Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Like this? Share it with your network


Gov 2.0 Andrew Schatz






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 133

http://www.egov.vic.gov.au 131
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Gov 2.0 Andrew Schatz Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Opportunities and risks associated with Gov 2.0 information sharing arrangements Andrew Schatz, AGS Adelaide – 08 8205 4201 Justin Davidson, AGS Canberra – 02 6253 7240
  • 2. Gov 2.0 information sharing opportunities — Different information sharing relationships: – G2C: government to citizen – G2B: government to business – G2G: government to government — Different G2G relationships: – Local, state, federal, international — Geographic / jurisdictional issues — Different types of information – Pure data (non-identifying) – Other material containing personal information
  • 3. Fragmentation in information management VIC FOI: possession QLD Archives: Privacy: control ownership NSW
  • 4. FOI and privacy laws — what do we grant access to? — and how? — what are the obligations to amend / correct recrods? records? — is web 2.0 a means of official communication?
  • 5. Archives / document retention laws — you can’t…like…own information, man — it’s like the wind…or sand…or something
  • 6. Secrecy and confidentiality issues — secrecy is counter-collaborative — social media and the casualisation of communication — where do we draw the line?
  • 7. Other legal issues — Intellectual property issues – ownership, licensing, infringement — False or misleading information – Defamation, injurious falsehood, negligent misstatement, consumer protection laws — Unsolicited commercial communications – Spam, telemarketing, other forms — Other unwanted communications – Harassment, discrimination, vilification — Potential criminal liability
  • 8. Risk mitigation strategies — The Choice: Mitigation or Litigation — Possible risk mitigation strategies: – Contractual terms of use – Privacy statement – Appropriate staff policies and training – Moderation (pre, post or combination) – Technical solutions (eg reporting tools) – UDL apology / offer provisions for defamation claims
  • 9. Enforceability of electronic contracts — ‘Click wrap’ contracts are enforceable – eBay International AG v Creative Festival Entertainment Pty Ltd (2006) 170 FCR 450 — However, some uncertainty remains about ‘browse wrap’ and ‘link wrap’ contracts – Enforceability against: corporations; individuals? – Use click-wrap terms where possible – Browse-wrap terms may be effective, but only if they are clearly brought to the attention of site users up front
  • 10. Guidelines for enforceable eContracts — Agencies should ensure that: – clear notice is given that the transaction is governed by the terms of a binding contact; – users are given a reasonable opportunity to review any contractual terms before agreeing; – clear and unambiguous statement of what constitutes acceptance of the contractual terms; – adequate evidence of acceptance is retained. — Platform terms of use may offer some limited protection, but don’t count on it
  • 11. Concluding remarks — Think risk reduction, not risk removal — Identify and manage risks without diminishing the effectiveness of the initiative — Drafting effective and enforceable terms of use can be more difficult than you think — Aim to strike an appropriate balance between essential detail and user accessibility — Beware of bush lawyers! — But don’t worry … help is at hand
  • 12. Question time “For the society, the impact will be good or bad, depending mainly on the question: Will “to be on line” be a privilege or a right? If only a favoured segment of the population gets a chance to enjoy the advantage of “intelligence amplification,” the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity. On the other hand, if the network idea should prove to do for education what a few have envisioned in hope, if not in concrete detailed plan, and if all minds should prove to be responsive, surely the boon to humankind would be beyond measure.” - Dr Licklider, 1968, The Computer as a Communication Device