Comments on: The question of Intention: talk for Pitcom http://idealgovernment.com/2008/05/the_question_of_intention_talk_for_pitcom/ What do we want from Internet-age government? Wouldn't it be better if... Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:03:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: andrew http://idealgovernment.com/2008/05/the_question_of_intention_talk_for_pitcom/comment-page-1/#comment-2342 andrew Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:28:04 +0000 http://the_question_of_intention_talk_for_pitcom#comment-2342 so bascially we are left with whether we can trust the government or not, i bet you if we polled 100 individuals and asked them if we could trust the government most people would say no so bascially we are left with whether we can trust the government or not, i bet you if we polled 100 individuals and asked them if we could trust the government most people would say no

]]> By: Paul Caplan http://idealgovernment.com/2008/05/the_question_of_intention_talk_for_pitcom/comment-page-1/#comment-2341 Paul Caplan Wed, 28 May 2008 18:20:59 +0000 http://the_question_of_intention_talk_for_pitcom#comment-2341 As with so much in this area, we are in danger of letting the 'e' get in the way. The problem (and arguably the solution) cannot be dealt with by focusing on the technologies and the problems and possibilities they bring. The 'trust' is a cultural relationship that exists independenyly of the media or channels over which relationships operate. This is not simply to fall back on cynicism and say that 'we don't trust poilticians' - that's not the issue. It's about the relationship between us and 'Government', the concept, discourse, ideology even. While 'government' connotes databases (lost or not) and panoptic surveillance, our relationship to that 'goevrnmentality' will operate within that framework and 'trust' will be an issue of accuracy, competence and integrity. If 'Government' and 'e-Government' was a discourse aroound conversation, voice, engagement etc, then 'trust' would be seen in terms of honesty, openness, willingness to admit mistakes etc. Then the real 'e-Government' decisions such as what works? what empowers? what enables? could be addressed. As with so much in this area, we are in danger of letting the ‘e’ get in the way. The problem (and arguably the solution) cannot be dealt with by focusing on the technologies and the problems and possibilities they bring. The ‘trust’ is a cultural relationship that exists independenyly of the media or channels over which relationships operate. This is not simply to fall back on cynicism and say that ‘we don’t trust poilticians’ – that’s not the issue. It’s about the relationship between us and ‘Government’, the concept, discourse, ideology even. While ‘government’ connotes databases (lost or not) and panoptic surveillance, our relationship to that ‘goevrnmentality’ will operate within that framework and ‘trust’ will be an issue of accuracy, competence and integrity. If ‘Government’ and ‘e-Government’ was a discourse aroound conversation, voice, engagement etc, then ‘trust’ would be seen in terms of honesty, openness, willingness to admit mistakes etc. Then the real ‘e-Government’ decisions such as what works? what empowers? what enables? could be addressed.

]]> By: David Moss http://idealgovernment.com/2008/05/the_question_of_intention_talk_for_pitcom/comment-page-1/#comment-2340 David Moss Wed, 21 May 2008 17:47:42 +0000 http://the_question_of_intention_talk_for_pitcom#comment-2340 To the extent that it can be done objectively, intentions are inferred from actions. The government's actions speak volumes. Their intentions are exclusively authoritarian, there is not an iota of respect for liberty in their make-up. So much is well known. As to your solution, it is hardly a recognised component of the governance object, but none the worse for that. The problem will come when the civil service and the standards bodies get their hands on it. I foresee an argument around about the seventieth release on Damascene Conversion (DC v.2.36). Is it, or is it not compatible with ISO 90000? Should the impact assessment take account of the side of the street St Paul was on, on his way to Damascus? Unfortunately not caught on CCTV, we cannot be sure that it was St Paul at all. Further work on Interactive Damascene Conversion (Capability Maturity) has been stalled for lack of international agreement on what happens if two St Pauls have incompatible revelations at the same time ... To the extent that it can be done objectively, intentions are inferred from actions. The government’s actions speak volumes. Their intentions are exclusively authoritarian, there is not an iota of respect for liberty in their make-up. So much is well known.

As to your solution, it is hardly a recognised component of the governance object, but none the worse for that.

The problem will come when the civil service and the standards bodies get their hands on it. I foresee an argument around about the seventieth release on Damascene Conversion (DC v.2.36). Is it, or is it not compatible with ISO 90000? Should the impact assessment take account of the side of the street St Paul was on, on his way to Damascus? Unfortunately not caught on CCTV, we cannot be sure that it was St Paul at all. Further work on Interactive Damascene Conversion (Capability Maturity) has been stalled for lack of international agreement on what happens if two St Pauls have incompatible revelations at the same time …

]]>