M'sian Govt Under Fire for Online Media Controls

http://cijmalaysia.org/publications-2/toolkits/

The Malaysian government's move to introduce policies that will provide more control over online content has come under fire from opposition politicians and industry watchers.

According to a report this week by local news agency Bernama, the Home Ministry was reviewing the definition of the word "publication" in the country's Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) 1984 to decide if it should now include Internet content, blogs and social networks such as Facebook. The ministry noted that the landscape today is different with the intrusion of digital technology.

The PPPA governs publishing and the use of printing presses in Malaysia. Under the Act, all printing presses require a licence that must be renewed yearly and renewed based on the approval of the Home Ministry.

Quoting the ministry's secretary-general Mahmood Adam, the report said:

"We hope the amendments will be tabled in Parliament by March this year because we need to overcome weaknesses, especially those involving multimedia content."

The announcement, however, has received condemnation from the online community including social networks Twitter and Facebook, as well as politicians and industry watchdogs.

Lim Kit Siang, parliamentary leader of opposition Democratic Action Party, described the move as the government's latest attempt to quell online dissent and a clear violation of its promise not to enforce censorship on the Internet.

"They should be aware of this violation and if they proceed with this, they will frighten away investors," Lim told online news portal, The Malaysian Insider (TMI). "If the guarantee is not honoured, investors will view Malaysia as losing its credibility."

Step back to "stone age"
Edmund Bon, the Malaysian Bar Council's constitutional law committee chief, also pointed to the Bill of Guarantees (BoG) which contains the government's pledge not to censor the Internet. He told ZDNet Asia that any attempt to regulate online content is violation of this.

Net censorship outlawed

Malaysia's laws, detailing that the Internet cannot be censored, are provisioned under the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC)'s Bill of Guarantees as well as Article 3(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
These policies were established in 1996 as part of former premier Mahathir Mohamad's efforts to liberalize Malaysia into an infocomm and multimedia powerhouse through projects such as the Multimedia Super Corridor.
The government has largely kept its promise not to enforce Internet censorship, with some glitches in the past including its attempt to block Netizens from accessing Malaysia Today, the Web site of prominent blogger, Raja Petra Kamaruddin.

"The PPPA amendment is taking us further away as a civil society and closer to a police state," Bon told ZDNet Asia. "We can never become a developed nation with such laws... We are going back to the stone age."

Nik Nazmi, communications director of National Justice Party (PKR), said the government's attempt to extend the scope of the controversial law, as a way to demonstrate its commitment to reform civil liberties, is "merely superficial".

"PKR calls for the government to scrap this misguided plan and work toward amending the PPPA instead to show they are truly serious about change," Nik said in a statement.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) also described the latest move as a backward attempt to block the spread of information to the public.

"The NUJ is worried and disappointed with the Home Ministry's plans to amend the PPPA in order to control media freedom in the country," NUJ President Hata Watahari said in a statement. "In view of this, NUJ wants the Home Ministry to immediately stop all efforts to amend the PPPA."

Khairy Jamaluddin, a Member of Parliament for the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, also voiced his concerns over the move to amend the Act. Noting in his blog that there were 8.5 million Facebook users in Malaysia, 84 percent of whom were aged 35 years and below, Khairy said the proposed move by the government would not only offend the younger generation, social networking users would not be able to accept any attempt to shackle a platform they were now so familiar with.

Amendments still under discussion
In a bid to quell the rising dissent, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said in the local press Wednesday that the proposed PPPA amendments have yet to be finalized and discussions are still in the early stage.

The minister said no decisions have been made, adding that his secretary-general was simply giving his views on the issue.

Hishammuddin said any objection on the proposal would be premature since the actual amendments of the Act have not been determined. "These may be relaxed and loosened, or they may not even be [proposed] to the committee," he said.

(www.zdnetasia.com)

Cancellation of Identity Cards

The UK National Identity Card and the Identification Card for EEA nationals ceased to be valid legal documents on 21 January 2011.

The Government began the process of scrapping identity cards by introducing the Identity Documents Bill to Parliament on 26 May 2010. The Bill made provision for the cancellation of the UK National Identity Card, the Identification Card for EEA nationals and the destruction of the National Identity Register.

This Bill has completed the parliamentary process and the Identity Documents Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 21 December 2010.

In line with the terms of the Act identity cards ceased to be valid legal documents for the purposes of confirming identity, age or for travel in Europe on 21 January 2011.

Under the terms of the Act the National Identity Register will be destroyed within two months of the Act coming in to force. This means all personal information supplied during process of applying for an identity card, including photographs and fingerprints, will be destroyed by 21 February 2011.

Refunds will not be provided and identity card holders are not required to return the card to IPS. As the card will cease to be a legal document, if you have an identity card you should consider securely destroying it. If you choose to retain your identity card, you should ensure that it is kept in a safe and secure place.

The statutory post of Identity Commissioner, set up under the Identity Cards Act 2006 to provide independent oversight of the National Identity Service, is also terminated under the terms of the Act.

We have written to all existing cardholders at their registered address to inform them of the position.

If you are currently travelling overseas using an identity card and don't have a valid British passport, you will need to make arrangements to obtain a passport to continue your travel. You can either renew your last passport or if you are overseas and need to travel quickly you can apply for an emergency travel document at your local British Embassy/High Commission or Consular Office. Further advice is provided on The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website.

(IPS)

The National Identity Card: The £1bn Scheme was Launched in November 2009 But Proved a Hugely Expensive FAILURE!!

Confidential reports into trials of the £30 cards expose for the first time the chaos that surrounded their introduction.

The £1bn scheme was launched in Greater Manchester in November last year but proved a hugely expensive failure, with only 13,200 people signing up. It was scrapped by the coalition government days after it came to power. Today, The reports obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal how:

Senior Whitehall officials were urged to email friends and relatives to encourage them to buy cards because of fears about the level of demand;

• UK and overseas border guards refused to recognise the cards - with one traveller chased through an Italian airport after trying to use one as ID; 
• The Home Office discovered the cards could stop some credit cards from working properly.

The cards - which contained fingerprint and other biometric details - were championed by the previous Labour government as a way of preventing terrorism and identity theft.

The documents highlight particular concern about low take-up by staff at Manchester Airport.

By April  last year-2010, only 15 per cent of airside workers had enrolled for a card.

Reports reveal how the airport took the unusual step of appointing a full-time National Identity Card Administrator to drive up demand and considered a competition to promote the scheme.

The report also said: "One participant complained that the identity card interfered with other cards kept in the same wallet."

The ID scheme - which cost £292m before it was axed - was initially championed by Labour ministers as an anti-terror measure that would allow them to keep track of people in Britain.

But public pressure eventually forced them to concede that the cards should not be compulsory. Manchester was chosen to pilot the scheme but all 13,200 cards issued have now been cancelled.

Participants who forked out £30 for the documents have been told they will not get refunds. The Home Office refused to comment on any of the problems cited in the reports.

Home Office minister Damian Green said: "The identity card scheme was intrusive, bullying, ineffective and expensive."

But Leigh Labour MP Andy Burnham, who oversaw the biometric cards while a Home Office minister, said:

"The Tory-Lib Dem government are trying to make the cards a totem of what our government stood for - but I think they were a good idea and many people are still be in favour of them.

IDENTITY crisis: fall and rise of ID card

• 2002 An identity card scheme in the UK is mooted after the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York. The government initially proposes a national 'entitlement card' to combat benefit fraud and illegal working

• 2003 Proposals for biometric ID cards appear in the Queen's Speech, with the aim of making the cards compulsory by 2013

• 2004 Legislation for the cards is put to MPs. Under the plans, a new national database is to be be created carrying names, addresses, and biometric details

• 2006 The ID Cards Act becomes law - although a further vote would still be required to make the cards compulsory.

• 2008 The compulsory roll-out of cards for foreign nationals begins, replacing paper documents.

• 2009 The government states the card will not be compulsory for UK citizens although those who apply for a new passport will automatically be added on to the ID database. Pilot schemes in Manchester and Manchester airport begin. People in Greater Manchester are the first in the UK to be able to buy the £30 cards.

• 2010 The trial is extended across North West of England. The new Coalition Government announces its intention to scrap the scheme. UK citizens who purchased the cards learn they will not be refunded. Biometric cards for non-EU workers and students will remain in place.
  
  (www.telegraph.co.uk)

Britain Scrapping National Identification Card

The Telegraph  reports that UK National Identity Cards containing biometric details, including fingerprints, “were championed by the previous Labour government as a way of preventing terrorism and identity theft.” But the new administration immediately scrapped the initiative, introducing the  Identity Documents Bill to Parliament in May, which provided for the cancellation of the UK National Identity Card and the Identification Card for EEA nationals, as well as the destruction of the National Identity Register. As a result, the National Identity Register and all personal information supplied with identity card applications will be destroyed by February 2011!

My opinion is this is short sighted of the UK. Bahrain, Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden and the UAE are some of the countries that have planned or already started to deploy electronic national ID (e-ID) cards. These cards are more secure because they can contain smart card chips. Some countries are implementing e-IDs that also include biometrics, and the ability to digitally sign documents.

Citizens can use their e-IDs for standard uses, like getting a driver’s license or a passport, or benefits from the government. But the cards also allow citizens to access more secure e-Government applications. Some examples including secure electronic filing of taxes, e-Banking, and even e-Voting.

More information on smart cards can be found at  http://www.smartcardalliance.org, and at  http://www.eurosmart.com/.

According to  Information Week, “Surveys of British nationals revealed they wouldn’t mind carrying such an ID, provided they didn’t have to pay for it. Suggested in the wake of Sept. 11, a draft bill to introduce the cards appeared in 2004, before they became law in 2006. At various points, the government promised the ID cards, containing biometric data, would help prevent everything from terrorism and identify fraud to illegal immigration and crime.”

In the US, the government has attempted to standardize the identification process once and for all with the REAL ID Act, which will likely be squashed under Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has proposed a repeal of the act .This is due to the amount of resistance RealID is facing from state governments and privacy advocates who don’t understand that the value of effective identity documentation of the degree of security that goes into an ID technology.

We have as many as 200 forms of ID circulating from state to state, plus another 14,000 birth certificates, and 49 versions of the Social Security card. We use for-profit third party information brokers and the vital statistics agency that works to manage each state’s data. A good scanner and inkjet printer can compromise any of these documents. This is not established identity. This is an antiquated treatment of ID delivery systems. Identity has yet to be established. We need a better plan.

(Robert Siciliano, personal security expert contributor to Just Ask Gemalto, discusses Social Security Numbers as National IDs on Fox News| activerain)

E-gov Services Beat Offline Alternatives On Satisfaction Study

Satisfaction with e-government is remaining near historic highs and several federal websites are surpassing private sector websites in their scores, according to a new fourth-quarter 2010 study released today by ForeSee Results.

Overall, satisfaction with 111 federal websites scored an average of 75 on the 100-point American Customer Satisfaction index. The overall score has been rising steadily since 2003 and hovering at or near 75 since the third quarter of 2009. The all-time high was 75.3 in the third quarter of 2010.

In comparison, overall satisfaction with federal services dropped from 70.2 percent in 2009 to 65.4 percent in 2010. People "overwhelmingly prefer to engage the government online" in comparison to other channels, the study states.

“E-government remains the bright spot in an otherwise challenging landscape,” wrote Larry Freed, president of Foresee, author of the report. “The importance of e-government cannot be understated. More and more, citizens turn to the web as a starting point when they need to engage the federal government.”

“Satisfaction with federal websites far outshines satisfaction with the overall government, showing that e-gov investments over the last couple of years have paid off,” Freed said.

The highest scores for the fourth quarter of 2010 were earned by three websites run by the Social Security Administration. They include the SSA’s retirement estimator, scoring 90; iClaim, also 90, and SSA’s Medicare assistance site, 88. Their scores each were higher than the highest-scoring private website, Netflix, with a score of 87.

For federal portal websites, the top performers included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration main website, 85; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Spanish version), 85; National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 84; GobiernoUSA, 83; NASA primary website, 83; National Cancer Institute main website, 82; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention primary website, 81; and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services main website, 81.

Overall, larger numbers of federal websites are scoring 80 and above on the satisfaction scale, which is considered superior. In 2003, when ForeSee first started doing the measuring, only one of 22 federal websites scored above 80. In the fourth quarter of 2010, 33 out of 111 federal websites scored 80 or above.

The report was based on 275,000 surveys collected in the fourth quarter. ForeSee has been performing the studies since 2003.

Other findings include:

• People who are highly satisfied with a federal website are 59 percent more likely to trust the agency and 58 percent more likely to participate and express their opinions. High satisfaction increases the likelihood of recommending the site, returning to it or using it as a primary resource. 
• Website search, functionality and transparency are top priorities for improvement.
• E-government must be prepared to respond to more “digital natives” who grew up on the Web. Their high expectations of e-government may put pressure on satisfaction.
  
  (Federal Computer Week)

Open-Government Initiative Marks Two-Year Milestone

Friday, January 21st marked the two-year anniversary of the Open-government initiative, an attempt to increase transparency and accountability in our country's government. In recognition of the effort, Don Tapscott, author of Macrowikinomics gives his opinion on the work that has been done.

Two years ago Friday, on his first day in office, President Obama issued amemo aimed at making government operations more transparent. While open government advocates have largely panned the effort over what they call toothless policies, a regulatory compliance initiative announced Tuesday is giving some of those critics new hope the administration's transparency objectives eventually might be realized.

The new guidance, which is separate from an executive order on regulatory review released the same day, directs agencies to develop plans for making information about the enforcement of rules "accessible, downloadable and searchable online" within four months. White House officials then must pull those performance statistics into a central website that makes it easy for the public to compare agencies' records on compliance.

"After some criticism, and after considering different approaches to data prioritization, this is one strategy that's emerging: to force agencies to focus on their core regulatory functions and disclose that information better," John Wonderlich, policy director at the government transparency organization the Sunlight Foundation, said in a blog post on the group's site.

Nevertheless, he continued, "Plans to make more plans for forming nonbinding working groups aren't an appropriate response. Each agency is capable of publicly auditing all of their regulatory compliance data, to create a plan that reflects the agency's unique ability to lay out what is knowable about their work, and chart a course toward better disclosure of their core functions."

To gather additional perspective on the future of Obama's open government effort, Nextgov interviewed Don Tapscott, co-author of the new bookMacrowikinomics (Portfolio, 2010), a sequel to the 2006 best-seller Wikinomics. Macrowikinomics examines the way networked communities are transforming the way governments operate.

Here is Tapscott's take on what the Obama administration should do next:

Nextgov: Beth Noveck, the White House's open government chief, returned to academia earlier this month. How will the open government initiative change as a result of her departure?

Tapscott: She did a wonderful job leading this initiative. No one understands the problems of open government better than she does. I'm sorry to see her go back to academia. Those will be big shoes to fill.

But I hope the goals and commitment for the open government initiative remain the same. Governments face a reality in which they are more and more dependent for authority on a network of powers and counterinfluences of which they are just a part. Whether streamlining government service delivery or resolving complex global issues, governments are either actively seeking -- or can no longer resist -- broader participation from citizens and a diverse array of other stakeholders.

The first wave of digitally enabled e-government strategies delivered some important benefits. It made government information and services more accessible to citizens while creating administrative and operational efficiencies. But too many of these initiatives simply focused on automating existing processes and moving existing government services online.

The next wave of innovation -- which is just beginning -- presents a historic occasion to fundamentally redesign how government operates, how and what the public sector provides, and ultimately, how governments interact and engage with their citizens. Governments can and must rise to these challenges. It is truly a time when either government plays an active and positive role in its own transformation, or change will happen to it. The transformation process is at the same time exhilarating and painful, but the price of inaction is a lost opportunity for government to redefine its role in society and help launch a new era of participatory government.

Nextgov: Do you expect enforcement of open government at agencies to decline, as the White House turns its attention to reducing the deficit and accountability?

Tapscott: There is no need for the goals of deficit reduction and open government to conflict. Indeed, proper open government will result in a much more effective and efficient government. Open government enables citizens to do much more for themselves rather than relying on government services and programs.

Nextgov: California Republican Darrell Issa now heads the House committee that oversees White House open government and IT contracting. How might he alter the way feds use IT?


Tapscott: This should not be a partisan issue. The open government objective should enjoy support from across the entire political spectrum.

Nextgov: How will eDiplomacy, which encourages digital information sharing, change in the wake of the WikiLeaks debacle, in which a soldier allegedly handed over masses of sensitive diplomatic cables?


Tapscott: It's not in the public interest for all diplomatic correspondence to be public, but clearly we live in the new age of hyper-transparency.

WikiLeaks is just the tip of the iceberg. People everywhere have at their fingertips the most powerful tool ever for finding out what's really going on and informing others. So government must be more careful. But it shouldn't curtail initiatives such as Diplopedia [an internal unclassified online encyclopedia continuously updated by agency personnel], which has become a key resource in the State Department. As department staff is shuffled from country to country, Diplopedia captures knowledge that would otherwise likely be lost.

Nextgov: What are you working on now that might give federal employees some insight into how their job responsibilities will change in the next two years?

Tapscott: Within individual agencies and some extent central agencies it's clear we need the rollout of a more collaborative platform. E-mail and PDFs aren't sufficient in a 21st century public sector. Tools such as industrial strength social networks, wikis, blogs, jams, microblogging, news feeds, and a new generation of project management tools and collaborative decision tools are key to moving forward. This will help to break down the silos, help share knowledge and foster collaboration.

(Cisco Community)