W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > May 2012

Re: what do you mean, e-gov?

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 12:49:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMXe=Sq5o2RX+E=XBiSUgGVD-o2GpvdWR0QpuyMbuEgvoRwNbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mick Phythian <mick.phythian@gmail.com>
Cc: "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Thank you Mick for your support!

This is why stakeholder analysis could be useful (another suggestion that
has not yet been operationalised)

Technically, and scientifically, definitions are of primary importance -
those of us with a background in systems  and ontology can see that perhaps
more clearly. Because they set the boundary for everything that follows.

Generalisation is good, as it allows ubiquity
which is a desirable quality when designing systems. Technology should be
politically agnostic. I support that.


But up to a point. When I can see technology being designed to
deliberatelly enable the violation of civil liberties and human rights, I
exercise my option to either make a difference, or  step out. Call it
conscience objection.

Civil servants and employees have to swallow up a great deal to get where
they are, very few can say what they think, especially on list, if being on
a mailing list is part of their job brief.

Given the current global political climate, the exacerbation of conflicts,
and the total confusion and lack of principles that can guide technology
development,  the risks associated with not making crisp, radical
ontological
choices to guide technology development from the start are ever so crystal
to me.

If the the IG definition of e-Governance is not clearcut enough, I dont
like to envisage what ethical deviations could emanate from our activity in
ten, twenty years time.

Just a few more two cents to animate the debates :-)

PDM
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 11:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 May 2012 11:49:47 GMT