Article:
I chose to review the article "The coming-out stories of anonymous bloggers," which was on cnn.com. The article talked about a couple of bloggers who were fired for what they wrote on their blogs. One wrote anonymously and another wrote with her real name. The important things to be aware of from this article is that it is less and less possible for a person to post anonymously online without someone being able to find out who you really are. In some ways, this is too bad, I think. NPR had a discussion last night talking about anonymous people on the web versus those that post under a pseudonym, or some prefer to think of it as a nom de plume, and have created and cultivated an image and personality for their writing. It is also one way people have found to bring up difficult or very personal subjects that they don't want to share. One instance where I think a person's right to remain anonymous should be protected is to be able to discuss health related issues. The support they may find on the web could be very beneficial, but their job may be threatened if their health problems were brought to the attention of their employer, especially if you work for a small employer.
Technology to solve a current Public Administration problem
As I touched on in my last post, I think the distribution of information to the public could be used much more effectively. Some recent examples are economic programs such as the Cash for Clunkers or New Home Buyers Credit programs. If there were multiple methods for people to understand what is available to them more people may take advantage of them. In addition, people who are using them would be better informed about the process and benefits. I know some people who used the New Home Buyers Credit without realizing they would pay it back on future taxes, and were not happy when they did have to begin repayment. Who had the incentive to inform them of this? Obviously, the realtor they dealt with did not. The Cash for Clunkers had to be administered by car dealers and there were lots of rumors of them taking advantage of customers or being uninformed about how it should work themselves and losing out on funding because they did not follow the process correctly. When the public has bad experiences like this, it erodes on the confidence people will have in government programs and contributes to the growing attitude that the government bureaucracy is an impediment to their lives.
There are many avenues that could be used to disseminate information better. The Governor's office could have blogs with videos as well as written content explaining what the public needs to know about each agency and popular programs. With all of the changes to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System there are people that may be eligible for coverage not getting it. Their web site does have basic information, although many of the topic choices are similar, so one may be unclear where to look for their particular issue. It does not address what people can expect as the Affordable Care Act is implemented. People not eligible now may be eligible in the future and it is difficult to find out how that will work.
Some agencies are likely hesitant to post much information on the web because of a fear of misstating something and having a backlash from public that are angry or offended. Since we only seem to hear of stories of people getting in trouble over their internet usage, it does still seem like a scary place. This kind of activity is hidered by the legal system in the sense that people may be afraid of lawsuits, but I think it is largely encouraged by society because people search for everything now. It is so easy to have a question and use your phone to try to find the answer via a mobile browser and many people would prefer that to haivng to make a phone call.
Overall, many agencies and non profits are working hard to use cyberspace via blogs, twitter, facebook, etc., but don't have the resources to do it in an effective way. If they did put more resources there, they may be able to cut down on the face to face and phone time their employees spend answering questions.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
eCommunities
This module was really exciting for me because it emphasizes how technology is allowing people to be more connected, rather than disconnected. That we are able to use the internet to find people that are sharing our experiences is a wonderful thing. The video on empathy emphasized this, how having compassion for each other builds connection with others and as it said "We show solidarity with our compassion."
I started using meetup.com after I had my daughter. Most of my friends didn't have kids yet and they were sick of me talking about diapers, vaccinations and preschools, so I found a group for other working moms. I did only meet with them once and the group ended up dying off, mostly because it takes quite a bit of effort to keep an online group going and one person had taken charge and just couldn't do it alone. I had a good experience, but did find it fascinating to see people's profiles and activities online and then meet them in person. Online most people seemed very extroverted and fun, but in person were more reserved. I don't know if that is because people who are more introverted are more likely to use the internet to find activities and other people to connect with, or just because the social pressures are greater in person, so people hold back more.
The video from Chris Anderson was really exciting and another one I could relate to, as I have used the internet to learn about photography and share photos with others. I have learned a great deal that I could not have learned from books alone. Photography classes can be expensive and time consuming, so I have been able to nurture a hobby on my own time. His point about "crowd accelerated innovation" was really fascinating, that cyberspace is a new ecosystem that will have everyone from doubters to innovators that will force new ideas or creations, be it dance, photography or other endeavors, to evolve and improve. I also really like the term he used to describe this: "Sparking off of each other." The image of a spark traveling from person to person is very powerful, and a good illustration of how each person can use that spark to create a fire, or let it die out.
Jamie Heywood's video and website are another really amazing example of people finding others that they can relate to online. When a person is suffering, from a medical issue, an emotional issue, or even more pragmatic things like a financial issue, finding communities where it is acceptable to talk about those things openly is very healing. Besides that, it is a great way to share information in a safe space where people can reveal a little more about themselves with less chance of judgement than if they tried to talk to friends or family members that have not experienced that issue.
Just yesterday afternoon I saw a really great example of how this can be used in a public administration setting. ASU's staff council had a women come do a presentation, which was broadcast live on the internet, about the Affordable Care Act. She does this on her own time to educate people about what they are entitled to and what resources are available to them. She has a web site with a 30 minute presentation. This is something that public administrators could be doing much more of. There are many things we would like to educate people about and as more and more people have access to the internet it would be silly not to take advantage of being able to offer resources to people who are searching for them at any time of the day.
I can see how a space, such as Second Life could be used to target communities and give a space for people to come together without leaving their homes. My first experience with Second Life was for this assignment and I have to say I was surprised at my reaction to it. I consider myself to be open to new ideas and technologies and not easily intimidated by them, but this experience was very intimidating for me. I think it was partly because it was happening in real time, rather than being like other blog communities or yahoo groups, where I could read and look around before I jumped in. Also, knowing the other avatars I saw were controlled by actual people made me nervous. When they got too close to me I got scared, as though I were in a dark parking lot and someone were following me. It was very odd. As I started to explore and enter different places I didn't know what the rules were or the protocol. I could see that others were chatting, they obviously knew each other. I wondered if they had met in person or in Second Life. I had a bit of a difficult time controlling the movement of my avatar and kept walking into things and then I was embarrassed that someone would see me, which was funny because I didn't think I would care about that. In the end, I am intrigued by it, and I would be interested in exploring the ability to use it for a new way to do conference calls or create forums to educate people on public policy issues, but I would feel like I need to spend a lot more time there to be comfortable. I don't know that learning to function in that world at this point would be the best focus for my attention and I can see there would likely be a lot of resistance from people who are less interested in cyberspace than I am.
I started using meetup.com after I had my daughter. Most of my friends didn't have kids yet and they were sick of me talking about diapers, vaccinations and preschools, so I found a group for other working moms. I did only meet with them once and the group ended up dying off, mostly because it takes quite a bit of effort to keep an online group going and one person had taken charge and just couldn't do it alone. I had a good experience, but did find it fascinating to see people's profiles and activities online and then meet them in person. Online most people seemed very extroverted and fun, but in person were more reserved. I don't know if that is because people who are more introverted are more likely to use the internet to find activities and other people to connect with, or just because the social pressures are greater in person, so people hold back more.
The video from Chris Anderson was really exciting and another one I could relate to, as I have used the internet to learn about photography and share photos with others. I have learned a great deal that I could not have learned from books alone. Photography classes can be expensive and time consuming, so I have been able to nurture a hobby on my own time. His point about "crowd accelerated innovation" was really fascinating, that cyberspace is a new ecosystem that will have everyone from doubters to innovators that will force new ideas or creations, be it dance, photography or other endeavors, to evolve and improve. I also really like the term he used to describe this: "Sparking off of each other." The image of a spark traveling from person to person is very powerful, and a good illustration of how each person can use that spark to create a fire, or let it die out.
Jamie Heywood's video and website are another really amazing example of people finding others that they can relate to online. When a person is suffering, from a medical issue, an emotional issue, or even more pragmatic things like a financial issue, finding communities where it is acceptable to talk about those things openly is very healing. Besides that, it is a great way to share information in a safe space where people can reveal a little more about themselves with less chance of judgement than if they tried to talk to friends or family members that have not experienced that issue.
Just yesterday afternoon I saw a really great example of how this can be used in a public administration setting. ASU's staff council had a women come do a presentation, which was broadcast live on the internet, about the Affordable Care Act. She does this on her own time to educate people about what they are entitled to and what resources are available to them. She has a web site with a 30 minute presentation. This is something that public administrators could be doing much more of. There are many things we would like to educate people about and as more and more people have access to the internet it would be silly not to take advantage of being able to offer resources to people who are searching for them at any time of the day.
I can see how a space, such as Second Life could be used to target communities and give a space for people to come together without leaving their homes. My first experience with Second Life was for this assignment and I have to say I was surprised at my reaction to it. I consider myself to be open to new ideas and technologies and not easily intimidated by them, but this experience was very intimidating for me. I think it was partly because it was happening in real time, rather than being like other blog communities or yahoo groups, where I could read and look around before I jumped in. Also, knowing the other avatars I saw were controlled by actual people made me nervous. When they got too close to me I got scared, as though I were in a dark parking lot and someone were following me. It was very odd. As I started to explore and enter different places I didn't know what the rules were or the protocol. I could see that others were chatting, they obviously knew each other. I wondered if they had met in person or in Second Life. I had a bit of a difficult time controlling the movement of my avatar and kept walking into things and then I was embarrassed that someone would see me, which was funny because I didn't think I would care about that. In the end, I am intrigued by it, and I would be interested in exploring the ability to use it for a new way to do conference calls or create forums to educate people on public policy issues, but I would feel like I need to spend a lot more time there to be comfortable. I don't know that learning to function in that world at this point would be the best focus for my attention and I can see there would likely be a lot of resistance from people who are less interested in cyberspace than I am.
Friday, September 16, 2011
News Story Analysis
Last month BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) turned off access to cell services when there was a threat of a protest. The month before there had been a protest that turned violent in response to an incident that involved the transit police killing a man. The article from the Washington Post can be found here.
As is stated in the article, cell service was only turned off at stations where the BART authorities believed protests were likely, and service at those stations is normally available because of an agreement the agency has with cell phone providers in order to have a signal on the platforms and in the train cars. The BART statement states that "Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms."
Apparently, BART believed that turning off access to cell phones would make it more difficult for protesters to use social media to organize and coordinate the time and location of protest activities. Some are saying that what BART did was an infringement on the First Amendment. According to the Christian Science Monitor the Federal Communications Commission does not allow jamming of cell phones, but it does allow a service to be turned off.
The behavior in question here is the right of people to express themselves (free speech) via social media and the right of people to protest. These activities are normally regulated in various ways by the four constraints detailed by Lessing in Chapter 7 of Code 2.0. The law regulates the ability of people to express and opinion and even to demonstrate in a peaceful way, but there is no law that says BART must continue their agreement to provide cell service on their platforms and trains. Social norms regulate people saying unpopular things and acting unruly to a point, but there had been innocent bystanders affected by the previous protests that had taken place, so this obviously is not enough to protect the public from possible violence. Train platforms are an especially dangerous place for unruly behavior. The market can also constrain behavior and in this case that is relatively limited because cell phones with access to social media have become affordable to most people in San Francisco. Only people who can't afford one would be constrained here by the market alone. The largest constraint in this situation is the architecture of the infrastructure providing the cellular service within the areas controlled by BART. They took full advantage of the power this gave them. The question is whether they should have.
The values that are in conflict in this case are public safety versus the right to free speech and public safety versus the right of paying BART customers to have cellular access. I don't believe there is any conflict of the right for people to demonstrate because they were still free to do so in public places, it only limited a tool they could have used to organize, but people were able to organize demonstrations before social media existed.
For BART the conflict is mostly a political and public relations conflict. If they chose to shut down the cell service, it would result in the appearance that they are being oppressive and that an amenity they have been providing to their customers cannot be depended on. On the other hand, if another protest had taken place and it resulted in violence again, people may start to feel that BART is not doing enough to keep their customers safe. There is another element that makes this more complicated and that is BART is partially funded by sales and property taxes, as well as some federal funds, such as ARRA funds they received last year. If this were a purely private company and the service was shut down on private property, it would be relatively clear to me that it is legal and acceptable. Since the space is partially publicly funded, there has to be more consideration made to how people's rights can be limited there. The fact the certain areas are only for ticketed customers further confuses the issue. I also briefly considered that there is an interference with commerce, but then realized that the cellular companies are not really losing money as a result of this action, since most people pay for the service at a flat rate, whether they have reception or not.
An alternative approach I would suggest would be for the BART to use the communication through social media organizing the protests to deploy additional transit police to those stations and platforms to be sure no violence occurred. This would solve the issue of looking oppressive to the constituents in the five counties that fund the BART and would also show the people riding the BART that there was a clear, visible attempt to maintain order and safety. In conjunction with this approach, BART could ramp up their own social media and mobile web campaign to try to dissuade those who were considering protesting and warning if certain stations did become unsafe via their SMS alerts. This alternative would have been more costly financially because of the additional salaries for officers and staff, which would be seen as a values conflict to some when spending more tax money in the current economic environment.
When I first heard about BART turning off cell service my reaction was that it was not an appropriate response. This was probably because I personally feel safer when I have access to my cell service and the thought that a company or government agency would decide I should not be able to have it is frightening. After I thought about it, though, I realized that we already give up that ability when traveling on air planes. The information that convinced me that BART's reaction was appropriate was learning more about where and when the cell service was interrupted. It was for a limited time and in limited stations and the service is only normally available there because of a special agreement, so I think it was an appropriate action. Additionally, no protest did take place that day, although there have been additional protests since, which are now not just by the initial shooting but also the decision to shut down cellular service.
As is stated in the article, cell service was only turned off at stations where the BART authorities believed protests were likely, and service at those stations is normally available because of an agreement the agency has with cell phone providers in order to have a signal on the platforms and in the train cars. The BART statement states that "Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms."
Apparently, BART believed that turning off access to cell phones would make it more difficult for protesters to use social media to organize and coordinate the time and location of protest activities. Some are saying that what BART did was an infringement on the First Amendment. According to the Christian Science Monitor the Federal Communications Commission does not allow jamming of cell phones, but it does allow a service to be turned off.
The behavior in question here is the right of people to express themselves (free speech) via social media and the right of people to protest. These activities are normally regulated in various ways by the four constraints detailed by Lessing in Chapter 7 of Code 2.0. The law regulates the ability of people to express and opinion and even to demonstrate in a peaceful way, but there is no law that says BART must continue their agreement to provide cell service on their platforms and trains. Social norms regulate people saying unpopular things and acting unruly to a point, but there had been innocent bystanders affected by the previous protests that had taken place, so this obviously is not enough to protect the public from possible violence. Train platforms are an especially dangerous place for unruly behavior. The market can also constrain behavior and in this case that is relatively limited because cell phones with access to social media have become affordable to most people in San Francisco. Only people who can't afford one would be constrained here by the market alone. The largest constraint in this situation is the architecture of the infrastructure providing the cellular service within the areas controlled by BART. They took full advantage of the power this gave them. The question is whether they should have.
The values that are in conflict in this case are public safety versus the right to free speech and public safety versus the right of paying BART customers to have cellular access. I don't believe there is any conflict of the right for people to demonstrate because they were still free to do so in public places, it only limited a tool they could have used to organize, but people were able to organize demonstrations before social media existed.
For BART the conflict is mostly a political and public relations conflict. If they chose to shut down the cell service, it would result in the appearance that they are being oppressive and that an amenity they have been providing to their customers cannot be depended on. On the other hand, if another protest had taken place and it resulted in violence again, people may start to feel that BART is not doing enough to keep their customers safe. There is another element that makes this more complicated and that is BART is partially funded by sales and property taxes, as well as some federal funds, such as ARRA funds they received last year. If this were a purely private company and the service was shut down on private property, it would be relatively clear to me that it is legal and acceptable. Since the space is partially publicly funded, there has to be more consideration made to how people's rights can be limited there. The fact the certain areas are only for ticketed customers further confuses the issue. I also briefly considered that there is an interference with commerce, but then realized that the cellular companies are not really losing money as a result of this action, since most people pay for the service at a flat rate, whether they have reception or not.
An alternative approach I would suggest would be for the BART to use the communication through social media organizing the protests to deploy additional transit police to those stations and platforms to be sure no violence occurred. This would solve the issue of looking oppressive to the constituents in the five counties that fund the BART and would also show the people riding the BART that there was a clear, visible attempt to maintain order and safety. In conjunction with this approach, BART could ramp up their own social media and mobile web campaign to try to dissuade those who were considering protesting and warning if certain stations did become unsafe via their SMS alerts. This alternative would have been more costly financially because of the additional salaries for officers and staff, which would be seen as a values conflict to some when spending more tax money in the current economic environment.
When I first heard about BART turning off cell service my reaction was that it was not an appropriate response. This was probably because I personally feel safer when I have access to my cell service and the thought that a company or government agency would decide I should not be able to have it is frightening. After I thought about it, though, I realized that we already give up that ability when traveling on air planes. The information that convinced me that BART's reaction was appropriate was learning more about where and when the cell service was interrupted. It was for a limited time and in limited stations and the service is only normally available there because of a special agreement, so I think it was an appropriate action. Additionally, no protest did take place that day, although there have been additional protests since, which are now not just by the initial shooting but also the decision to shut down cellular service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)