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

Re: what do you mean, e-gov?

From: Mick Phythian <mick.phythian@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 17:08:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CACBN7wGbw2-QEVcP2dEdXhCtxobV+xG5X92nACCUGzkgDJiwCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com
Cc: "eGov IG (Public)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
As a research associate with the centre for computing & social
resposibility at DMU in Leicester, UK, I know where you are coming from and
agree and will assist all I can. I'm trying to do a similar thing at the
moment around cloud and government.

It could take a long while though...


On 8 May 2012 12:49, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 :-)

Mick Phythian PhD

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:09:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:47 UTC