In Case You Didn't Already Know...

...the U.S. is not the leader in e-Government...at least according to a study released last week by the Brookings Institution. However, we do rank third, but we are "falling behind other countries in broadband access, public-sector innovation and implementation of the latest interactive tools to federal Web sites".

Two other articles I read this morning also got me thinking about where we stand as a nation with digital government information: "Old-school Recordkeeping Meets the Digital Age" and "Government Data and the Invisible Hand". The first article made me feel quite frustrated with our lack of digital preservation progress, especially after reading this quote:

"...lacking a statutory prescription for maintaining electronic records, most agencies print and file [records] as they would paper documents, according to a recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office...Under current regulations, NARA does not require agencies to maintain records in their native formats. So for now, many agencies still print e-mail messages and file the paper versions.Although the filing process is relatively easy, the practice has a major weakness: It eliminates the searchability of digital documents". (Gee, ya think?!)

Envisioning all those emails being printed by government agency employees makes me think of Google's April Fool's joke: the "Google Paper" service!

I hope the next President and his administration will take the issue of e-government and digital preservation/authentication very seriously. Obama and McCain have touched on the issue a bit, including Obama's vague vision of online government transparency:

"I want people to be able to know, today, this issue is going on...Today, President Obama talked about his proposal for $4,000 student college-tuition credits. It’s going to be going to this congressional committee, these are the key leaders in the House and Senate who are going to be deciding on the bill, here are the groups that support it, you should contact your congressman. The more that we can enlist the American people to stay involved, that’s the only way we can move an agenda forward."

The second article touches on this issue as well, and urges the next Presidential administration to "embrace the potential of Internet-enabled government transparency [by reducing] the federal role in presenting important government information to citizens". A profound statement, but read the rest of their argument as stated in the abstract:

"Today, government bodies consider their own websites to be a higher priority than technical infrastructures that open up their data for others to use. We argue that this understanding is a mistake. It would be preferable for government to understand providing reusable data, rather than providing websites, as the core of its online publishing responsibility.

Rather than struggling, as it currently does, to design sites that meet each end-user need, we argue that the executive branch should focus on creating a simple, reliable and publicly accessible infrastructure that exposes the underlying data. Private actors, either nonprofit or commercial, are better suited to deliver government information to citizens and can constantly create and reshape the tools individuals use to find and leverage public data. The best way to ensure that the government allows private parties to compete on equal terms in the provision of government data is to require that federal websites themselves use the same open systems for accessing the underlying data as they make available to the public at large".

This makes sense if you think of it from the context of all the mashups, RSS feeds, and other interactivity with web content that exists. The rest of the article makes some other interesting points and counterarguments, such as

"A government data provider can provide a digital signature alongside each data item. A third party site that presents the data can offer a copy of the signature along with the data, allowing the user to verify the authenticity of the data item, by verifying the digital signature, without needing to visit the government site directly".

Easier said than done? Is the "digital signature" they talk about the same as GPO Digital Authentication?

We are making some progress in e-Government and digital preservation of government information but we need to do better. Like Obama said, we can start by contacting our congressmen to voice our concerns and suggestions for improvement on e-Gov initiatives and digital preservation...because I don't know about you, but I sure don't want the government to use "Google Paper".

No votes yet

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lessig on candidates' technology stances

lessig has a fine video regarding the presidential candidates technology policies. Granted Lessig is pro-Obama and states that at the outset, but I think he makes some good points about where the US is at in terms of technology infrastracture and where each of the candidates will take the country.



McCain vs Obama Tech Platform

Well this is new! I hadn't seen this yet and it made things a lot clearer in my mind as to where each candidate stands on technology and their "experience". It was nice to get a good background the policies over the past decade too. Thanks!
And that is SCARY how AT&T, Verizon censored free speech and interfered with consumer choice. Whoa.
We need to defend net-neutrality!
Although I think both candidates are vague in their "proposals" I prefer Obama's views and stance on technology, open source government, transparency, etc. He touches on issues that are important to me that McCain hasn't (from what I've seen/read so far anyway).

GPO Authenication System

See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/authentication
Uses digital signature to indicate content integrity as authentic and unchanged as received by GPO. However, this notice and assurance does not persist with downstream uses or document extracts.

Another missing piece to all of this is what uses/reuses/repurposing can be made of the content. Information created FOR the U.S. Government by contractors, grantees, partners, others are subject to copyright protection. Only government works (a subset under the gov info def) created BY Government employees are not copyrighted (Title 17 USC Sec 105 + definition of "Work of the U.S. Government" found in Sec 101). If we had a machine-actionable tag to clearly & unambigously identify Government Works and put some teeth into Title 17 USC 403 to penalize its removal, then we'd be getting somewhere. I'm really annoyed that government works are being peddled by resellers who are credited as being the publisher through Amazon and Google books... and these "publishers" have chutzpah to put copying restrictions on works they themselves copied that are not subject to copyright protection. Examples include: Storming Media ripping off the Defense Technical Information Center; Pennyhill Press/Gallerywatch for CRS and other government works; Thomson Gale for selling NOAA Fisheries Journal; WmStein Publishing for DOJ and other agency works. Do you all know of any others?

Good points

I think the "digital signature" they mention in their study is the GPO digital authentication system but I wasn't sure...so I edited my post to reflect that question. Is that what they are talking about? No need for them to reinvent the wheel when there is a good system in place!

And yes, good point about publishers and Google mucking about with the open access/copyright. It ticks me off to no end too!!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Every instance of "<!--tableofcontents-->" in the input text will be replaced with a collapsible mediawiki-style table of contents. Accepts options for title, list style, minimum heading level, and maximum heading level as follows: <!--tableofcontents list: ol; title: Table of Contents; minlevel: 1; maxlevel: 3;-->. All arguments are optional and defaults are shown.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see <a href="/interwiki/3">interwiki</a>.

More information about formatting options

Syndicate content