government records going away? going online?

This article was forwarded to me...thought it might be of interest...

Governing in the Dark: Librarians are once again fighting to keep public records public
BY DAN MALONE Fort Worth Weekly Online
http://fwweekly.com/issues/2005-02-23/metropolis.asp

project proposals

1 - Creating new divides: How "Barrett v. Rosenthal" could fundimentally alter online discourse. (BvR is a case currently before the California Supreme Court that revisits the Communications Decency Act provision that essentially makes ISPs and linkers to defamitory content free from liability. The case has some momentum, and if successful would make aspects of blogging, review-posting on Ebay or Amazon, setting up weblinks, even sharing articles via email potentially very expensive...)

2 - Autism and the Internet: How new technologies are opening up doors for people dealing with autism spectrum disorders, and how this bridging of both a social divide creates new digital ones. And mixed metaphores. Can bridges have doors?

On an unrelated note: What a boring Oscar telecast.

Project proposal #2, Melanie

I propose a review project that examines the existing literature on use of the internet by Native Americans. Since the earliest reports on the internet and digital divide, Native Americans have figured in discussions, even though statistically they have dropped below the radar in key surveys. This scope of the review would encompass both printed and online sources, then focus on 2 key sources. Unfortunately, as with other literature on the social impacts of technology, the effects on underserved and rural populations is scarce. It may be useful to compare the tone and context of printed vs. online sources.

Project proposal #1, Melanie

I propose a research project that examines use of the Internet as a social justice tool by Native Americans in the Cobell v. Norton case. This legal case was brought by Elouise Cobell, a Blackfoot tribe member, who sued in 1996 to have the Department of Interior account for billions of dollars in mismanaged Indian Trust fund accounts and to reform the Trust system. For over 100 years, Trust mismanagement was a sad legend within tribal communities, and even within US government. It was only the advent of the Internet and its use to research government records which finally allowed tribes to gather a critical mass of evidence against the DOI. Judges have repeatedly ordered the DOI to disconnect its computer systems from the Internet due to security issues involving the Trust. Therefore, one must ask: how has the Internet emerged as a tool to leverage social justice in this case? My thesis will argue that Indian tribes in pursuing the Cobell v. Norton case have used the internet for its ultimate social good. Also, I will argue, the competing views of the "right" to internet access by the tribes and the DOI illuminate the government's key role in addressing the problem of universal access.

Too much of a good thing?

In Connected to the Future: A report on the children's Internet use, the authors document an increase in digital media use. They state, "...we can safely predict that children will be living increasingly digital lives." and "... children are spending more and more time with digital media relative to watching television." I interpret these two statements to mean that one day kids will be on-line rather than watch television.

Over the years there has been a push to encourage kids to watch less television. I recall that for the last two years, my daughter's school has participated in a national(?) week where kids do not watch tv. If fact, I thought that it sponsored by PBS (but my memory fails me). I thought that the purpose of this week was to encourage kids to be more active. The comments in this article made me ponder .... what if, rather than watch tv, kids just go on-line? They still continue their sedentary habits and childhood obesity continues to grow.., etc. What do you think -- Can kids be online too much? Will we one day have a national no internet week for kids?

Measuring web site use

One thing is not clear to me.
To calculate the price of a space for an ad, both TV and radio, have estimations of the audience that could be exposed during specific programs and times in the day. If you want an ad you just have to multiply the cost of the space you want for the times you want to run your ad. So I guess works for the Internet. Do you want to place an ad? Just multiply the time your ad will run for the price assigned on the base of the estimation of the amount of audience that will see that site.
However, the New York Times article says that "[the] audience measures are not used to set Internet advertising rates, as they are in radio and television [...] On the Internet, Web sites charge to display an advertisement a certain numbers of times."
I'm confused.
So what's the purpose of audience measuring? Why do it? Why media buyer are asking for more precise estimations? Why they are asking, according to NYT, for estimation models that resembles those used for traditional media?
If audience measures are not used to set advertising rates, how are calculated ad spaces on different sites? An ad on the NYT is more expensive than one, let's say, on my site...

I found it interesting that Pew found that those who feel they have more control over their lives are more likely to be wired than those who don't feel they have control. It must be a money issue then, because it would seem that the "out of control" people would get more use out of the net than anyone else since the computer and the net are usually marketed as time savers and managers. These people must never have heard that you can do your banking, grocery shopping, buy tickets for any type of show you might want to see, use it as a yellow pages, library, mail system, etc. It just seems to me that these might be solutions to some peoples' hectic lives.

Shocked to my foundation.

Well, perhaps not that dramatic but I was nonetheless very surprised to read just how many government websites are not up to the current standards of accessibility for the disabled (meeting W3C standards: 47% of federal, 33% of state, 20% city sites [Acheiving e-government for all]). I found these numbers especially shocking because, knowing nothing about webdesign, I attended a very simple introduction to it through DoIT. The first thing I remember them talking about, and what I found most interesting at the time, was that things like Jaws programs are dependent on the format and layout of the website. What I took away from that little intro was that it was easy and responsible to format the page with headers, paragraphs, and other titles. Have I simply been mislead on how easy it really is to design a site to be accessible? Knowing little to nothing about these sorts of things I should hope that it is quite complicated for our assorted governments to be so irresponsible about such things.

Closely watched?

In Connected to the future: A report on children's internet use, the "Digital Shepherds" section the amount of adult regulation is discussed. The study found that between the ages of 6-12 76% reported that an adult is in the same room or nearby when working online. I found the percentages found to be interesting, but I also found it interesting that an adult was "in the room or nearby." The article was discussing the safety of knowing what children are doing online; however, just because there's an adult in the room doesn't mean that the work being done is monitored at all. I remember in junior high, my computer class would get an assignment to do for the period. The assignment never took the whole time, and after we'd finish each of us had complete access to whatever we wanted to do online. Techincally we had a teacher in the room, but he never seemed to notice that we weren't working on anything school related while playing games or looking up celebrity info. We could have gone to almost any website or looked up anything that we wanted, and still been under the supervision of an adult. I'm not saying that children should have someone looking over their shoulder all the time while online, but isn't there another way to watch what is going on? If not, there should be better explaination in studies such as these to the extent of supervision. As parents read an article like this one, they might think that their child is safe because an adult is in the room. Are they?

Internet users age 2-5 = money?

According to the “Connected to the Future” article, preschool children had the largest increase in internet use (between the years of 2000 and 2002) of any age or demographic group. Hmmm. As of 2002 (as reported by their parents), 35% of children ages 2-5 used the internet. I’m not sure how to use statistics correctly--there is surely something wrong with comparing percentages across studies—but, regardless, I need to compare this with % of internet users in the article “The Ever-Shifting Internet Population”. It seems that a higher percent of 2-5 year olds are internet users than adults of any ethnicity with less then a high school level education or who are making less than $20,000/year. What does this mean?
Also, 2-5 year olds had NO evidence of a “digital divide” with regards to ethnicity (maybe one in favor of Hispanic families—but that is a topic for class), but these children do have one with regards to income of family. Since this week’s readings were related to commercial studies and groups I was reminded of how much money makes a difference in most everything is the United States.
Could it be that there is more money going into providing good web-sites/ software for three-year old consumers because they may have wealthy parents than towards adults with low education or low income levels? Probably yes. Might this be creating a cyclical effect of who uses the internet? (I think I could argue the same self-perpetuating cycle for things like advertising to a certain user group because they use the site, and reading levels also)

Accessibility of Websites

Some of the earlier reports have alluded to problems the physically disabled may have in accessing information over the Web, but "Achieving E-Government for All" is the first to discuss this issue at any length.

I think it's easy for most of us to forget that the Web is not always kind to the disabled. On the Web we imagine that it shouldn't matter what you look like or if your body is weaker in some ways than other people, but many popular Web design elements shut out whole segments of the population.

When I was in high school I had a friend who was blind, and she used e-mail and chatted on local BBSes. However, this was in the "old days". Most online content was just text and you used typed commands instead of a mouse. It was possible (if a bit slow and awkward) for a blind person to participate in the online world if she had a Braille keyboard and a text-to-speech synthesizer. Today, a blind person is at a much greater disadvantage online. As I'm typing this post I can see all kinds of buttons and icons on my screen that I could click on to do different things, but people who are visually impaired may find it difficult or impossible to interact with a visual-based setup like this.

A group whose needs are often ignored when it comes to web design is the color blind. Printed text is almost always black-on-white, but on the Web it's possible to make the text and background almost any color. Certain color combinations will result in a page that's illegible to a color blind person. Some color combinations are difficult for anyone to read (especially if their monitor is old and dim) but are chosen for aesthetic reasons without regard to legibility. In the early days of the Web I remember seeing a lot of pages that were dark magenta on light magenta or light blue on dark blue, and I had to highlight the whole page in order to read it. Government websites typically use more conservative color schemes, but there may still be problems with banner headings or buttons.

The Internet Worried

In reading the Pew study, I found myself drawn to the numbers of people who were non-users because they feared the content or were leary of lurking criminal activity.

Just this week we heard that thousands of consumers will receive letters that their information has been compromised by ChoicePoint, a personal information 'clearinghouse'. Oh, they got cleared alright. Last week or so, one of the local stations featured a weeklong series on SPYWARE LURKING ON YOUR COMPUTER, which was no doubt a 'packaged' news service product with local reporter segues. And who watches and diligently picks up on all the fear mongering in the media most of all? Judging by the omnipresent pharmaceutical ads, it's older Americans. Is it any wonder, then, that so many of them are firmly non-users.

Beyond the fear factor, many of the older people I know, just like in the article, really do have technology learning barriers to overcome. Remote controls and car radios pose substantial problems for older Americans; I can see how they would be overwhelmed by the complexities of a home computer. Before he passed away in 2003, I am not sure my father ever even sat alongside someone who was online to get at least a sense of what is out there.

In light of the stubborn disinterest of many older, rurual, less-educated Americans, I don't see how efforts to reduce the divide between them and the online population can be very successful.

Government for the People?

I found the article “Achieving E-Government for All” to be interesting. The survey taken of government agency websites reveals how important the internet has become for the government. It’s a cost saving measure to transfer information to an electronic format. Budget cuts have made these agencies chose between serving all the public ineffectively, or not at all, and embracing this new form of communication. However, because there are still quite a few people not on the internet, for a variety of reasons, this new way to access government information still isn’t helping all the public. Is it better for agencies to continue embracing electronic services, or is there an even better way information can reach the public? Or do the websites that lacked ease of readability and interactivity need to reassess their goals for reaching the public?

State Street Power Outage

Seems an electrical fire wreaked havoc on the Isthmus Monday -- as most of you likely experienced, power went out along State Street, University, and various places around campus.

In the journalism department, it was interesting -- with the computers off, the network down, most classes and labs were cancelled -- I ultimately snuck off and after waiting in vain for a bus, walked home.

Walking down State, I was quite struck by how many businesses were closed. Restaurants I could understand, but small clothing shops? The security systems, cash registers, credit card machines... it really hadn't occurred to me how network/electricity dependent EVERY PLACE was. (The liquor store sold me some M&Ms, they made change out of a cigar box.)

Felt all digital dependent and delightfully divided. Of course, local businesses were less pleased. On one of the difficult-to-watch local stations, the manager of Fontana Sports, for example, estimated their lost business in the thousands -- I'm sure restaurants and others were hurt far more.

Reminded me of the months leading up to Jan. 1, 2000. Working in DC, I was covering how a lot of government agencies were dealing with their expensive Y2K bug upgrades. While most federal offices were on the ball, the District of Columbia itself needed little work at all. Why? They were one of the last areas of the country to still have their files almost entirely paper-based. As someone who had to go through the DMV there from time to time, this was more often than not a pain. But both events reminded me of the Pew article, and the idea of those who "dropped out" from online life. There can be benefits...

Time to clean out your basement!

Weren't we talking about selling all this old computer stuff on e-bay? Looks like Christie's had the same idea:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/technology/circuits/17bidd.html?oref=login

Third try...

I just wrote a long post, wasn't entirely done but almost, and then kicked out the computer power cord....TWICE! How am I so coordinated?!? Anyway, this time I am going to write a short one. (Note to self: save long posts as drafts)
What I will write about is how the readings seemed to affect me strangely. I feel very skeptical about the way some of the readings discuss the "digital divide" especially the "digital opportunity" but, I also feel skeptical about my skepticism.
In terms of the catagories in Entering the Broadband Age, I am a "No Internet Access at Home; Uses the Internet at least once a week but not every day". For personal use, I only use the internet for communication. For school I use the internet in a variety of ways. I have a computer at home but I don't use it, it sits in the closet by my choice. I could get the Internet but choose not to. This position is part of why I am skeptical about how people talk about how much computer/Internet use people need. For example: is it really the goal to make sure every person has a computer with broadband connection at their house? Whose goal is this? Granted, the hearing in the reading was from the Subcommittee on Empowerment, Committee on Small Business so it was going to be coming from the market based, business perspective. Still, at least one of the speakers felt very odd to me. I personally am more interested in making sure that people have some sort of access to the Internet first. As it is, I feel like we have spent hours discussing the definitional issues of this topic and a long time discussing "basic access" and didn't really come to a conclusion. It feels strange to keep going, when we haven't reached any sort of concensus.
As for being skeptical of my skepticism...I have the priveledge of choosing not to have the Internet at home but using it elsewhere, when needed. Maybe if I had never had access to the Internet at libraries and didn't even have a telephone company that would give me a phone, I would feel differently--probably.
Also, do I not know what the internet has to offer me? I have heard that said more than once, that "if people only knew..." I am questioning that and I am questioning myself.
( I guess I did write a long time again after all...and I still didn't ask a direct question)

The more things change. . ..

What I found rather interesting from reading the reports from 1984, 1995 and 2003 is the shift that has happened in what people view the use of computers to be. In 1984 people owned computers to learn how to use them. By 1995 and 2003 that wasn’t even an option. By those later times they were owned primarily for internet access. Eventually in 2003 what is being studied is not computer ownership as the indicator for access but high speed internet.

Also striking is how, when asked why they don’t have a computer, people didn’t generally respond that it was too expensive but rather that they weren’t interested or the computer has no use to them. Do you think that this is true? If this is the case why are so many going to public spaces to use the internet?

How would you fit the trends of computer use over time into the models we saw last time? Do we have enough evidence to make a case for either the normalization or stratification S-curves?

Income explanation

In his explanation about income, Mr. Irving (p.5) posits that the lower penetration rate in the under $5,000 income bracket is due to students.

I am assuming that this is referring to college students. This explanation seems to contradict the reports from last week that showed students as having more access to computers and the Internet. Further, as I look around campus and think about 'college life' it seems that students probably have the greatest access to computers and Internet. Even if he was referring to high school students (with parttime jobs?), it would seem that they too would have access through the schools.

What do you think about with Mr. Irving's explanation? Are my assumptions about students incorrect?

e-rate

In "The Digital Divide: Bridging the Technology Gap," the notion of e-rate is discussed. Mr. Miller brought up the e-rate program that "pays for internet access for schools and libraries." I thought that this was a very interesting concept and had never really thouht about it. I never thought about how my high school was funded for our internet use or computer technology. I think that the concept of a program to ensure that schools and universities have interenet access and pay for it is a wonderful idea. The hearing that this was discussed at was back in 1999. In today's society a lot of concern is still going on about the accessiblity of the internet to the people. A solution for a program that ensures that everyone in the United States had internet access would be a wonderful fund. This would be an extremely hard task though. Now I've been thinking about all of the computers that people have in their homes that are of no use to them, because they have newer updated ones. Yet people don't get rid of them, because of the value that was once paid. With technology advances, do you ever think that there could be some way to re-use older computers by changing something in them for better use in today's society? And if so, could those computers be used to help the accessibility of the internet to those people who don't have it currently? Rather than schools or libraries getting a computer that was donated and outdated, they could receive an older model with new applications for the students to gain practice on. Just a random thought.

Telephone penetration

I'm surprised that "the lowest telephone penetration exists in central cities". According to 'Falling though the net: A survey of the "Have Nots" in rural and urban area', only 79.8 percent have a telephone in central cities, followed by rural (81.6) and urban (81.7). I can't understand why. I would expect the contrary. Could anybody explain me why? I don't have a clue.
Furthermore, the definition of central city it's not clear to me. I'm very confused, especially when I read "there is no relation between data for central city and data for urban versus rural." What does it mean? Maybe that it is not possible to do a comparison between data because they doesn't share the same population scale?