10 or top 100 to demonstrate ASU’s vision of a New American University to the community - that it was an all inclusive research university with the capabilities of solving world problems. I really like how since then the concept has been extended to the greater community, how it allows people to be easily involved, and easily expand on eachothers work. I think it will continue to grow - like it says on the site - it's an evolving project. One of the ways that I think it could grow is by introducing some elements we see from Youtube - such as most views and/or ratings and visitors could filter results on that basis in addition to current ways.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Book Review of "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" by Lawrence Lessig
I have a Fine Art degree from University of Wisconsin Madison and another in Art Education from ASU. When I tell many people I work in Information Technology as an IT Project Manager, they give me a puzzled look and ask "How did you get into IT when your background is in Art?". What many people don't know is that information technology is a tremendous outlet for creativity. The book, "Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity" was of interest to me because of this background and sounded like it would discuss both of my major interests.
In the Preface of the book, Lessig explains that his book is about the consequences of the internet on our culture and that both people who use the internet and those who don't use it are affected by changes it brings. He emphasizes that his book isn't about the internet, rather it is about the effect the internet has upon the process that culture is made. (7) He also says that if that if we understood the cultural change the internet brings, both the polically right and left would resist that change. (Preface)
Lessig states that we come from a "free culture" in which we are free to make our own decisions within boundaries as opposed to a "permission culture". Free though doesn't mean anarchy. Rather, it's a "balance between anarchy and control" and has rules surrounding property ownership that include benefiting financially from that property. (Preface) Overall, Free Culture is a book about property rules, how intrinsic they are to our culture, and how these rules and our culture surrounding them are influenced by the development of the internet.
The book starts with with two stories that outline just how important property ownership is. The first story he tells is about how the invention of airplanes challenged previous American law that stated an owner owned property of his/her land all the way up through the sky and beyond. The Supreme court determined that a lawsuit filed by two farmers against the government to defend their property had no clout. The farmers charged that low flying military planes frightened their chickens causing them to run into wall and die.
While the last story outlined the power of government, the next outlines the power of big business in influencing rules around ownership. Edwin Howard Armstrong discovered FM radio and held 4 patents for it. He worked for RCA, a leader in AM radio and upon news of Armstrongs discovery, the president of RCA, David Sarnoff, and other big radio interests used their power to influence the FCC and the FCC then influenced rulings that significantly "crippled" FM radio. Sarnoff then used the invention of television to deliver benefits of FM radio and ignored Armstrongs patents and deemed them invalid. Armstrong tried to defend his patents and launched lengthy and expensive litigation on RCA, but in the end only got a very small settlement and committed suicide shortly afterward.
Both these stories illustrate issues of ownership. In both cases the "little guy" lost. Once against the government and the other against big business. Both cases also illustrate that property ownership is very important and that rules surrounding them affect people's lives in drastic ways.
After outlining how important property ownership is Lessig talks about how the lines about property ownership can be blurry. He makes the distinction between "commercial culture" and "non commercial" culture. He says commercial culture is something that can be sold and bought. Non-commercial culture he says is like a person on a park bench telling stories to kids. Those stories are consumed without being purchased. They also weren't regulated by government. "The law was never directly concerned with the creation or spread of this form of culture, and it left this culture 'free.'” (7) Previous to the internet this line was not so blurry, but the internet brings about a change in which the line between commercial and non-commercial culture is "erased". (7) The result of this is us moving from a free culture to more of a permissive culture.
The reason for more permission is to protect commercial creativity. Lessig argues that the permission is not to protect individual creators, rather, it grows from the fight of business to protect their "property". Lessig writes, "Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them." (8) At first when reading this I thought...even though the internet makes us a more permissive culture, how does it protect the intellectual property of big business more than the documented creative property of the individual that has no connection to big business. For instance, i would think the same law that protects big business creative content on the internet would be the same law that protects my blog post.
Contrasting to my first thought, Lessig indicates that those businesses that are threatened by the internet replacing their pre-internet intellectual property, are seeking to "remake the Internet before the Internet remakes them." (9) So what does this mean?
I'm not 100% clear about what Lessig means by this but this is one way that big business may be remaking the internet. I recently got a message from Google when trying to access my Google+ account alerting me that an update to my account was required. The message read, "You are currently using Google+ with the personal Google Account for kelli.thornton@asu.edu. "Personal" means this account and its data are owned by you. You may not realize it, but you also have an organizational Google Apps account managed by asu.edu with the same address. Two completely different accounts are using the kelli.thornton@asu.edu address." The message went on to help me go through steps to separate information in my accounts. What this message made me realize is my Gmail for ASU account was personal and I owned the data in this account. So did that mean then for the other information that I was to separate into a different account? Did I not own this information? Are my emails in my other Google Account not my own intellectual property? This is one way I see that big business "is remaking the internet before the internet remakes them." (9) Instead of being threatened by the "little guy's" right to his/her intellectual property, big business can say that they own it. Google owns your email, Facebook and Twitter own your posts, News outlets own your comments. The more you "create" online on these platforms - the more big business owns your creations.
The book is broken out into two main sections, "Piracy" and "Property". The first section, "Piracy", outlines how historically borrowing was a normal occurance that didn't require permission. For instance, Walt Disney cartoons borrowed stories from the silent films of the time as well as stories from the Grimm brothers. He also explains that this borrowing occurs today in the Japanese culture with doujinshi. Doujinshi is a popular practice in Japan today. They are copies of Manga and the culture surrounding this practice requires that when Manga are copied at least one thing - minor or major - needs to be changed. This practice of building upon someone else's work is considered a contribution in Japanese culture, much like Disney's creations were considered contributions. Lessig argues that the internet changes the idea that building upon someone else's work is considered a contribution. Now it is considered piracy.
Regarding property, Lessig talks about the patents on AIDS retroviral drugs. He states that the drugs to treat AIDS are expensive due to patents not due to the ingredients that they are made of. The drugs will extend an AIDS patients life by 10-20 years but they are too expensive for countries in Africa to use to treat the AIDS crisis. So South Africa tried a tactic to import the drugs at a lower price from India. However, the US blocked that tactic.
Lessig isn't against drug patents. Rather, he thinks drug patents are necessary for the incentive to exist to make the investment to research a cure. He brings up the story to illustrate that the US prevented the importation of the drugs to protect the "sanctity of an idea". (4218) The property in question is intellectual property and he states "This is not like wheat (if they eat it, we can’t); instead, the flow that the United States intervened to stop was, in effect, a flow of knowledge: information about how to take chemicals that exist within Africa, and turn those chemicals into drugs that would save 15 to 30 million lives." (4218) The result of protecting the "santity of an idea" or in other words, intellectual property, 15 to 30 million lives are lost. The point Lessig is making here is that "we as a culture have lost this sense of balance. We have lost the critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and extremism" in this protection of the sanctity of an idea. (4241)
In sum, Lessig's book Free Culture poses the question "how do we balance protecting intellectual property against extremism?" Our common law system holds that "the law adjusts to the technologies of the time." (2) Previous to the invention of the airplane, property rights existed through the sky and beyond. But a judgement that said airplanes are not trespassing on personal property changed this law and adjusted to the technology of the time. Now with the use of the internet how will our law adjust to this new technology? We need to find balance between what is considered stealing someones property and thus detrimental to the benefits new ideas bring to society and what is considered building on those ideas which benefits society. How we accomplish that is still up in the air.
Reference
Lessig, Lawrence (2005-02-22). Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.
In the Preface of the book, Lessig explains that his book is about the consequences of the internet on our culture and that both people who use the internet and those who don't use it are affected by changes it brings. He emphasizes that his book isn't about the internet, rather it is about the effect the internet has upon the process that culture is made. (7) He also says that if that if we understood the cultural change the internet brings, both the polically right and left would resist that change. (Preface)
Lessig states that we come from a "free culture" in which we are free to make our own decisions within boundaries as opposed to a "permission culture". Free though doesn't mean anarchy. Rather, it's a "balance between anarchy and control" and has rules surrounding property ownership that include benefiting financially from that property. (Preface) Overall, Free Culture is a book about property rules, how intrinsic they are to our culture, and how these rules and our culture surrounding them are influenced by the development of the internet.
The book starts with with two stories that outline just how important property ownership is. The first story he tells is about how the invention of airplanes challenged previous American law that stated an owner owned property of his/her land all the way up through the sky and beyond. The Supreme court determined that a lawsuit filed by two farmers against the government to defend their property had no clout. The farmers charged that low flying military planes frightened their chickens causing them to run into wall and die.
While the last story outlined the power of government, the next outlines the power of big business in influencing rules around ownership. Edwin Howard Armstrong discovered FM radio and held 4 patents for it. He worked for RCA, a leader in AM radio and upon news of Armstrongs discovery, the president of RCA, David Sarnoff, and other big radio interests used their power to influence the FCC and the FCC then influenced rulings that significantly "crippled" FM radio. Sarnoff then used the invention of television to deliver benefits of FM radio and ignored Armstrongs patents and deemed them invalid. Armstrong tried to defend his patents and launched lengthy and expensive litigation on RCA, but in the end only got a very small settlement and committed suicide shortly afterward.
Both these stories illustrate issues of ownership. In both cases the "little guy" lost. Once against the government and the other against big business. Both cases also illustrate that property ownership is very important and that rules surrounding them affect people's lives in drastic ways.
After outlining how important property ownership is Lessig talks about how the lines about property ownership can be blurry. He makes the distinction between "commercial culture" and "non commercial" culture. He says commercial culture is something that can be sold and bought. Non-commercial culture he says is like a person on a park bench telling stories to kids. Those stories are consumed without being purchased. They also weren't regulated by government. "The law was never directly concerned with the creation or spread of this form of culture, and it left this culture 'free.'” (7) Previous to the internet this line was not so blurry, but the internet brings about a change in which the line between commercial and non-commercial culture is "erased". (7) The result of this is us moving from a free culture to more of a permissive culture.
The reason for more permission is to protect commercial creativity. Lessig argues that the permission is not to protect individual creators, rather, it grows from the fight of business to protect their "property". Lessig writes, "Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them." (8) At first when reading this I thought...even though the internet makes us a more permissive culture, how does it protect the intellectual property of big business more than the documented creative property of the individual that has no connection to big business. For instance, i would think the same law that protects big business creative content on the internet would be the same law that protects my blog post.
Contrasting to my first thought, Lessig indicates that those businesses that are threatened by the internet replacing their pre-internet intellectual property, are seeking to "remake the Internet before the Internet remakes them." (9) So what does this mean?
I'm not 100% clear about what Lessig means by this but this is one way that big business may be remaking the internet. I recently got a message from Google when trying to access my Google+ account alerting me that an update to my account was required. The message read, "You are currently using Google+ with the personal Google Account for kelli.thornton@asu.edu. "Personal" means this account and its data are owned by you. You may not realize it, but you also have an organizational Google Apps account managed by asu.edu with the same address. Two completely different accounts are using the kelli.thornton@asu.edu address." The message went on to help me go through steps to separate information in my accounts. What this message made me realize is my Gmail for ASU account was personal and I owned the data in this account. So did that mean then for the other information that I was to separate into a different account? Did I not own this information? Are my emails in my other Google Account not my own intellectual property? This is one way I see that big business "is remaking the internet before the internet remakes them." (9) Instead of being threatened by the "little guy's" right to his/her intellectual property, big business can say that they own it. Google owns your email, Facebook and Twitter own your posts, News outlets own your comments. The more you "create" online on these platforms - the more big business owns your creations.
The book is broken out into two main sections, "Piracy" and "Property". The first section, "Piracy", outlines how historically borrowing was a normal occurance that didn't require permission. For instance, Walt Disney cartoons borrowed stories from the silent films of the time as well as stories from the Grimm brothers. He also explains that this borrowing occurs today in the Japanese culture with doujinshi. Doujinshi is a popular practice in Japan today. They are copies of Manga and the culture surrounding this practice requires that when Manga are copied at least one thing - minor or major - needs to be changed. This practice of building upon someone else's work is considered a contribution in Japanese culture, much like Disney's creations were considered contributions. Lessig argues that the internet changes the idea that building upon someone else's work is considered a contribution. Now it is considered piracy.
Regarding property, Lessig talks about the patents on AIDS retroviral drugs. He states that the drugs to treat AIDS are expensive due to patents not due to the ingredients that they are made of. The drugs will extend an AIDS patients life by 10-20 years but they are too expensive for countries in Africa to use to treat the AIDS crisis. So South Africa tried a tactic to import the drugs at a lower price from India. However, the US blocked that tactic.
Lessig isn't against drug patents. Rather, he thinks drug patents are necessary for the incentive to exist to make the investment to research a cure. He brings up the story to illustrate that the US prevented the importation of the drugs to protect the "sanctity of an idea". (4218) The property in question is intellectual property and he states "This is not like wheat (if they eat it, we can’t); instead, the flow that the United States intervened to stop was, in effect, a flow of knowledge: information about how to take chemicals that exist within Africa, and turn those chemicals into drugs that would save 15 to 30 million lives." (4218) The result of protecting the "santity of an idea" or in other words, intellectual property, 15 to 30 million lives are lost. The point Lessig is making here is that "we as a culture have lost this sense of balance. We have lost the critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and extremism" in this protection of the sanctity of an idea. (4241)
In sum, Lessig's book Free Culture poses the question "how do we balance protecting intellectual property against extremism?" Our common law system holds that "the law adjusts to the technologies of the time." (2) Previous to the invention of the airplane, property rights existed through the sky and beyond. But a judgement that said airplanes are not trespassing on personal property changed this law and adjusted to the technology of the time. Now with the use of the internet how will our law adjust to this new technology? We need to find balance between what is considered stealing someones property and thus detrimental to the benefits new ideas bring to society and what is considered building on those ideas which benefits society. How we accomplish that is still up in the air.
Reference
Lessig, Lawrence (2005-02-22). Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
CC Mobile
In the article, "Most e-Government-for-Development Projects Fail
How Can Risks be Reduced?" Richard Heeks defines e-government as the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve the activities of public sector organisations. Seems straightforward enough right? Yet he goes on to explain that most e-government projects fail. I can see why. Although I don't work on e-government projects today, I have been an IT Project Manager for over 5 years and can testify that it's not just e-government projects that fail, but e-projects in general for a number of reasons. I find the biggest challenge in implementing an e-project (right now I work for US Airways and am working on an application that sends receipts to passengers booking via phone) is gathering the information from the business about what they want, assessing those needs, and translating that into a solution. It's much more complicated then it sounds. For the project I am managing, information has to be pulled from a number of databases into our web service and then data mapped sent to an email service which then sends the email to the passenger. Assessing the business needs is difficult enough, but once a solution is determined, the development of that solution presents its own challenges. Computers are not intuitive, we have to give them their brains and program every single detail of what they are doing and the devil is in the details.
Heek says that the reason most e-government projects fail due to "the oversize gaps between project design and on-the-ground reality." I think he means that the government needs are not met by the project itself. In that case more research needs to be done regarding what the community needs are.
In "Comparative E-Government: Trends and Sophistication at the Grass Roots", Tony E. Wohlers cites cost as a reason that hinders governments from engaging in effective and innovative e-commerce. Like Jaeger explains, unlike the private sector sites, government sites need to be 508 compliant. The already high costs for e-government websites and applications are compounded by the costs to make a website and webapp accessible which can be quite expensive.
Given the various challenges an e-government project presents, I found the CC Mobile service from Corpus Christi Texas innovative - http://www.cctexas.com/ccmobile/ The basis of the service is that is that residents and visitors to Corpus Christi Texas can report city problems with their smart phones. The e-government functionality is two parts:
1.) Residents download the application onto their smart phone. The directions to do so depends on the type of phone a user has. For instance those with iPhones go to the iTunes app store to purchase. They then can take a picture of a problem (such as a pothole) in the city, select the type of issue, and send. The communication then goes to the city's Customer Service Center and routed to the appropriate department. The application captures the location the picture was taken.
2) Anyone can go to the http://www.cctexas.com/ccmobile/ website and view what issues have been reported on an interactive map.
I think the CC Mobile service is effective in that it involves city residents in a very user friendly way in making the city a better place to live. The city centralizes citizen concerns to one site and one agency, the Customer Service Center, instead of residents needing to contact separate agencies. Also by publishing details of complaints including pictures on the interactive map, it lessens the number of repetative reports. The reporting feature isn't as detailed as data.gov for instance, but I feel it's easier to understand. What's the point of presenting complicated information when it doesn't meet your objective?
I think that there are certain features that are not necessary. For instance the app requires you to take a picture before submitting. In some cases this may not be possible and/or unneccessary. For instance, there was a report of dead animals that I found on the interactive map. It was not really necessary that a picture of them needed to be on the site.
Although the site makes an attempt to be 508 compliant, that is, accessible to those with disabilities I didn't see that the site was fully compliant. Granted, as Jaeger says, 508 compliance can be interpreted a number of ways, but I did see that when looking at the source code for a page detailing an incident report it was obviously not. There was way too much javascript in the source code and the text was not written out in the source code which means that a vision impared person would have a hard time knowing what was on such a page from a web reader.
All in all though I think that CC Mobile is an e-gov service that could effectively be adopted by other cities.
How Can Risks be Reduced?" Richard Heeks defines e-government as the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve the activities of public sector organisations. Seems straightforward enough right? Yet he goes on to explain that most e-government projects fail. I can see why. Although I don't work on e-government projects today, I have been an IT Project Manager for over 5 years and can testify that it's not just e-government projects that fail, but e-projects in general for a number of reasons. I find the biggest challenge in implementing an e-project (right now I work for US Airways and am working on an application that sends receipts to passengers booking via phone) is gathering the information from the business about what they want, assessing those needs, and translating that into a solution. It's much more complicated then it sounds. For the project I am managing, information has to be pulled from a number of databases into our web service and then data mapped sent to an email service which then sends the email to the passenger. Assessing the business needs is difficult enough, but once a solution is determined, the development of that solution presents its own challenges. Computers are not intuitive, we have to give them their brains and program every single detail of what they are doing and the devil is in the details.
Heek says that the reason most e-government projects fail due to "the oversize gaps between project design and on-the-ground reality." I think he means that the government needs are not met by the project itself. In that case more research needs to be done regarding what the community needs are.
In "Comparative E-Government: Trends and Sophistication at the Grass Roots", Tony E. Wohlers cites cost as a reason that hinders governments from engaging in effective and innovative e-commerce. Like Jaeger explains, unlike the private sector sites, government sites need to be 508 compliant. The already high costs for e-government websites and applications are compounded by the costs to make a website and webapp accessible which can be quite expensive.
Given the various challenges an e-government project presents, I found the CC Mobile service from Corpus Christi Texas innovative - http://www.cctexas.com/ccmobile/ The basis of the service is that is that residents and visitors to Corpus Christi Texas can report city problems with their smart phones. The e-government functionality is two parts:
1.) Residents download the application onto their smart phone. The directions to do so depends on the type of phone a user has. For instance those with iPhones go to the iTunes app store to purchase. They then can take a picture of a problem (such as a pothole) in the city, select the type of issue, and send. The communication then goes to the city's Customer Service Center and routed to the appropriate department. The application captures the location the picture was taken.
2) Anyone can go to the http://www.cctexas.com/ccmobile/ website and view what issues have been reported on an interactive map.
I think the CC Mobile service is effective in that it involves city residents in a very user friendly way in making the city a better place to live. The city centralizes citizen concerns to one site and one agency, the Customer Service Center, instead of residents needing to contact separate agencies. Also by publishing details of complaints including pictures on the interactive map, it lessens the number of repetative reports. The reporting feature isn't as detailed as data.gov for instance, but I feel it's easier to understand. What's the point of presenting complicated information when it doesn't meet your objective?
I think that there are certain features that are not necessary. For instance the app requires you to take a picture before submitting. In some cases this may not be possible and/or unneccessary. For instance, there was a report of dead animals that I found on the interactive map. It was not really necessary that a picture of them needed to be on the site.
Although the site makes an attempt to be 508 compliant, that is, accessible to those with disabilities I didn't see that the site was fully compliant. Granted, as Jaeger says, 508 compliance can be interpreted a number of ways, but I did see that when looking at the source code for a page detailing an incident report it was obviously not. There was way too much javascript in the source code and the text was not written out in the source code which means that a vision impared person would have a hard time knowing what was on such a page from a web reader.
All in all though I think that CC Mobile is an e-gov service that could effectively be adopted by other cities.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Data Sharing in Public Administration
Patientslikeme.com is an amazing effort regarding data sharing for the health community. See the TED video about the online service here. One amazing thing that the patientlikeme data gives us is faster information on a particular treatment than a clinical study can provide. The patientslikeme.com service collected data on ALS patients taking Lithium for example. The application was able to demonstrate that Lithium does not help ALS patients any more than those not taking Lithium and provided this information before a clinical trial was able to come to a conclusion. The clinical trial ended up showing the same results as patientslikeme.com was able to produce much earlier. Providing treatment success/failure rates faster helps patients and their families make more timely and well-informed treatment decisions. The patientslikeme service may also provide information on treatments that would never be available with a clinical study. For instance, there are many alternative treatments out there that would not have the funding to be tested. For instance, patientslikeme.com may provide information about the effectiveness of 5-htp in treating depression yet a clinical trial is not or may never be implemented to test 5-htp's effectiveness for the disorder.
patientslikeme.com has enormous potential1 to provide better, faster, and cheaper information than clinical trials on whether a treatment works or not. (I say potential because I see flaws in it's current state. For instance I joined and filled out a profile for my condition and it didn't allow me to select the prescription I am taking for it - although it listed others. This may lead to flawed data since it appears that I am not taking anything.)
Regardless of it's flaws - it is a very powerful data-sharing and forecasting tool and can be applied to other public challenges other than health care.
What was particularly impressive about this tool was the user interface and how it delivered unbiased, vast, and complex information very simply to the end user. One issue that could benefit from this in public administration is helping the public become more involved in the political process. In order for democracy to be successful it must have an educated populace that participates in the political process. An online service that collects a specific set data from those running for public office at the local, state, and national, even international level could allow individuals to see beyond the propoganda that typically diseminated about an individual. The data collected could be pre-set like with patientslikeme.com. For example, the data could show the education level, experience, political affiliation, for/against on issues, what election they are running for etc., percent of votes in previous elections etc. The key behind the service would be to engage citizens in the political process by providing them more clear information on candidates than they would otherwise have.
patientslikeme.com has enormous potential1 to provide better, faster, and cheaper information than clinical trials on whether a treatment works or not. (I say potential because I see flaws in it's current state. For instance I joined and filled out a profile for my condition and it didn't allow me to select the prescription I am taking for it - although it listed others. This may lead to flawed data since it appears that I am not taking anything.)
Regardless of it's flaws - it is a very powerful data-sharing and forecasting tool and can be applied to other public challenges other than health care.
What was particularly impressive about this tool was the user interface and how it delivered unbiased, vast, and complex information very simply to the end user. One issue that could benefit from this in public administration is helping the public become more involved in the political process. In order for democracy to be successful it must have an educated populace that participates in the political process. An online service that collects a specific set data from those running for public office at the local, state, and national, even international level could allow individuals to see beyond the propoganda that typically diseminated about an individual. The data collected could be pre-set like with patientslikeme.com. For example, the data could show the education level, experience, political affiliation, for/against on issues, what election they are running for etc., percent of votes in previous elections etc. The key behind the service would be to engage citizens in the political process by providing them more clear information on candidates than they would otherwise have.
The mixing of personal, professional, and private space
"The coming out stories of anonymous bloggers"
I agree with political blogger Jeanne Devon when she says, '"There are things that you know, or that you feel sort of in your heart of hearts, that you might not want to put out there in a public way" with your name attached, she said. "If people always spoke without filters, we'd learn a lot more."
I personally think it's unfortunate that we can't keep an anonymous persona online. Despite bloggers best attempts, the article discusses ways in which anonymous online identities may be exposed and why previous bloggers may decide to reveal their identities.
An attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Matt Zimmerman, who "advocates for the rights of anonymous speech" said that there is no 100% effective way to hide
due to a technological footprint. If technology itself doesn't expose someone courts can force people out of online anonymity. The requirements for doing so however are not yet clear. For instance, a court could determine that legal action filed against a blogger is enough to expose them but another court might require proof that the blogger defamed someone.
Like many others, Virginia Montanez or "Pittgirl" determined that she wanted to be the one to come out as her real self before someone else outed her real identity. Other bloggers choose to expose themselves like the famous Heather Armstrong of dooce.com. She states "I think if you're doing something anonymously you've got some issues going on...There's a reason that you're hiding." Despite Montanez initally choosing to be anonymous and Armstrong being public, they both have one thing in common - their controversial blogs got them fired from their jobs.
However, Armstrong says that the benefits regarding writing as herself outway the bad. She references the support she received from the online community when she suffered from postpartum depression. Likewise, political blogger Jeanne Devon said that she felt more support from her community after being outed.
The major takeaways from this article are:
1) Online anonymity is difficult to maintain
2) A public persona - by choice or by force - has both its benefits and consequences.
I agree with political blogger Jeanne Devon when she says, '"There are things that you know, or that you feel sort of in your heart of hearts, that you might not want to put out there in a public way" with your name attached, she said. "If people always spoke without filters, we'd learn a lot more."
I personally think it's unfortunate that we can't keep an anonymous persona online. Despite bloggers best attempts, the article discusses ways in which anonymous online identities may be exposed and why previous bloggers may decide to reveal their identities.
An attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Matt Zimmerman, who "advocates for the rights of anonymous speech" said that there is no 100% effective way to hide
due to a technological footprint. If technology itself doesn't expose someone courts can force people out of online anonymity. The requirements for doing so however are not yet clear. For instance, a court could determine that legal action filed against a blogger is enough to expose them but another court might require proof that the blogger defamed someone.
Like many others, Virginia Montanez or "Pittgirl" determined that she wanted to be the one to come out as her real self before someone else outed her real identity. Other bloggers choose to expose themselves like the famous Heather Armstrong of dooce.com. She states "I think if you're doing something anonymously you've got some issues going on...There's a reason that you're hiding." Despite Montanez initally choosing to be anonymous and Armstrong being public, they both have one thing in common - their controversial blogs got them fired from their jobs.
However, Armstrong says that the benefits regarding writing as herself outway the bad. She references the support she received from the online community when she suffered from postpartum depression. Likewise, political blogger Jeanne Devon said that she felt more support from her community after being outed.
The major takeaways from this article are:
1) Online anonymity is difficult to maintain
2) A public persona - by choice or by force - has both its benefits and consequences.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Code 2.0 - Applying Lessig's Four Constraints
A story in the The Telegraph, a UK newspaper, recounts a story of a man, Dave Moorhouse, whose microchipped Jack Russell terrier was stolen. Although the microchip company knows the dog's location, Moorhouse is prevented from finding the dog's location due to the Data Protection Act. You can read the story here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/8015956/Dog-owner-prevented-from-finding-microchipped-pet-under-Data-Protection-Act.html.
Moorhouse argues to the microchip provider that the reason he microchipped his pet was to find the pet if it was ever lost or stolen. When they refused to release the dog's whereabouts, Moorhouse took the case to court but the court upheld the decision to not release the location due to the Data Protection Act. The microchip provider stated that Moorhouse has the option of reporting the theft to the police and the police "can demand the details of the dog's location be disclosed, where appropriate". However, Moorhouse did so and the police concluded that "there was no criminal case to answer".
Lessig illustrates that four modalities regulate cyberspace: law, norms, the market, and architecture. The values that are in conflict here are protecting data and protecting dog ownership. The modalities that are in conflict in this situation are the law, norms, and architecture. The norm would uphold that Moore owns his dog and when someone else takes his dog it is considered stealing. The law states that although the microchip company knows where Moore's dog is, they are prevented from identifying the location due to the Data Protection Act. Finally, architecture, or the technology of the microchip, is at play because only the microchip company has access to the whereabouts of Moore's dog once reported to them. It would be a different scenario if Moore could also have access to the whereabouts of his dog perhaps through online access to a tracking service provided by the microchip.
I think that Moore could have seen a solution to his problem with the current constraints in place. I do not understand why the police concluded that "there was no criminal case to answer". If they concluded that there was criminal activity they could have forced the microchip company to release the dogs whereabouts.
Regardless, an alternative approach for addressing the problem would be to enhance the microchip technology by allowing real-time tracking of one's pet. In the situation with Moorhouse, what prevented him from knowing the location of his dog was that the "new owners" (or as I would call them, thieves) reported to the microchip company their location and then the company was obligated to protect that location. The microchip company would not have known the dogs location had it not been reported to them. However, if the microchip company provided a tracking GPS service, the owner could always know the location of their dog and the Data Protection Act would not prevent release of this data. The only change that would be needed for this solution would be to the architecture/technology of the microchip which would then provide owners protection from lost or stolen dogs while still protecting data according to the Data Protection Act.
Lessig cites Polk Wagner who argues that the "interaction among these modalities is dynamic". (p130) This means that changing the constraints of any one of them may affect the others. In my example, changing the technology of the microchip to provide GPS tracking may affect the law or market. The Data Protection Act may be changed to include information about GPS tracking. Or, by adding the GPS tracking technology, the demand for microchipping may skyrocket and subsequently the manufacturers of microchips may hike the price so that few can afford the service - which could exasperate the problem of stolen and lost dogs.
Moorhouse argues to the microchip provider that the reason he microchipped his pet was to find the pet if it was ever lost or stolen. When they refused to release the dog's whereabouts, Moorhouse took the case to court but the court upheld the decision to not release the location due to the Data Protection Act. The microchip provider stated that Moorhouse has the option of reporting the theft to the police and the police "can demand the details of the dog's location be disclosed, where appropriate". However, Moorhouse did so and the police concluded that "there was no criminal case to answer".
Lessig illustrates that four modalities regulate cyberspace: law, norms, the market, and architecture. The values that are in conflict here are protecting data and protecting dog ownership. The modalities that are in conflict in this situation are the law, norms, and architecture. The norm would uphold that Moore owns his dog and when someone else takes his dog it is considered stealing. The law states that although the microchip company knows where Moore's dog is, they are prevented from identifying the location due to the Data Protection Act. Finally, architecture, or the technology of the microchip, is at play because only the microchip company has access to the whereabouts of Moore's dog once reported to them. It would be a different scenario if Moore could also have access to the whereabouts of his dog perhaps through online access to a tracking service provided by the microchip.
I think that Moore could have seen a solution to his problem with the current constraints in place. I do not understand why the police concluded that "there was no criminal case to answer". If they concluded that there was criminal activity they could have forced the microchip company to release the dogs whereabouts.
Regardless, an alternative approach for addressing the problem would be to enhance the microchip technology by allowing real-time tracking of one's pet. In the situation with Moorhouse, what prevented him from knowing the location of his dog was that the "new owners" (or as I would call them, thieves) reported to the microchip company their location and then the company was obligated to protect that location. The microchip company would not have known the dogs location had it not been reported to them. However, if the microchip company provided a tracking GPS service, the owner could always know the location of their dog and the Data Protection Act would not prevent release of this data. The only change that would be needed for this solution would be to the architecture/technology of the microchip which would then provide owners protection from lost or stolen dogs while still protecting data according to the Data Protection Act.
Lessig cites Polk Wagner who argues that the "interaction among these modalities is dynamic". (p130) This means that changing the constraints of any one of them may affect the others. In my example, changing the technology of the microchip to provide GPS tracking may affect the law or market. The Data Protection Act may be changed to include information about GPS tracking. Or, by adding the GPS tracking technology, the demand for microchipping may skyrocket and subsequently the manufacturers of microchips may hike the price so that few can afford the service - which could exasperate the problem of stolen and lost dogs.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Module 1 Readings
Reaction the first two chapters of Future of Work by Thomas W. Malone
The Future of Work by Thomas W. Malone presents a clear model or lens for viewing the evolution of human organization. He describes human organization as evolving from our hunter-gatherer ancesters that organized in small bands to farming communities ruled centrally by kings. He then explains that one of the main reasons humans were able to evolve this way is due to advancements in communication - first written communication, then the printing press. With centralization, we gained benefits such as economies of scale and military protection. However, individual freedoms, such as autonomy, had to be sacrificed. In many instances bands were taken over and members were forced to become slaves. However, continued developments in communication such as the printing press helped societies decentralize and gain some of these lost freedoms back. Yet, even in democratic societies, businesses had become highly centralized and individual workers didn't (and still don't in many companies) have much say or freedom. Electronic communication, though, presents many opportunities for continued decentralization and gaining freedom back.
Decentralization in business is a highly appealing idea for me partly because as a project manager I see it as an effective way to coordinate and partly because I spent the first few years of my professional life miserable and taking orders in a cubicle. That lifestyle made me very anxious and unhappy - even when working on projects I liked - and I don't want this experience to continue to be a part of our culture. I agree with Malone when he writes, "When people are making their own decisions, for instance, father than just following orders, they often work harder and show more dedication and more creativity." (Malone 8)
When reading the Future of Work, there were a couple of ideas that I previously took for granted, that I began to look at a bit differently. For instance, it really struck me about how different a concept it was for a country to run itself without a king. The article initially has the reader look at the concept from the perspective of a Spanish shopkeeper. I think by looking at the concept from the perspective of an individual was the reason the concept had such an impact for me. Another point that really hit home was the impact written communication and then the printing press had on society. Things that today we take for granted were revolutionary in the way that societies could organize.
One concept I did not understand from Malone's writing was that of an internal labor market. If anyone can help clarify what this is, that would be greatly helpful to me.
Reaction to Videos
Freedom of information available on the internet (such as with the Khan Academy and Academic Earth) makes me believe that certain disciplines will no longer need college degrees or that we are seriously being overcharged for them. With over 200,000 dollars spent on three degrees I often wonder if I really needed them to be what I am professionally. After all, I am an IT project manager, and first information technology education is readily available on the internet - in fact, I am mostly self taught in that arena and I grew to be a project manager through work experience. However, I have an education degree, and I would say that several of the courses I took in education were critical to my succezss - one being an Educational Psychology course. This course taught me how we learn and subsequently allowed me to teach myself technologies such as programming and overall comprehension of how complex web applications and enterprise systems work. Furthermore, sometimes there is no replacement for a professor that responds to your work. Reading is one way of learning, but doing and getting feedback is irreplaceable.
Reaction to Google+, Twitter, and Foursquare
This is the first time I have worked with Google+ and my first impression was that the application requires too much instruction for how to use the tool rather than having an intuitive interface. I did like the idea of social circles on Google+ however, but I don't like the idea of having another social networking account so similar to one that I already have with Facebook. I read on cnn.com today (here http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/23/facebook.privacy.change/index.html?npt=NP1) that Facebook is adding features more like Google+, particularly for privacy, and similar to social circles. It hasn't created social circles in the same way Google+ has, but Facebook's new feature do allow a user to control which friends see what information. Additionally, Facebook has added a function in which a user has to "approve photo tages before they go public". Overall, in my ideal world, I would prefer to have just one social networking account with the combined features of Facebook, Google+, Foursquare and Twitter. I think in order to survive long term, a social networking tool will need to provide all of these features. I'm not sure if these tools hold patents on there unique features though, and patents would prevent one tool from adopting certain features from another. But, just as we would like just one electronic device to do multiple things (i.e. smartphones), I think the public will abandon social networking sites that aren't multifunctional. Who has the time or wants to take the time to check and maintain 5+ accounts?
The Future of Work by Thomas W. Malone presents a clear model or lens for viewing the evolution of human organization. He describes human organization as evolving from our hunter-gatherer ancesters that organized in small bands to farming communities ruled centrally by kings. He then explains that one of the main reasons humans were able to evolve this way is due to advancements in communication - first written communication, then the printing press. With centralization, we gained benefits such as economies of scale and military protection. However, individual freedoms, such as autonomy, had to be sacrificed. In many instances bands were taken over and members were forced to become slaves. However, continued developments in communication such as the printing press helped societies decentralize and gain some of these lost freedoms back. Yet, even in democratic societies, businesses had become highly centralized and individual workers didn't (and still don't in many companies) have much say or freedom. Electronic communication, though, presents many opportunities for continued decentralization and gaining freedom back.
Decentralization in business is a highly appealing idea for me partly because as a project manager I see it as an effective way to coordinate and partly because I spent the first few years of my professional life miserable and taking orders in a cubicle. That lifestyle made me very anxious and unhappy - even when working on projects I liked - and I don't want this experience to continue to be a part of our culture. I agree with Malone when he writes, "When people are making their own decisions, for instance, father than just following orders, they often work harder and show more dedication and more creativity." (Malone 8)
When reading the Future of Work, there were a couple of ideas that I previously took for granted, that I began to look at a bit differently. For instance, it really struck me about how different a concept it was for a country to run itself without a king. The article initially has the reader look at the concept from the perspective of a Spanish shopkeeper. I think by looking at the concept from the perspective of an individual was the reason the concept had such an impact for me. Another point that really hit home was the impact written communication and then the printing press had on society. Things that today we take for granted were revolutionary in the way that societies could organize.
One concept I did not understand from Malone's writing was that of an internal labor market. If anyone can help clarify what this is, that would be greatly helpful to me.
Reaction to Videos
Freedom of information available on the internet (such as with the Khan Academy and Academic Earth) makes me believe that certain disciplines will no longer need college degrees or that we are seriously being overcharged for them. With over 200,000 dollars spent on three degrees I often wonder if I really needed them to be what I am professionally. After all, I am an IT project manager, and first information technology education is readily available on the internet - in fact, I am mostly self taught in that arena and I grew to be a project manager through work experience. However, I have an education degree, and I would say that several of the courses I took in education were critical to my succezss - one being an Educational Psychology course. This course taught me how we learn and subsequently allowed me to teach myself technologies such as programming and overall comprehension of how complex web applications and enterprise systems work. Furthermore, sometimes there is no replacement for a professor that responds to your work. Reading is one way of learning, but doing and getting feedback is irreplaceable.
Reaction to Google+, Twitter, and Foursquare
This is the first time I have worked with Google+ and my first impression was that the application requires too much instruction for how to use the tool rather than having an intuitive interface. I did like the idea of social circles on Google+ however, but I don't like the idea of having another social networking account so similar to one that I already have with Facebook. I read on cnn.com today (here http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/23/facebook.privacy.change/index.html?npt=NP1) that Facebook is adding features more like Google+, particularly for privacy, and similar to social circles. It hasn't created social circles in the same way Google+ has, but Facebook's new feature do allow a user to control which friends see what information. Additionally, Facebook has added a function in which a user has to "approve photo tages before they go public". Overall, in my ideal world, I would prefer to have just one social networking account with the combined features of Facebook, Google+, Foursquare and Twitter. I think in order to survive long term, a social networking tool will need to provide all of these features. I'm not sure if these tools hold patents on there unique features though, and patents would prevent one tool from adopting certain features from another. But, just as we would like just one electronic device to do multiple things (i.e. smartphones), I think the public will abandon social networking sites that aren't multifunctional. Who has the time or wants to take the time to check and maintain 5+ accounts?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)