GoJ and the need for validation.

Why does the Government of Jamaica feel they need validation from some foreign consulting firm for even the most benign and obvious things? The OUR was charged with the task of overseeing the implementation of number portability since the inception of the incandescent light bulb, and yet all the news we can get from them relates to the hiring a consultant to tell them what they could have easily discerned for far less money, in a far shorter time, using abundant local resources.

It's an ever growing trend. Whether it's a case of needing an outsider to hold their hand and pat them on the head, or simply a "cover your 'ass'ets" strategy, where they feel a foreign consultant grants them indemnity in the event things go south, it's time we move past this phase of inadequacy, start to trust our own technologists and people on the ground, and push ahead with initiatives that have been lingering for years.

I'm truly disturbed.

--
http://www.our.gov.jm - contract award for number portability feasibility study

Let there be search. And it was par.

It's still going through some development and cleaning up but for the most part, there is now a central search engine for websites of the Government of Jamaica. It's very vanilla and I don't think much will change in the short term but for a first incarnation I wont complain. It functions. It does standard keyword match searches and while I think that this really is a paradigm straight from the 80's , as of this writing we really have nothing better that's anything more than a good theory.

This site forms the base of the overall Web Presence strategy being developed by the government. In essence, they're lining up all the blocks then building up the skyscraper. The other pillar currently on the ground is the GoJ Web Portal, which right now is just a hierarchy link page but will soon be transformed into a service centric portal, and the use of the domain to provide value added services to GoJ employees (GoJ email, for example, to persons in organizations that do not have the internal capacity, competence, budget or time to deploy enterprise level mail).

In the end, this revamped approach and renewed vision of web presence is a promising sign that the Government of Jamaica has finally matured to the concept and opportunities availed by the internet and is finally moving to leverage this tool to empower themselves and the citizens of Jamaica.

What's so bad about RealID?

There's no cynicism to the question. I'm genuinely interested in an answer. Let me first state my interest in the topic.
I am a part of the technical committee charged by the Jamaican Cabinet to investigate the technologies, processes and legislative requirements needed for the establishment of a single ID/Registration/e-Government Authentication system for the Government of Jamaica. A single number that identifies you to all government (and perhaps later on, private) entities; in essence, Jamaica's equivalent to RealID.

During the months of work that the team has put in and notwithstanding all the opinions and objections raised, I am still very much of the mind that the benefits of a single government ID far outweigh the perceived and/or probable negatives. On the government's side this will greatly increase the effectiveness of mandatory processes such as tax collection, border control and the proper monitoring of the health care and educational landscape. On the citizen's size this will greatly improve the manner in which an individual can interact with government services. A single ID will allow eGovernment systems to more effectively communicate, thus eliminating tedious manual processes and increasing the efficiency of government-citizen transactions.

Needless to say that my being a part of the committee responsible for charting this system has no doubt instilled in me a certain level of bias, and as such I would not want to assume that the objections I have heard and yet to hear are without merit. For the most all the objections are centered around the _potential_ of abuse of such a system, as opposed to inherent issues that will arise upon it's implementation. In my opinion that's not enough to derail any such initiative. I have done research into similar systems of other jurisdictions and the concerns seem to be the same: A National ID is the first step towards a big brother/police state.
I could make the point that those establishments may not be such a bad thing, but that would certainly set off a firestorm the likes of which I'm not willing to debate at the moment. I am of the mind however, that if the establishment of a police state is thought to have merit, it will happen, with or without a national ID. In fact, most countries already have the mechanisms for monitoring their citizens in granular detail. A national ID would certainly make it easier, but it is in no way a required component.

So the moot on the table is still the negative connotations of a national ID system. Why is everyone up in arms? I'm keen on making informed decisions and need logical, unemotional opinions. How and/or why is such a system flawed? Is there a real deal breaker or is all the resistance based solely on fear? What about jurisdictions (Singapore, South Africa) that have successfully implemented similar systems?

It will be interesting to see how the issue plays out in the US, especially if there is a change in the executive branch in 2008. Perhaps the benefits are only visible if you are on a particular side of the fence.

Open Government

You don't have to think too hard to find a reason to use Open Source. Whether it's stability, security, cost, or cool points, you can almost always find justification. I'm not saying that having a reason means you have to do it, I'm just saying you can easily make a case. In the same breath, whether you agree with them or not, persons can find as many if not more reasons not to go the Open Source route. If you'd like a refresher on a few of them, just read any Microsoft sponsored study or whitepaper.

I'm not trying to rehash that particular debate today, instead I want to take a look at the "informationalized" embodiment of Open Source: Open Standards.


There's a reason we share the same first name

Open Source and Open Standards go hand in hand simply because they are two sides of the same basic idea. People should be allowed to use, modify and share code/information without being restricted by licenses which aim to bring about a profit instead of enriching the persons that use it. They seek to empower users with tools that are a means to an end, not to confuse persons into thinking the tool is an end in itself. In essence, ridding IT of self importance and putting the focus on the work that needs to get done.

Open Standards seek to rid persons of a reliance on a single application or solution. It allows you to move your data from vendor to vendor and have it retain its usability in each case.

With such noble intentions one would think that the buy-in for this initiative would be immeasurable, however it has been victim to pretty much the same issues as Open Source adoption. Again, for a refresher read any Microsoft sponsored study or whitepaper.

Whereas reasons-for can be placed alongside reasons-against for analysis, and either direction chosen if you're scrutinizing Open Source and Open Standards for personal or business reasons, there is one case and one institution in which its use should never be ignored.


Public S-E-R-V-A-N-T

The government is selected by the people, to serve the people. Everything they use belongs to the citizens. They are nothing more than custodians; put in charge of running certain affairs because you're too busy to do it yourselves. One of the most important things that they handle on your behalf is Information. All facets, types and categories of information. In fact, one could say that's all they handle. An economist could express dollars in terms on information; an engineer could express a road as information; the list goes on. Regardless of what type of information they posses however, storing that information is an inevitable task. That's how information is archived, referenced, and shared. Which brings us to the point of interest: Sharing.

Recall my earlier rant; the government holds, it does not own; and it's no different with the information that they posses. It is wholly owned by the citizens of the country and as with anything that you own, you can request it if and when you please (before you say it, yes I know, but let's not get overly technical and lose the lesson).

Your government has a responsibility to provide YOUR information in a manner that you can exploit. It should be open so that you can choose the terms under which you interact with it. It should never be locked down in a format that forces you to subscribe to someone else's method of using that information. It should be open; free of all constraints, proprietary encryption and
third party plug-ins. It's yours, not theirs. If your information is presented to you in any other way, your government has forgotten that _they_ are the servants.

The use of Open Standards in government should have no alternative and should never be open to debate. Whereas the issue of disenfranchising a company will often arise when discussing standardizing on Open Source, the issue is moot when applied to Open Standards as any vendor, open or otherwise, is free to incorporate open formats in their products. Notwithstanding any arguable technical issues, there is not one plausible reason for a government to lock itself, and by extension the citizens that they serve, into the use of one product and vendor because of the use of a proprietary, non-standard format.

The course of action is clear. It's hoped that the powers that be will open their eyes and have a greater understanding of the ideology, not just the practicality, of Open Standards and move to provide their citizens with true, uninhibited access to the information they own.