Gov2.0 camp, a few words

Gov 2.0 Camp occurred over the weekend, and looks like they got a lot done, though we might not recognize its importance for quite a while.

I'm guessing it's another moment in what might be the Constitutional Convention for networked grassroots democracy, aka "participatory democracy." For sure, Something Big
is happening.

Insights are found in a number of reports, like Government workers debate online citizen engagement. A big issue:

"We all want to hear from the public, but we want to hear meaningful stuff," said Joy Fulton of the U.S. General Services Administration. "How do you filter what's going to help us, and filter out what's just noise?"

One big observation is made by the folks at TechPresident/Personal Democracy Forum:

... Managing Sensitive Data in a Web 2.0 World. Half of the attendees were from the Intelligence Community. The other half were from transparency advocacy groups that fight government secrecy. These groups' interests are seldom aligned, yet it was one of the most lively sessions of the whole weekend: the intelligence geeks were giving the transparency wonks ideas for platforms that can effectively manage the tangle of overclassified (and illegally classified) data that has arisen in recent years.

Comments

[Bill Walker]

Sooner or later somebody besides myself is going to put all this together. Article V requires a convention be called if 34 states apply for a convention. All 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for a convention well in excess of the 34 needed. The texts of these applications can be read at www.foavc.org.

Mr. Newman speaks about a convention of social networking, or a virtual convention. There is no reason that a virtual Article V Convention allowing for delegates to remain at home, in their jobs, in daily contact with those that elected them cannot be held in a similar manner. The technology is certainly available and can be easily adapted to allowing delegates to propose amendments to the Constitution and allow for the free exchange of ideas, thoughts and so forth from all interested parties.

Cynics will of course point to hackers and so forth as reasons this will not work but systems can be put in place to deal with this issues. They have been installed in many sites and there is no reason to believe a virtual convention could not be constructed using the same safeguards.

[PMcD]

The session on Managing Sensitive Data in a Web 2.0 World was indeed lively. But I would not characterize it as " the intelligence geeks were giving the transparency wonks ideas for platforms that can effectively manage the tangle of overclassified (and illegally classified) data that has arisen in recent years." It was the intelligence geeks trying to hijack a session on a critically important issue in govt 2.0 -- what is the role/future of UNclassified markings used to prevent disclosure of UNclassified info to the public -- when social media both create multiple opportunities for its release and dissemination and the public is gathering and sharing much of the same info external to gov.

The intelligence geeks had an interesting idea about using social media INSIDE the intel community to solve an inside problem. They were not giving us ideas -- they were talking to themselves in a session that was not on their -- legitimately important -- topic. They tried to hijack the session and those of us concerned about Sensitive But Unclassified info and its impact hijacked it back.