Just because you can, does not mean you should

There are many many things we can do with technology, but it's always wise to think twice before starting something new with technology. It's one thing to just change the way you do something to be more effective or efficient. It's another thing to take on a whole new project or start doing things you have never done before.

A perfect, and fairly scary, example is the mess at the Lower Merion School District. If you are not aware of what the issue there is, the short story is that the school issued laptops with anti-theft software on it. The problem is that the software can do more than locate the computer via GPS or the IP it's logging onto the internet with. It can remotely activate the webcam and take pictures of whoever is in range of the camera, regardless of whether they are using the computer. And, they "forgot" to tell students or parents.

This much is clear and undisputed by the school.

It's turned into a bit of a nightmare for the school, since not only have they been sued by a family, but the FBI is now involved (see http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61L5R520100222.) The parents claim that that an Assistant Principal called their son into his office and accused him of serious misconduct at home. (Apparently he claimed that the boy had been taking and selling drugs. The boy says he was eating candy, not pills.) The AP then allegedly pulled out a photo taken by the webcam as proof that the accusation was accurate. The school denies that this ever happened. But, lots of folks are asking how the parents knew about this program that the school admits it didn't tell the student body about, if this did not happen? The FBI seems to be among them. And, since the people potentially being photographed are minors who tend to have their laptops in their bedrooms, you can see why the next step would be an investigation.

Now, at this point, we only know three things for a fact. 1. The school deployed this technology, which has a huge potential for abuse and legal problems, without informing the affected students or their parents. 2. The school has been sued and has retained counsel to fight the suite. 3. The FBI is investigating.

Of course, if they actually abused the system by actually spying on teenagers in their homes and even bedrooms, then the answer to "should they have done it" is obvious. But, what if they didn't abuse the technology? What if had really only been deployed for the purposes claimed, and that it had never been used for any other purpose? Should they have done it?

I suspect that no on thought to ask that question before deploying the technology. It seems to me that someone decided that it would be a really good idea to use this technology to do something they had never been able to do before and that no one considered the question "Why not?" Maybe someone brought it up and was ignored or maybe no one even brought it up. In any case, I simply cannot believe that if anyone had seriously thought about "why not" they would have failed to realize that they ran the risk of exactly this happening.

The best outcome I can see for the school at this point is lots of very bad publicity, serious disruption in school, a serious loss of respect and trust by the student and parent body, and some fairly big expenses. And, all this if they really never misused the cameras. It's not a very enticing scenario. And, it should have been foreseen.

I also can't help thinking that if someone in a decision-making capacity had thought about the ethical aspects of this decision, this would never have happened. Someone should have realized that even in the unlikely event that they could get away with this, they should not. It's simply wrong.

The bottom line is that when you want to start a new project, think about the real benefit. And think about whether you really should do it. Think about the ethical ramifications. And then think about the issues that might come up if you get found out or things go wrong. If you do that, you are likely to only implement projects that you should do, not just that you can.

Data collection, data opennes, advocacy and improving services

I was recently talking to a friend about a project she was doing. She was trying to figure out how much of government assistance is accessed via community organizations vs direct application to the government. Unfortunately, we couldn't think of any good source for this kind of information.

If you were faced with the possibility that a program you work with was going to be changed would you know exactly what the choke points are? Would you be able to prove it with data, whether yours or that of other organizations? Do you know how long it really takes to get an application through the process? Does anyone know what percentage of applications go through community organizations vs direct applications? Could anyone find out how what percentage of applications are incorrectly denied, much less figure out if there is a difference between applications filed directly vs through a community organization?

This is where data collection and openness becomes important. If you collect data on your assistance, you know how long it takes for your clients. If organizations doing something similar collect the same kind of data, then you have a basis of comparison. Equally important, when you aggregate all this data, you get a good idea of the broader picture. But, there are some things you can't do by yourself or even with other agencies. For instance, you can't compare organization outcomes vs direct interaction with the government agencies. Which also means that you can't really get a full picture.

That's where data openness comes in. Even if government agencies collect the data, if they don't open it to the public, then it may as well not exist. Of course, if the data is not flattering it's no surprise that an agency might not want the data made public. That's not what they are going to say, of course, but that's a reality. And, it's really important reason, in my opinion, to push for open data. As long as there is no light on this information, agencies can hide the data and pretend that all is well. But, when the data is out in the open, then agencies can't pretend so easily. They have only one choice to deal with embarrassing data: Improve the process!

The bottom line is that data collection is a great advocacy tool. And open data is a good way to keep public organizations honest and operating at their best.

How does information access affect us?

Access to huge amounts of information and educational material has the potential to be a game changer. Some organizations will benefit and some won't. Some agendas will benefit, and other won't. Here are some of the potential effects I see.

Increased organizational transparency: Whether organizations like it or not, it's a lot less easy to hide things anymore. True, not everything is open, but the reality is that when documents like your 990 are easily found on-line, it becomes much harder to keep things secret.

The potential to improve the education of any group, inexpensively: Whether we want materials that are engaging enough to help people learn to read, or truly help them understand a subject not well covered by textbooks, or give them the information they need to navigate some type of situation, it's almost certainly out there. Whatever issues may stand in our way, lack of materials can no longer be a reason or excuse.

A better educated constituency: For the organization who wants to work with its community, to give people tools, to be an enabler, this is a great opportunity. Not such good news for the organization that just wants to "do for" its community, and be the gatekeeper of growth and development.

The ability to match advocacy with actual facts: If you have an agenda that is not backed by the facts, that's very bad news. But, if your agenda actually reflects the real world, then this is great, since you can now prove your point much more easily. (You still need to tell a compelling story, get the word out and provide reasonable solutions, but at least you have first base covered.)

I'm sure there is more. What do you think?