Dear Julia,

I know you are busy so I'll keep it short. Here is my list, not in priority order:

1. Lose the internet filter. Let's just pretend it never happened.

2. Stay the course with the RSPT. The loudest oponents are Australia's billionaires. I think that is the point.

3. CPR for the CPRS. For some reason those who think that the market can resolve everything are opposed to the market resolving carbon pollution. Go figure.

4. Open Government 1. Engagement and collaboration - lots of it, wth everyone. www.gov2.net.au

5. Open Government 2. Transparency and release of PSI - it is good for democracy and innovation. www.gov2.net.au

6. More support for social innovation, science, r & d, the arts, adventure: Australians pushing the envelope.

7. Inspire the public service. Give them freedom to innovate. Make it the career option of choice for our smartest people.

8. National Disability Insurance Scheme www.ndis.org.au

9. NBN. Faster and faster.

10. Remember small business.

Thanks for listening.

lisa

The Cloud presents a whole other set of privacy issues. If you have a list of your contacts members or clients on google docs – do you know where in the in the world it is located? And if it is not located in Australia chances are, you are in breach of Privacy Legislation.

This is a real problem with “in the cloud” systems and SAAS. Where is your data? – the personal info of your clients, contacts, members, donors, etc.

The implications of not knowing where your data is located, aside from a breach of the law are not trivial.  Systems might be available in Australia, but maintaining servers here can be more expensive than maintaining servers in India or China. And the service providers can move your stuff around on a whim to anywhere in the world, from one corporate provider to another.

In the end you are responsible for the privacy of the data you keep. It is probably a good idea to know exactly where it is.

Terms and conditions are the things that “manage” privacy online. They are everywhere and I agree to one set or other at least once a week.

I had a recent twitter conversation with @kalska about T&C. She suggested that instead of an “I have read and agree with the T&C” button we need an “I haven’t read and may not agree but I want to continue anyway” button. I thought we also needed an “I have read and with a few changes I’ll agree with it” button.These buttons are a legally binding contracts and if everyone really read them all we’d not sign up for much.

Anyway, with regard to privacy the sharing information between entities is real “issue”. I’m pretty sure there are plenty of places sharing my stuff around, selling it even, mostly because I don’t read the T and C, or I sign up anyway.

Mostly the T&C that say “We don’t share your stuff with anyone” or words to that effect are the easy ones to comprehend. Where it goes into paragraphs with clause numbers I usually assume that there is something I’ll miss and can expect my data to end up anywhere.

My data probably won’t appear anywhere because it is not an asset of value and will be shared only if a transaction of value takes place. My data is safe and sound with a corporation somewhere– it is not public, but it isn’t private either.

An issue of greater importance and one that affects most of the organization we do business within regards which country the data is located in.

Here is an example. I might not be a fan of Google. There are those out there who are not. But YouTube was fine and I had a great time creating videos and some of my personal information was needed to do that.

Now Google owns YouTube and any of my data that went along with it. My data is a valuable asset to Google. They have the power to use it to do all sorts of research on what I do how I shop and what I search for. This big corporate vacuum cleaner effect is something that we have no control over.

This week is National Privacy Awareness week. Privacy is a thing I think about a lot in our line of work. It’s an issue that arises every day. In recent weeks several examples have arisen. I’ll blog on those over the next few days.

At a seminar on Accessibility, I spoke about Gov 2.0 issues including social media. Someone asked “We are watching what our students say about us through Twitter.  Is that ethical? “

My first reaction was that they are saying stuff about you in public – why wouldn’t you be watching.? I suggested that if you told them you were listening, you might get a lot more useful information.

I’ve been pondering my response for a week or so now and while I’ve not changed my opinion. I think that there more complexities in the issue than my initial response had considered. What people say about you are looking will be quite different from what they say. When they didn’t even  consider that you might be watching.

Perhaps this is the Heisenberg principle of social media. The act of observation changes the result.

In the early days of twitter, I complained about Bigpond’s response to my service call.  Bigpond were watching and they responded to me on Twitter. Not well as I recall but that isn’t relevant. After that I know Bigpond watching and so I could now use Twitter more strategically and more directly with regard to Bigpond. I also realised that many others might be watching and I have used this to my advantage on occasions.

The issue of privacy is more complex even than this. It is about “assumed privacy”. My UTS colleague was suggesting that there is an ethical issue when people assume they are not being watched, even if they are acting in a public environment. A couple of online scenarios sprung to mind:

• Is what I say online private if it is amongst friends in a public place. It is like a conversation on a train- we can hear – but should we listen.
• What about information once private but now not – due to changes in technology configuration. For example when Facebook changed it’s privacy settings still that was secret was no longer secret.

So privacy isn’t just about what we say on line, it is also about what we see online.

Senator Lundy is once more delivering in the practical policy department in the Australian Government.

This article in the Australian describes an "IT Supplier Advocate" someone standing up for small business within Government.