In the last six months, two of the most popular social networking platforms -Facebook and Twitter – announced policy changes, only to be forced to do an about-face less than 24 hours later due to an overwhelming backlash from users unhappy with the “behind closed doors” style of policy changes.

In February, Facebook attempted to change its terms of service overnight without broadly notifying users.  A blog post on The Consumerist drew attention to the changes and urged account users to express their disappointment in the lack of disclosure and transparency demonstrated by the social network in crafting and ultimately implementing these major privacy changes.  User frustration spread in the form of Twitter hashtags like #TOS, blog posts, and, ironically, Facebook groups where users voiced their opinion and held the company accountable.  Within 72 hours of this backlash, Facebook had made a statement saying they would revert to the old terms of service and announced they would solicit public comments and third party opinions in crafting a new Terms of Service.  They even allowed users to vote on which set of policies would be enacted; those crafted by Facebook alone or those that included third-party opinion.

Twitter dealt with a similar situation yesterday when a “tweak” to its @replyname policy was made which many advanced users argued drastically limited their ability to network and meet new people with shared interests.  Immediately, users began a barrage of “tweets” voicing objections by using the hashtag #fixreplies until Twitter management reversed itself and announced it would look into developing a better solution to the problem, and that while technical issues prevent the Twitter platform from going back to the old system of @replyname, they could restore some of the old functionalities that users had requested.
(more…)

CDT released a report yesterday examining how federal government agencies can acquire important usage data from users of their websites while still respecting privacy rights.  In conjunction with the release of that report, CDT hosted a panel of privacy policy experts in a moderated discussion of the report’s findings.  The panel fielded questions from in-person attendees as well as those following the event via our live Twitter feed and UStream.tv channel.

One of the stated goals in the report was “to stimulate public comment and debate” on these issues and solicit feedback on the recommendations from both the public and private sector.  What better way to stimulate discussion in a Web 2.0 world than through live Twitter feeds and Web streams, where users can submit questions and comments.  The Twitter feed discussion (under the hashtag #govmeas) and live Web stream allowed us to engage new audiences and solicit feedback in the discussion about privacy rights in a Gov 2.0 world.  If you were unable to view the discussion live, the feed can be read in its entirety by searching the hashtag on Twitter.

Here’s a sample of the comments and questions posed to the panel via Twitter :

“Learning alot about gov. & privacy via chat #govmeas Thanks to @CenDemTech.” -@tracysherman
“Would web measurement be the same for all agencies? would DHS and EPA would track the same way? #govmeas.” -@DCBadger
“Explain the importance of analytics, and why a greater emphasis on it over changes to the overall system #p2 #govmeas #gov20.” -@timryan
“Would be interested if privacy issues in #gov20 collaboration are discussed-Both Govt. worker privacy and authenticated citizens.” -@noeldickover
“So will OMB policy shift? from no persistent cookys 2 persist. cookys w/user acceptance?” -@joyrenee

Even the panelists and moderators got involved:

“Moderating at @CenDemTech, @EFF, at 3 PM. Submit questions, follow #govmeas, watch it live http://bit.ly/v5sKz” -@GregElin
“‘Analytics allow user experience to be optimized by analyzes how site is used’- A.Cooper #govmeas.” -@emd5005

If this feedback is any indication, it is clear that the report will continue to raise discussion and awareness concerning Web measurement and privacy rights as more of these technologies are implemented in the new open government space.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, S. 773, introduced by Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-ME), has kicked off what promises to be an intense debate over the federal government’s cybersecurity policy.  There’s broad consensus about the goal – better security for both governmental and private sector critical infrastructure information systems – but not much agreement about how to achieve it.

The Rockefeller/Snowe bill includes some especially troubling provisions.  For starters, it would give the President the authority to limit or shut down Internet traffic to federal government and private critical infrastructure systems.  It would give the Secretary of Commerce the power to override any law, regulation, or policy – including privacy laws and laws protecting trade secrets – to obtain access to information held by private parties that might be relevant to cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities.  Broadly read, the provision would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to override the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to gain access to communications content. Finally, it includes provisions that would allow the government to dictate software design standards for the private sector.

CDT has prepared a detailed analysis of the Rockefeller-Snowe bill here.

Fortunately, the Rockefeller/Snowe bill isn’t the only game in town.

Senator Carper’s (D-DE) U.S. Information and Communications Enhancement (ICE) Act (S. 921) takes an entirely different, and much more appropriate, approach.  It focuses primarily on strengthening the security of governmental information systems by amending the Federal Information Security Management Act.  In contrast, many provisions of the Rockefeller-Snowe bill would apply the same measures and authorities without distinction to both private and public systems.

(more…)

As expected, the Obama Administration has been encouraging federal agencies to adopt Web 2.0 strategies in an effort to create an environment that fosters a more transparent and participatory government.

With this new level of open government comes heightened awareness of ramifications that a true “Government 2.0″ could have on personal privacy. For example, a recent blog post by Saul Hansell in the New York Times Bits Blog draws attention to the concern some groups have expressed with the new reality of being able to “friendâ€? the Department of Homeland Security on Facebook or other social networks.  Through this “friending” process, what kinds of personal data will DHS and other agencies have access to and how will this data be used, stored and analyzed?

CDT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will release a joint report on federal agency web sites’ use of analytics tools. Additionally, CDT will host a moderated discussion on the use of analytics tools on government Web sites. The discussion will focus on the analysis of existing policy and recommendations made in the report, in addition to other trends in open government, such as the increased use of social networks.

Panel members will include representatives from privacy and civil liberties groups.

The event will be covered live via our Twitter feed (@CenDemTech); questions from Twitter users following the event’s hashtag (#govmeas) will be incorporated into the panel discussions.

We also will be streaming the discussion LIVE via UStream.tv channel: http://blog.cdt.org/2009/05/07/cdt-to-host-discussion-on-web-measurement-on-government-web-sites/

Full text of the report is available here.

To RSVP, email Brock Meeks (brock@cdt.org).

What: Panel Discussion: Privacy and Analytics on Government Web Sites
Where: CDT – 1634 Eye St., NW, Washington DC – 11th floor
When: May 12, 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.

In another exciting development for congressional transparency and openness, the Senate Rules Committee has decided to publish Senate roll call votes in a public XML feed. This XML data from the Senate will allow the public, the press, and advocates to find and analyze roll call votes [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/21985.html]. Public access to Senate voting records- in their complete form- is an important tool to help citizens track their representation in Washington, D.C.

Making votes available to the public through XML feeds may not sound very exciting. After all, the Senate already releases voting information, but not in a format that allows users to search for their lawmaker or filter votes by member. Voting data is also available from third parties compiling the data, but often have incomplete or inaccurate information.

XML is a structured data format, allowing the data to be used in many ways. Indeed, the release of government information should always be in a standard format that is easily accessible and re-usable by the public; well structured XML certainly qualifies.
(more…)

In what has come to be a bit of a tradition, Senator Lieberman has
introduced a resolution in the Senate to put non-confidential Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports online. A good bi-partisan group including Senators McCain (R-AZ), Leahy (D-VT), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Collins (R-ME), and Lugar (R-IN) have co-sponsored the resolution, and we commend each of them; in particular, Senators McCain and Leahy have long histories of trying to free CRS reports. Since this is a Senate resolution, it would only have to be approved by the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate at large- and once passed, the public would have access to CRS reports through Senators’ Websites.

CRS, housed in the Library of Congress, uses taxpayer dollars to produce reports on public policy issues ranging from foreign affairs to agriculture to health care. CRS reports represent some of the best policy research conducted by the federal government. All of the reports are posted online, but access is available only to Congressional offices through an intranet system. Citizens can ask for copies of the reports through their Member of Congress, only if they already know that the report exists. Moreover, the general public cannot search through past reports, and a comprehensive index of the reports is not available online, so citizens basically have to guess when they ask for relevant reports.
(more…)

We’ve been saying for a while now that negotiations on ACTA — the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement — suffer from a serious transparency deficit. Today, USTR took the helpful step of releasing a summary of the structure of ACTA and the items that may be included in it.

The biggest positive here is the apparent recognition by USTR that greater transparency is needed. Hopefully USTR’s action today today won’t be a one-off thing, but rather will be the start of a new effort to provide information on an ongoing basis. As for the summary itself, it’s still quite high-level. Some of the items — improving international cooperation, fostering expertise towards more effective enforcement — appear perfectly sensible. Most of CDT’s potential concerns relate to Chapter Two, the section on the legal framework. For example, the summary says there is a discussion about what constitutes sufficient damages/remedies. And above all, from CDT’s perspective, there is a section on “Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment,” which raises such issues as “the possible role and responsibilities of internet service providers in deterring copyright and related rights piracy over the Internet.”

These are topics for which the details matter. The summary’s brief (two-sentence) paragraph on enforcement challenges in the digital and Internet environment doesn’t yet enable CDT or any other outside observer to offer much substantive commentary. But the summary also says that no draft proposal has been tabled yet in this area, so there may still be time. The main thing is for USTR to embrace the principle that this terrain is too tricky and potentially affects too many stakeholders to unveil the specifics only at the last minute, when the entire thing has been nailed down and there’s no going back. Let’s hope today’s summary is just a down payment, with more specific information to come as the negotiation process moves forward.

Many Government 2.0 advocates are frustrated that government agencies and employees can’t use the services that citizens use every day- so government can’t interact with citizens where they already engage. GSA announced last week that this may be changing, and agencies can now choose to take advantage of some of these services.

The GSA has been quietly negotiating with popular service providers to create new contracts, otherwise known to the GSA as “no cost agreements,” that allow government to use these services. GSA has so far secured agreements with YouTube, Flickr, Vimeo, and blip.tv. They’re also working on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, and I imagine that these contracts will be the basis of a larger contract. In addition, GSA found that Twitter’s standard terms of service are compatible with government use. Hopefully, GSA will come up with a service-independant agreement that agencies can use to base any terms of service on for third party services, opening the new media ecosystem.
(more…)

Government cybersecurity efforts have been shrouded in too much secrecy, CDT said in a Policy Post released today. Greater openness is needed to ensure the public understanding of cybersecurity efforts, while also holding government accountable for its efforts.

Of course not every jot and tittle of the government’s cybersecurity strategy needs to be “open source.” Many details should remain classified; the “spy vs. spy” game in cyberspace demands as much. However, the level of secrecy toward cybersecurity the last Administration displayed put the success of the program at risk by not providing enough information for the public to understand what the government was trying to do, the role of the private sector, and how privacy would be protected.
(more…)

It is good to see the Obama Administration is moving forward on its pledge to open up the White House using the Web. The new Open for Questions site is well designed, easy to use and engaging. Let’s hope that this is really the start of a new kind of national conversation.

The White House dubs this a “community-moderated online town hall.” You submit questions and vote on others that you think are the most engaging. On Thursday, President Obama will answer some of the most voted on questions… and he’s going to do it live.

A nice little interactive touch, the site is keeping a running tally of the number of questions asked and votes cast, as of this writing, that tally stands at:

3,822 people have submitted 3,618 questions and cast 101,067 votes