Group items tagged

atlicher Regulierung rief, begann eine doch bemerkenswerte Diskussion um die Rolle von Google in der Informationsgesellschaft. Überschriften wie „Angst vor Google“, „ Google ou  la route de la servitude“, „Warum wir Google fürchten” , „Die Google-Gefahr“, „Dark Google“ schafften ein Klima, in dem nur schwer sachlich argumentiert werden konnte.

Google neo-absolutistische Machtfülle vor und schrieb „[o]ur demands for self-determination are not easily extinguished.  We made Google, perhaps by loving it too much.”

chtung der Privatsphäre wies der EuGH Google an, erforderlichen Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um bestimmte personenbezogene Daten aus dem Index der Suchmaschine zu entfernen und den „Zugang zu diesen Daten in Zukunft zu verhindern“

keine Daten verarbeiteten, da sie nicht zwischen personenbezogenen Daten und anderen Informationen unterschieden

und deshalb hätten Suchmaschinenbetreiber in ihrem „Verantwortungsbereich im Rahmen [ihrer] Befugnisse und Möglichkeiten“  dafür zu sorgen, dass grundrechtliche Garantien ihre volle Wirksamkeit entfalten können (Abs. 38).

Es reiche aus, wenn der Suchmaschinenbetreiber aus wirtschaftlichen Erwägungen eine Zweigniederlassung oder Tochtergesellschaft gegründet habe, „ deren Tätigkeit auf die Einwohner dieses Staates ausgerichtet“ sei

Suchmaschinenbetreiber dazu verpflichtet werden können, Links zu Webseiten Dritter mit Informationen zu einer bestimmten Person zu entfernen, auch wenn Name und Informationen auf dieser Webseite nicht vorher oder gleichzeitig gelöscht würden

1) what data should the government share and 2) how does data influence the public sphere

The optimists decry the modern instantiations of bureaucracy and policy in which democratic governments operate as the source of democratic ills and support the normative idea of an informed and engaged public.  Pessimists counter that the normative model of democracy most accepted in the literature is a novel construction that is not grounded in the natural behavior of citizens.

The innocence of Americans is either explained as a rational choice under the principle of rational ignorance (Downs, 1957) or explained as something inherent in the lack of mental sophistication in humans.

Government 2.0 attempts to correct the problems of information diffusion by assuming that people are simply unable or unwilling to find information in the offline world.  If the barriers to information acquisition are lowered then, the theory goes, people will be more likely to find, synthesize and use information in decision-making processes.

Feedback loops: Who will be active in these loops? How will the public respond? 

People usually think about explicit citizen participation, but some of the most pwrful Web 2.0 tools aren't about that: it's about ppl who are participating w/o knowing they are participating. Google is actually one of the great engines of harnessing participation, anyone who clicks on a link is participating, a link is a vote, meaning hidden in something they're doing already. Wikipedia isn't the only place where people are contributing.

The amount of data being shared/collected about people is growing exponentially, old notions of privacy need to be replaed by ideas of visibility and control: give more control over who gets to see it. We are better off with more visibility and control than stopping people from collecting data. The data is incredibly useful, applicaitons depend on data, people willingly giving up that privacy about where they are all the time.

many programs go wrong, generically, (what worries me) government is still very much an insider's game, we have not yet really built a system that allows real participation

Another gov 2.0 observation: it's very hard for a government agency to start over, it's not like private sector, where companies with bad ideas go out of business. Government agencies don't go out of business. (consumers benefit from newspapers going out of business) We don't have creative destruction in gov't, the basic machinery of it just gets bigger and more entrenched. Need to figure out how to start over: what not to do

The toughest part about Web 2.0, Gov 2.0, etc, might be the role of management. It used to be about defining the outcome and monitoring the progress towards that outcome. In Web 2.0 you don't know what that outcome is, it's a huge leap of faith, and takes a tremendous amount of adjusting to that approach. Do we need a different set of metrics? Yes. Media is intersecting with technology, technology is a new channel for media, even Hollywood is changing: oh my goodness, we have to create entirely new financial models!

"The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed." It's a cultural issue here, people are stuck in the past and we need a new wave of innovators or we should just expect slow results.