Comments on: channels of communication http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/04/14/channels-of-communication/ What's going to go wrong in our e-enabled world? Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:59:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: wendyg http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/04/14/channels-of-communication/#comment-149 wendyg Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:29:59 +0000 http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/04/14/channels-of-communication/#comment-149 Perhaps Ian could tell us how much of your first point could be solved with digital signatures - eg, if it's posted from a government server and digitally signed with the official cryptoseal it's an official statement, but without that it's a personal one. While that might be too abstruse for some of the present generation, I don't think in another 30 years people will have any difficulty with that level of authentication checking. wg Perhaps Ian could tell us how much of your first point could be solved with digital signatures - eg, if it’s posted from a government server and digitally signed with the official cryptoseal it’s an official statement, but without that it’s a personal one. While that might be too abstruse for some of the present generation, I don’t think in another 30 years people will have any difficulty with that level of authentication checking.

wg

]]> By: William http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/04/14/channels-of-communication/#comment-139 William Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:34:00 +0000 http://www.blindside.org.uk/2007/04/14/channels-of-communication/#comment-139 Yes, or on the legal and cultural status of different types of online information. If an official posts to a blog like Blindside without clearance they risk the wrath of their press officeand management chain. But what if they see a factual error, or something obviously incomplete - must they ignore it, and desist from adding clarity? That part of the reason policy and facts about govenment activity is misunderstood, and why conversation on issues like surveillance/RIPA, government IT projects or ID management has been so poor. The IRC point is a good one. It's far better for the consumer to be able to keep a chat record of the advice they're given (whether it's insurance, bank or HMRC). What if an official posts pseudonymously? Or emails me and I post it up? Or tells me in the pub and I post it up? Yes, or on the legal and cultural status of different types of online information.

If an official posts to a blog like Blindside without clearance they risk the wrath of their press officeand management chain. But what if they see a factual error, or something obviously incomplete - must they ignore it, and desist from adding clarity? That part of the reason policy and facts about govenment activity is misunderstood, and why conversation on issues like surveillance/RIPA, government IT projects or ID management has been so poor.

The IRC point is a good one. It’s far better for the consumer to be able to keep a chat record of the advice they’re given (whether it’s insurance, bank or HMRC).

What if an official posts pseudonymously? Or emails me and I post it up? Or tells me in the pub and I post it up?

]]>