Re: what do you mean, e-gov?

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...

Mick


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 :-)
>
> PDM
>



-- 
Mick Phythian PhD

http://greatemancipator.com