It is time to see social networking sites as just that. Networking sites. Says Archana Venkatraman
Two incidents earlier this week took the paranoia around networking tools to an absurd level. One was when MI6 chief Sir John Sawers's personal life became public when his wife innocently uploaded their holiday photographs to her Facebook account. The other was concerns expressed by UK intelligence agencies that Facebook and other social networking tools ruin the spy industry, as finding new recruits without an online trail has become nearly impossible.
In the first instance, Sawers faces a probe, and in the second, consultants are saying that having a Facebook profile is like "opening up a Pandora's box of online traceability that one can't ever truly close". The message from security experts is loud and clear - maintain a low profile at all times.
That means having no images in the public domain, or being associated with any person or organisation. What we need to understand is that while the latter is in people's control, the former is not. In today's internet age, it is hard to control information that is visible and searchable in the world wide web.
For instance, the MI6 chief was unaware of the availability of information while his wife did not consider the implications of her enthusiastic and seemingly harmless activity. Even if she had been careful with the security settings, his friends could have published the photographs and "tagged" friends' friends and so on, or he could have featured in other holidaymakers' pictures.
High profile officials must indeed have Facebook and Twitter accounts as information coming from them is fast, first hand and extremely useful. It also is important for the info pros of the future as references while documenting an event.
Instead of making them digital outcasts, they and their loved ones must be informed about the security aspects of these websites. More importantly, instead of controlling the prolific adoption of these inevitable sites, experts must advise search engines and those who run social networking sites to stop crawling through their pages for easy find-ability and to stop presenting a vast amount of information to random web search-ers.
It is the technology that has to become smarter with sensitive personal information, not people.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Friday, 26 June 2009
Talking local archives
A roadshow on preserving information in the digital age took place in York on Friday 26 June. Those who have set up the event should be congratulated. The organisers are the National Archives, the Society of Archivists and the Digital Preservation Centre. Part of the reason for the roadshow is to invite comments on the recently released consultation on Archives for the 21st century, a new draft government policy for publicly funded archives, and although the National Archives is the only one of the three to be based in London, it is good to hear that conversations are taking place all over the country and not just in Whitehall and the National Archives' Kew headquarters. As a London-based writer I know it is very easy to get a London-centric view of life. And when the consultation was first published IWR expressed the worry that the policy had already been decided and that there was a danger too much was going to be decided at the centre rather than leaving decision making over archives to local say.
The commitment to start a national conversation on the issue augurs well. Today's Digital Preservation Roadshow is the second in a series which is aiming to highlight the issues associated with preserving digital information as well as offering expert advice and cost effective practical solutions to the archives sector. Delegates were due to be told how a phased approach to digital preservation may be more manageable, particularly in a time of shrinking budgets, and identify what information needs to be kept and the main risks to it. All sounds good stuff.
The commitment to start a national conversation on the issue augurs well. Today's Digital Preservation Roadshow is the second in a series which is aiming to highlight the issues associated with preserving digital information as well as offering expert advice and cost effective practical solutions to the archives sector. Delegates were due to be told how a phased approach to digital preservation may be more manageable, particularly in a time of shrinking budgets, and identify what information needs to be kept and the main risks to it. All sounds good stuff.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Face the paradoxes
Peter Williams reports from the Library Show in Birmingham
Speaking at the Library Show, British Library chief executive Dame Lynne Brindley said there was never a better time to be a librarian. But she also said that the current period was also a little daunting, especially as librarians had to commit to a culture of continuous operational change. She advised the profession to take control of its own destiny. Speaking to an audience at the seminar programme, Brindley presented a series of paradoxes for the information profession. The paradoxes include love Google or hate Google and the issue that the Google generation students are technologically savvy but not digitally literate.
Earlier Roy Clare, the chief executive of the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council warned that some librarians still regarded marketing as a dirty word that was done by someone else and he said MLA was working hard to ensure engagement with the local community.
Speaking at the Library Show, British Library chief executive Dame Lynne Brindley said there was never a better time to be a librarian. But she also said that the current period was also a little daunting, especially as librarians had to commit to a culture of continuous operational change. She advised the profession to take control of its own destiny. Speaking to an audience at the seminar programme, Brindley presented a series of paradoxes for the information profession. The paradoxes include love Google or hate Google and the issue that the Google generation students are technologically savvy but not digitally literate.
Earlier Roy Clare, the chief executive of the Museums, Libraries & Archives Council warned that some librarians still regarded marketing as a dirty word that was done by someone else and he said MLA was working hard to ensure engagement with the local community.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Tweeters and non-Tweeters
It is well worth repeating the cliché - internet has transformed our lives. Information, news, file-sharing, catch up television, blogs, entertainment and social networking. Layer upon layer, it is a world unto itself.
While this virtual world exposes us to new challenges and conflicts, it also dangerously divides our real world into separate sects.
A YouGov survey of almost 2000 adults have revealed varying attitude towards social media. While many welcomed its adoption in business, 71% respondents said teaching social media technologies such as Twitter in schools is "inappropriate".
Meanwhile, the old school of thought is still prevalent- 50% of the UK workforce are banned from using social media in the workplace- presumably for productivity reasons. Contrarily, 20% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a corporate Facebook would be better for sharing information and collaborating on projects.
As I have always argued, the majority of respondents who were inclined towards social media in the workplace were Generation Y-ers. This reflects how the young have changed the way they communicate.
Traditional organisations must provide social media platform to its employees for sharing ideas and views and to collaborate in a medium of their choice. Social media sites are not just a means to connect or not just used to advertise the positive aspect of one's life. Today, they are beyond a mere public relations weapon of every individual.
Several Tweeters have a fan-following for their valuable information, some human resource departments vet people by tracking their social media activity. Ambitious companies have extended their online presence with the use of these tools and even promoted products and services through them.
Business social media site LinkedIn boasts of 40 million plus members. This shows the importance of these applications and the role they are likely to play in future generations' personal and professional lives. Social networking sites such as Facebook host a multitude of groups fighting for social, economic and environmental causes. And that is why, it is important to allow children familiarise themselves with these technologies which they have a great aptitude and appetite for.
What is also shocking about the survey is that 6% have admitted that they'd go as far as not taking a job if social media tools were not made available to them. Although nominal, it reflects the division in ideologies. Besides, a survey of even younger sample could provide more alarming insights.
It must be about a happy marriage- making social media technologies a tool to achieve traditional objectives- than slipping into a divided society of Tweeters and non-Tweeters.
While this virtual world exposes us to new challenges and conflicts, it also dangerously divides our real world into separate sects.
A YouGov survey of almost 2000 adults have revealed varying attitude towards social media. While many welcomed its adoption in business, 71% respondents said teaching social media technologies such as Twitter in schools is "inappropriate".
Meanwhile, the old school of thought is still prevalent- 50% of the UK workforce are banned from using social media in the workplace- presumably for productivity reasons. Contrarily, 20% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a corporate Facebook would be better for sharing information and collaborating on projects.
As I have always argued, the majority of respondents who were inclined towards social media in the workplace were Generation Y-ers. This reflects how the young have changed the way they communicate.
Traditional organisations must provide social media platform to its employees for sharing ideas and views and to collaborate in a medium of their choice. Social media sites are not just a means to connect or not just used to advertise the positive aspect of one's life. Today, they are beyond a mere public relations weapon of every individual.
Several Tweeters have a fan-following for their valuable information, some human resource departments vet people by tracking their social media activity. Ambitious companies have extended their online presence with the use of these tools and even promoted products and services through them.
Business social media site LinkedIn boasts of 40 million plus members. This shows the importance of these applications and the role they are likely to play in future generations' personal and professional lives. Social networking sites such as Facebook host a multitude of groups fighting for social, economic and environmental causes. And that is why, it is important to allow children familiarise themselves with these technologies which they have a great aptitude and appetite for.
What is also shocking about the survey is that 6% have admitted that they'd go as far as not taking a job if social media tools were not made available to them. Although nominal, it reflects the division in ideologies. Besides, a survey of even younger sample could provide more alarming insights.
It must be about a happy marriage- making social media technologies a tool to achieve traditional objectives- than slipping into a divided society of Tweeters and non-Tweeters.
Friday, 15 May 2009
In God we trust, in public sectors... we don't
The government has pledged to remove innocent people from the national DNA database by launching a public consultation "Keeping the right people on DNA database" early this month.
It sets out proposals to introduce "more transparent safeguards" for the individual and aims to provide a proportionate balance between protecting communities and protecting the rights of the individual.
There have been numerous debates about the compulsory DNA database with experts arguing that it is discriminatory because it has 40% of black men's DNA profiled as against just 9% of white men; that it is violation of freedom of expression and that it promotes distrust and so on.
But more than the controversial nature of the information the government holds, the fact that it exists with the government is worrying. Recently, there have been innumerable reports about the plunging public confidence in public sectors. The health care services, the councils, the police, libraries, institutions and other government departments are less trusted by the people following series of high profile sensitive data leak that jeopardised our security.
The government launched the national DNA database in 1995 with an aim to allow police store DNA profiles to help resolve crimes. And today, the UK leads the world in developing a national DNA database (profiling over four million people).
According to the government, the database has played a key role in solving criminal cases such as Sally Ann Bowman murder, convicting Steve Wright in 2008 for the murder of five prostitutes and also for proving innocence such as clearing Sean Hodgson of the death of a young woman nearly 30 years after he was wrongly imprisoned.
While we do not undermine the role of such information to help the police solve criminal cases and would like to do every bit to cooperate, we are worried about the loss of that information to a wrong set of people likely to misuse it, tamper with it and manipulate it. When in the recent past public authorities have failed to observe basis principles of security such as encrypting a disk with employee information or safeguarding anti-terrorism documents.
The issue is not so much about an invasion on right to privacy or human rights, it is in fact about data protection. We now know that privacy is long dead in this digital age. Our fear comes out of our falling confidence in the public sector organisations.
It sets out proposals to introduce "more transparent safeguards" for the individual and aims to provide a proportionate balance between protecting communities and protecting the rights of the individual.
There have been numerous debates about the compulsory DNA database with experts arguing that it is discriminatory because it has 40% of black men's DNA profiled as against just 9% of white men; that it is violation of freedom of expression and that it promotes distrust and so on.
But more than the controversial nature of the information the government holds, the fact that it exists with the government is worrying. Recently, there have been innumerable reports about the plunging public confidence in public sectors. The health care services, the councils, the police, libraries, institutions and other government departments are less trusted by the people following series of high profile sensitive data leak that jeopardised our security.
The government launched the national DNA database in 1995 with an aim to allow police store DNA profiles to help resolve crimes. And today, the UK leads the world in developing a national DNA database (profiling over four million people).
According to the government, the database has played a key role in solving criminal cases such as Sally Ann Bowman murder, convicting Steve Wright in 2008 for the murder of five prostitutes and also for proving innocence such as clearing Sean Hodgson of the death of a young woman nearly 30 years after he was wrongly imprisoned.
While we do not undermine the role of such information to help the police solve criminal cases and would like to do every bit to cooperate, we are worried about the loss of that information to a wrong set of people likely to misuse it, tamper with it and manipulate it. When in the recent past public authorities have failed to observe basis principles of security such as encrypting a disk with employee information or safeguarding anti-terrorism documents.
The issue is not so much about an invasion on right to privacy or human rights, it is in fact about data protection. We now know that privacy is long dead in this digital age. Our fear comes out of our falling confidence in the public sector organisations.
Friday, 27 March 2009
How about children hosting a history blog
A shake-up of the primary curriculum to reflect the modern times is a refreshing move writes Archana Venkatraman. But should we make information technology a material of education than a medium of education?
According to The Guardian (that has seen the "draft plans for the detailed content of learning areas" Sir Jim Rose, former director of inspection at Ofsted, is proposing for pupils), children may well have to learn blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter and spreadsheets.
Rose, in an interim report published in December last year, called for a greater inclusion of information technology in primary education.
The proposal of adding the digital media by making a host of compelling subjects within history optional is baffling.
Technology is just an enabler, it is a medium of learning and teaching rather than being an object of education itself. A detailed study of technological communications is a discipline that students opt for at a higher degree of education after comprehending their interests and preferences.
If the aim is to introduce children to the emerging technologies, then it could be done by employing technology for teaching and by encouraging its use as a tool to search, communicate, share, write and present. It is understandable that launching technology in the curriculum is long overdue but it is no more important than other aspects of education.
Children love the dynamic new media. They are technologically agile by themselves without much effort because Twitter, Google and Wikipedia invariably form a part of their day-to-day activities even more than their parents'. Wasn't there a recent report about parents being unaware of their children's browsing habits?
Information technology must be carefully introduced and woven into the curriculum without burdening the children instead of knocking another important subject off the syllabus.
Children need to know the implications of the Second World War just as much as they need the skill to blog. And let's not underestimate that they cannot hold a web-based discussion on Victorian history.
According to The Guardian (that has seen the "draft plans for the detailed content of learning areas" Sir Jim Rose, former director of inspection at Ofsted, is proposing for pupils), children may well have to learn blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter and spreadsheets.
Rose, in an interim report published in December last year, called for a greater inclusion of information technology in primary education.
The proposal of adding the digital media by making a host of compelling subjects within history optional is baffling.
Technology is just an enabler, it is a medium of learning and teaching rather than being an object of education itself. A detailed study of technological communications is a discipline that students opt for at a higher degree of education after comprehending their interests and preferences.
If the aim is to introduce children to the emerging technologies, then it could be done by employing technology for teaching and by encouraging its use as a tool to search, communicate, share, write and present. It is understandable that launching technology in the curriculum is long overdue but it is no more important than other aspects of education.
Children love the dynamic new media. They are technologically agile by themselves without much effort because Twitter, Google and Wikipedia invariably form a part of their day-to-day activities even more than their parents'. Wasn't there a recent report about parents being unaware of their children's browsing habits?
Information technology must be carefully introduced and woven into the curriculum without burdening the children instead of knocking another important subject off the syllabus.
Children need to know the implications of the Second World War just as much as they need the skill to blog. And let's not underestimate that they cannot hold a web-based discussion on Victorian history.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Facebook works hard to avoid losing face
Information professionals with an interest in privacy issues will be following the data trials and tribulations of social networking phenomena with some interest. The story so far goes something like this. A couple of weeks ago the company released an updated terms of service but then on February 18 decided to revert to the previous version. Why? Because Facebook has apparently received complaints from some users that revised terms appeared to imply that the company would keep personal data even if the account had been deleted. So the old terms were out back while a redrafting process took place.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg used his blog to explain what was going on. This issue has clearly caused some soul searching. Now Facebook says it is "reaching out to respected organizations to get their input" and Zuckerberg reckons that much of the language is "overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long".
With Facebook such a dominant force in the social networking space the outcome of this episode is bound to leave its mark.
Zuckerberg wrote: "Our terms aren't just a document that protects our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service."
It would be interesting to know where information professionals on Facebook agree with Zuckerberg. Would privacy issues cause them to stop using Facebook or use it in a different way? Or is this just part of the price you are prepared to pay for using the tool?
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg used his blog to explain what was going on. This issue has clearly caused some soul searching. Now Facebook says it is "reaching out to respected organizations to get their input" and Zuckerberg reckons that much of the language is "overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long".
With Facebook such a dominant force in the social networking space the outcome of this episode is bound to leave its mark.
Zuckerberg wrote: "Our terms aren't just a document that protects our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service."
It would be interesting to know where information professionals on Facebook agree with Zuckerberg. Would privacy issues cause them to stop using Facebook or use it in a different way? Or is this just part of the price you are prepared to pay for using the tool?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)