Though government benefit programs are popular in statist Cambridge, MA, this essay advocates a misguided mission for government. Providing benefits to civilians, regardless of citizenship is not the primary function of government. Nadeem Mazen, City Councilor appears to be confused about which government gives away which taxpayer funds. He suggests that "Cambridge can help lead this renaissance and make government more effective through technology." Increasing benefits is a renaissance? Is this what social justice is about? Government benefits?
He celebrates Rhode Island reducing "paperwork for parents into a single web form, eliminating rework and allowing the data collected to be reliable and legible." He provides no evidence that the data is more reliable. Online submissions can more easily be faked.
He argues that sending out RFPs (Requests For Proposals) electronically will make the procurement process more accessible to "small, hungry, equally qualified companies." Is there a barrier to any company bidding on any RFP? What happened to buy local, and keeping jobs in Cambridge for Cambridge residents? Has that too gone global? This essay appears to contradict and to conflict with stated policies of the City Council. Does this Councilor have any knowledge of history?
It appears that Councilor Mazen is unaware of the Public Records Act. He boasts "I am helping to write legislation so that Cambridge releases data for public access and internal use — almost everything will be included:" He re-invents the wheel. City officials frequently thwart citizen requests for information. Why not focus on that?
He explains that in order to "analyze income trends in Cambridge" his new apps will make it possible to easily "share it with friends via social media or text message." He may have missed the Jimmy Kimmel Show on Monday October 6, 2014. A woman with a microphone asked ordinary "citizens" on Hollywood Boulevard who Joe Biden was. About ten young people did not know. One thought Condoleeza Rice was Vice President. Perhaps the City Council should try to improve the participation of citizens in government. The few who do participate, are seldom interested in "income trends." Making esoteric information available does not make for better informed citizens.
Mazen names three "problems" in Cambridge: "a widening gap between rich and poor, a housing crisis for low- and middle-income residents, and problems of educational access and equity." He does not define what those terms mean. He provides no evidence that increased use of computers will help solve any of the problems. A few years ago the City Council was focused on making internet accessible to all residents. Well, it is now available to anyone who wants access. Has it resolved any of the named "problems?" Those problems were present when making access to the internet was the Council's mission.
Mazem has an irrational belief that technology will solve all problems. Unfortunately technology creates problems. Identity theft is the fastest growing crime in the nation. Putting more information online makes it that much easier to corrupt information and to use it to steal money.
Mazem says, "My goal is for Cambridge to launch an easy-to-use website." In case he missed it the City already has one and sends out a weekly email, listing all city events and programs. Maybe he spends too much time studying other cities and technology. He might want to have a look at what the city already does and has. Saying, "Imagine a system with complete data security," he reveals he is not living in this world. Perhaps he does not read news and current events. Major banks are being hacked by Chinese and Russian hackers.
He suggests making a computer system where "program coordinators can proactively recruit promising students based on academic need, workforce development initiatives or neighborhood demands." I do not understand what he means. In any case isn't that a matter for the School Committee?
His idea is that computer programmers should write code to implement sharing of data. But what demand is there for the data? Is it a good priority to use taxpayer funds to create online systems to make information available which will seldom be used? Isn't it a better priority to use taxpayer money to get veterans into homes? Mazen's priorities are at best misguided. There are people who are clueless about government and information. They have basic needs like food and shelter. Having access to obscure data is not a priority for them and it should not be for government. Mazem sounds like an ambitious leader of the Spending Other People's Money caucus. Taxpayers fund enough of them already.
[From article]
Mazem says, "My goal is for Cambridge to launch an easy-to-use website." In case he missed it the City already has one and sends out a weekly email, listing all city events and programs. Maybe he spends too much time studying other cities and technology. He might want to have a look at what the city already does and has. Saying, "Imagine a system with complete data security," he reveals he is not living in this world. Perhaps he does not read news and current events. Major banks are being hacked by Chinese and Russian hackers.
He suggests making a computer system where "program coordinators can proactively recruit promising students based on academic need, workforce development initiatives or neighborhood demands." I do not understand what he means. In any case isn't that a matter for the School Committee?
His idea is that computer programmers should write code to implement sharing of data. But what demand is there for the data? Is it a good priority to use taxpayer funds to create online systems to make information available which will seldom be used? Isn't it a better priority to use taxpayer money to get veterans into homes? Mazen's priorities are at best misguided. There are people who are clueless about government and information. They have basic needs like food and shelter. Having access to obscure data is not a priority for them and it should not be for government. Mazem sounds like an ambitious leader of the Spending Other People's Money caucus. Taxpayers fund enough of them already.
[From article]
The digital divide is slowly closing, and that’s good for social justice causes. A recent Pew Research study on smartphone ownership shows that although income and age divides still exist, tech ownership has evened out over race and gender in the younger generation. This means new channels are opening for technology to improve access to social services and government transparency.
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20141007/NEWS/141007253
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20141007/NEWS/141007253
Column: Social justice emerges from the high-tech arena
By Nadeem Mazen
Posted Oct. 7, 2014 @ 12:13 pm
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle
By Nadeem Mazen
Posted Oct. 7, 2014 @ 12:13 pm
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle
No comments:
Post a Comment