Monday, August 26, 2013
Policy Matters: Pakistan prepares to end its year-long ban on YouTube
It’s been almost one year since Pakistan began blocking YouTube in response to a video that it deemed to insult the prophet Muhammad, but officials have said that the Google-owned site will soon be unblocked in the country — perhaps as early as September.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Policy Matters: Europe deadlocked over data protection reform
Viviane Reding, European commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, has called for a swift conclusion to data protection negotiations. Photograph: Szilard Koszticsak/EPA
An EU parliament vote on amendments to data protection law has been postponed for the third successive time, with the impasse leaving citizens' rights inadequately protected.
MEPs had been set to decide whether to ratify the latest set of proposals in early July but the vote is now scheduled to take place in October, with a view to publishing the amended legislation before the European elections in May 2014.
The legislation in its current form is 18 years old and as a result has increasingly been found wanting in a number of areas, including the protection of personally identifiable information in light of recent industry developments.
The process was kicked off in January 2012 when the European Commission published its initial proposal. Since then, no significant agreements have been reached, fueling fears that the legal system simply cannot keep pace with technological change where data collection, analysis and storage is concerned.
"Over the past few months, there has been widespread discussion of a risk-based approach to data protection regulation, and some detailed exploration of the key elements of such an approach under the Irish presidency", said Bridget Treacy, partner and head of the UK privacyand cybersecurity practice at Hunton & Williams.
Foremost in recent discussions has been the need to consolidate definitions of differing levels of privacy risk; from personally identifiable records through to truly anonymous information.
One sticking point has been where information falls somewhere between these two extremes. The latest proposal includes an attempt to establish a third, intermediate classification, but this step is easier said than done.
A third way: pseudonymous data
"The Irish presidency's compromise text includes a definition of 'pseudonymous data', being personal data processed in such a way that the data cannot be attributed to a specific individual, without the use of additional information, provided the additional information is kept separately.
"Pseudonymous data would still be personal data, and subject to data protection law, but controllers might be exempted from certain obligations. The practical challenge, however, is to find an appropriate definition of 'pseudonymous data', which is an extremely complex task. It may not be possible", said Treacy.
Perhaps more problematic than the protracted process itself is the apparent lack of desire to define anonymous data.
Perhaps more problematic than the protracted process itself is the apparent lack of desire to define anonymous data.
In one recent example, a Harvard professor was able to re-identify almost half of participants in a genetics study by cross-referencing records from its results database with publicly available information. The whole re-identification process was done without individuals' names, and using only three pieces of data - gender, age and postal code.
"On the subject of anonymisation, there appears to be no real appetite to define this as a concept. That said, if data are anonymous, they cannot be 'personal data' and will therefore fall outside the scope of data protection law. True anonymisation is, however, difficult to achieve and it is often only temporary", said Treacy.
With algorithms getting better and better at matching data from one database to another using common or similar fields, some data sets may gradually migrate from anonymous, through pseudonymous, to personally identifiable.
This risk is exacerbated by the fact that experts believe many companies simply do not currently have the means to delete all copies of an individual record when duplicates are stored off-site, risking such data being left waiting to be discovered at a time when analytical capabilities are such that its subjects can be re-identified.
UK firms selling customer data
Earlier this year Barclays was revealed to be combining its customers' data with that of third parties, including - in theory - government departments, in order to yield more valuable information than could be extracted from their own databases alone.
Even when such data is anonymised, the creation of these super-databases brings with it its own inherent dangers. The more data feeds used for analytics, the richer the data that could fall into the wrong hands in the event of a breach.
Techniques such as topological data analysis are already providing data scientists with methods of grouping data based on inherent mathematical patterns, taking the bulk of the work out of human hands altogether.
The threat from non-EU governments and corporations
Another concern - that of whether EU courts will be able to hold non-European bodies to account - has been brought into the spotlight by theongoing revelations regarding government surveillance.
Angela Merkel and Viviane Reding, Europe's most senior justice officialhave both in recent weeks cited government and corporate collection of personal data in calls for a swift conclusion to data protection negotiations.
"I would find it helpful if the European council in October could speed up the work on this important matter," said Reding.
During an election debate last month on internet privacy Merkel named Google and Facebook as examples of companies that should provide information to European authorities on third parties where their customers' data is being sent.
Worries over extra-EU attacks on EU privacy have escalated to the extent that one security expert has stated his belief that the only way for European citizens to be free from fear of surveillance would be for European entrepreneurs to create an EU dot.com industry rivalling that of the US.
The revelations that several of the US' counterparts in the EU are engaging in the same or similar practices have perhaps shown such concerns to be misplaced, but the argument that a more self-sufficient online Europe would offer its citizens better protection than the current model will remain appealing until non-EU governments and corporations have a reason to fear EU data protection law.
Are cries for an EU dot.com industry to rival that of the US alarmist, or is this the only watertight solution to concerns over the online privacy of EU citizens? Join in the debate by commenting below or contacting me directly on Twitter @jburnmurdoch or @GuardianData
Source:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/aug/12/europe-data-protection-directive-eu
Friday, August 23, 2013
Policy Matters: Congress' Copyright Cowards: the Members Who Could Betray Internet Users
Fast track authority, also known as trade promotion authority, empowers the White House to unilaterally negotiate and sign trade agreements. It not only hinders Congress from exercisingits constitutionally mandated power to oversee and amend trade deals, it could impact their sovereign power to make and reform copyright and Internet policy domestically.
Fast track places a time-limit on Congressional debates on trade treaties, prevents Congress from proposing amendments, and reduces Congress to an up-or-down, yes or no vote on the entire treaty. That means that radical changes to digital policies are controlled almost entirely by the executive. They are proposed by the US Trade Representative, negotiated by his office in secret, and then buried in large bills with other major economic provisions that Congress is unlikely to reject. Policies passed in such treaty bills can then only be repealed if the treaty itself is renegotiated. It strips Congress of almost all of its oversight power.
So who are the proponents of this unconstitutional procedure? Unsurprisingly, the most ardent supporter is the new US Trade Rep himself, Michael Froman. On multiple occasions, he has called fast track authority a “critical tool” for passing secretive trade agreements. Really that’s just a cute, misleading euphemism for a procedure that directly undermines checks and balances in government. What Froman is saying is that he could do his job more easily if only he didn’t have to deal with those pesky lawmakers who have the power to question his office’s trade priorities. Fortunately for us, that’s just not how democratic lawmaking works. It's just not possible that his office could represent the broad interests of the public [PDF] while giving a few entrenched corporate interests preferential access to negotiations.
More strangely, some of the biggest proponents for fast track authority are Congress members themselves: Notably, Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Max Baucus of Montana. They’ve called on the U.S. Trade Rep to “aggressively protect” intellectual property through its trade agenda, and ahead of Froman’s confirmation for US Trade Rep, Sen. Hatch made a dramatic speech that again reiterated the idea that fast track is a “tool” necessary for trade negotiators do their job. Hatch has had a long-standing relationship with the entertainment industry and also attempted to pass a bill to create a new “Chief Intellectual Property Negotiator” for the US Trade Rep’s office in an effort to entrench copyright and patent issues as a policy matter in secret trade negotiations.
Hatch and Baucus are only a few of many Congress members who support or who have supported fast track (you can see how lawmakers have voted on this in the past here and here). Thankfully, there are some lawmakers who are taking a stand against this unbalanced trade process. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts took a stand against Froman’s confirmation as the U.S. Trade Rep due to lack of assurances from him during his nomination hearings that he would improve transparency in the negotiating process. The Senate went ahead and confirmed Froman, but immediately following the vote, 36 Democratic freshmen in the House wrote a letter to the top Democrat on the trade panel to declare their opposition to giving fast track authority to the Obama administration. Then just last week, a bipartisan coalition of Congressional members called for the US Trade Rep to uphold digital, economic interests in trade agreements and to publicly release “detailed information” about copyright provisions in the TPP.
If Congress, civil society, and the public at large were consulted from the beginning about the actual provisions in TPP, then fast track wouldn’t be necessary at all. Yet according to the Congressional Research Service, the US Trade Rep is negotiating TPP as if fast track authority is in place, already pretending that he has the unilateral authority to further Big Content’s one-sided agenda.
We need to demand that our lawmakers oppose fast track, ask them to call for a hearing, and exercise their authority to oversee the U.S. trade office’s secret copyright agenda.
Source:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/stop-fast-track
Policy Matter: NSA Spying: The Three Pillars of Government Trust Have Fallen
With each recent revelation about the NSA's spying programs government officials have tried to reassure the American people that all three branches of government—the Executive branch, the Judiciary branch, and the Congress—knowingly approved these programs and exercised rigorous oversight over them. President Obama recited this talking point just last week, saying: "as President, I've taken steps to make sure they have strong oversight by all three branches of government and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the American people." With these three pillars of oversight in place, the argument goes, how could the activities possibly be illegal or invasive of our privacy?
Today, the Washington Post confirmed that two of those oversight pillars—the Executive branch and the court overseeing the spying, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court)—don't really exist. The third pillar came down slowly over the last few weeks, with Congressional revelations about the limitations on its oversight, including what Representative Sensennbrenner called "rope a dope" classified briefings. With this, the house of government trust has fallen, and it's time to act. Join the over 500,000 people demanding an end to the unconstitutional NSA spying.
First, the Executive. After a review of internal NSA audits of the spying programs provided by Edward Snowden, the Post lays out—in stark detail—that the claims of oversight inside the Executive Branch are empty. The article reveals that an internal NSA audit not shown to Congress, the President, or the FISA Court detailed thousands of violations where the NSAcollected, stored, and accessed American's communications content and other information. In one story, NSA analysts searched for all communications containing the Swedish manufacturer Ericsson and “radio” or “radar.” What's worse: the thousands of violations only include the NSA's main office in Maryland—not the other—potentially hundreds—of other NSA offices across the country. And even more importantly, the documents published by the Post reveal violations increasing every year. The news reports and documents are in direct contrast to therepeated assertions by President Obama (video), General James Clapper (video), and General Keith Alexander (video) that the US government does not listen to or look at Americans' phone calls or emails. So much for official pronouncements that oversight by the Executive was "extensive" and "robust."
Second, the FISA Court. The Post presents a second article in which the Chief Judge of the FISA Court admits that the court is unable to act as a watchdog or stop the NSA's abuses: “The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court,” its chief, US District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in a written statement. “The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance." Civil liberties and privacy advocates have long said that the FISA Court is a rubber stamp when it comes to the spying, but this is worse—this is the Court admitting that it cannot conduct the oversight the President and others have claimed it is doing. So much for claims by officials from the White House (video), NSA, DOJ, andIntelligence Committee members of Congress that the FISA Court is another strong pillar of oversight.
Third, the Congress. Last week, Representative Sensenbrenner complained that "the practice of classified briefings are a 'rope-a-dope operation' in which lawmakers are given information and then forbidden from speaking out about it." Members of Congress who do not serve on the Intelligence Committees in the both the House and Senate have had difficulty in obtainingdocuments about the NSA spying. Last week, it was even uncovered that the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, failed to provide freshmen members of Congress vital documents about the NSA's activities during a key vote to reapprove the spying. Senators Wyden and Udall have been desperately trying to tell the American people what is going on, but this year the House Intelligence committee's Subcommittee on Oversight has not met once and the Senate Intelligence committee has met publicly only twice.
One, two, three pillars of government, all cited repeatedly as the justification for our trust and all now obviously nonexistent or failing miserably. It's no surprise Americans are turning against the government's explanations.
The pattern is now clear and it's getting old. With each new revelation the government comes out with a new story for why things are really just fine, only to have that assertion demolished by the next revelation. It's time for those in government who want to rebuild the trust of the American people and others all over the world to come clean and take some actual steps to rein in the NSA. And if they don't, the American people and the public, adversarial courts, must force change upon it.
We still think the first step ought to be a truly independent investigatory body that is assigned to look into the unconstitutional spying. It must be empowered to search, read and compel documents and testimony, must be required to give a public report that only redacts sensitive operational details, and must suggest specific legislation and regulatory changes to fix the problem—something like the Church Committee or maybe even the 9/11 Commission. The President made a mockery of this idea recently, by initially handing control of the "independent" investigation he announced in his press conference to the man who most famously lied to Congress and the American people about the spying, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
The three pillars of American trust have fallen. It's time to get a full reckoning and build a new house from the wreckage, but it has to start with some honesty.
Source:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/nsa-spying-three-pillars-government-trust-have-fallen
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Where Teens Seek Online Privacy Advice: New Findings from Pew and the Berkman Center
WASHINGTON – (August 15, 2013) – Many teens ages 12-17 report that they usually figure out how to manage content sharing and privacy settings on their own. Focus group interviews with teens suggest that for their day-to-day privacy management, teens are guided through their choices in the app or platform when they sign up, or find answers through their own searching and use of their preferred platform.
At the same time, though, a nationally representative survey of teen internet users shows that, at some point, 70% of them have sought advice from someone else about how to manage their privacy online. When they do seek outside help, teens most often turn to friends, parents or other close family members.
Access the full report here.
About the Survey
These findings are based on a nationally representative phone survey of 802 parents and their 802 teens ages 12-17. It was conducted between July 26 and September 30, 2012. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and on landline and cell phones. The margin of error for the full sample is ± 4.5 percentage points. In collaboration with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, this report also includes insights and quotes gathered through a series of in-person focus group interviews about privacy and digital media, with a focus on social networking sites (in particular Facebook), conducted by the Berkman Center’s Youth and Media Project between February and April 2013. The team conducted 24 focus group interviews with a total of 156 participants across the greater Boston area, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara (California), and Greensboro (North Carolina).
About the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project
The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project is one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Project produces reports exploring the impact of the Internet on families, communities, work and home, daily life, education, health care, and civic and political life. The Project aims to be an authoritative source on the evolution of the Internet through surveys that examine how Americans use the Internet and how their activities affect their lives.
About the Berkman Center for Internet & Society
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University is a research program founded to recognize, study, and engage the most difficult problems of the digital age and to share in their resolution in ways that advance the public interest. Founded in 1997, through a generous gift from Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman, the Center is home to an ever-growing community of faculty, fellows, staff, and affiliates. Fundamental to its work is the study of the relationship between digital technologies and democratic values, including civic participation, access to knowledge, and the free flow of information. More information can be found at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu.
Source:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/8443
Policy Matter: ICTs and local service delivery in Bangladesh
Authors: Partha Sarker and Anir Chowdhury
Introduction
Over the last 40 years, Bangladesh has become an interesting case study where its low per capita income (USD 700), low literacy rate (around 50%), insignificant computer literacy level and low grid-electricity penetration (less than 50%), coupled with its high population density (1,142.29 people per sq. km in 2010),1 could not retard its success in human development indicators. Bangladesh has moved up 81% in the Human Development Index (HDI) over the last 30 years. With 99% primary school enrolment, a decreased infant mortality rate (from 145 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 46 in 2003)2 and an increased food security level (near self-sufficiency), it has positioned itself as one of the countries that is geared towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It also has 90 million mobile phone users, 2.7 million Facebook users, and 99% geographical coverage in voice and data connectivity (mostly through wireless networks)3 – proving the country has attained initial readiness for service delivery using information and communications technologies (ICTs).
But all these gains have been achieved despite a widely acknowledged governance failure.4 That governance failure is often demonstrated by the levels and perceptions of corruption within the country. For five years in a row (2000-2005), Bangladesh topped the global Corruption Perceptions Index prepared by Transparency International.5
Policy and political background
Corruption has multiple effects in a society. As Amartya Sen points out, “a high level of corruption can make public policies ineffective and can also draw investment and economic activities away from productive pursuits towards the towering rewards of underhanded activities.”6 The World Bank has identified corruption as the “single greatest obstacle to economic and social development.” In 2004 it estimated that more than USD 1 trillion is paid in bribes globally each year.
In Bangladesh, like other countries, corruption has both direct and indirect effects on the poor. Indirect implications of corruption on the poor include diverting government resources away at the expense of social sector benefits. Direct implications include the fact that corruption increases the cost of key public services targeted to them, and results in restricted or limited access to essential services, as is shown in Figures 1 and 2.7
It is generally considered that Bangladesh loses 3% of its GDP due to corruption.8Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) suggests that almost 75% of more than USD 35 billion in aid received since independence has been lost to corruption. Mauro says, “If Bangladesh were able to reduce corruption by one standard deviation to the level of Uruguay, its investment rate would increase by almost 5% and its annual rate of growth would rise by over one-half percent.”9
There are several policies or legislations that address the issue of corruption in Bangladesh.10 These include the Money Laundering Prevention Act (MLPA) that enabled the government to set up the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) with ICT facilities. The Anti-Corruption Act 2004 helped the Bangladeshi government set up the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) with financial independence. The Public Procurement Act 2006 is aimed at ensuring accountability and transparency in public procurement of goods, works or services, and free and fair competition among all the persons interested in taking part in such procurement.
One of the objectives of the National ICT Policy of Bangladesh11 adopted in 2009 is to ensure “integrity”. It has three strategic themes which have a number of action items directly aimed at the reduction of corruption in government. One specific item, namely action item no. 67, states: “[By allowing] citizens to report cases of corruption electronically this would empower citizens by giving them a voice in fighting corruption, thus helping the government fight corruption more effectively.” It was a “short-term action” (to be implemented within 18 months) with the ACC identified as the principal implementing agency.
Local administration and public service delivery12
Over the past decades, a wide range of useful services to citizens have been provided by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) offices regarding control and supervision of revenue, maintenance of public order and security, licences and certificates, land acquisitions, census, relief and rehabilitation, social welfare, pension matters, education and public examinations, public complaints and enquiries. The conventional system of office management and service delivery at the DC offices is paper-based, which is time consuming and labour intensive for both the service provider and receiver. DC offices are also unable to meet the high demand for services from the growing population. Moreover, the inflexibility of this process coupled with the shortage of manpower and infrastructure make the services prone to abuse and corruption.
A national household survey13 conducted by TIB in 2010 found that 88% of the respondents were victims of corruption in the judiciary, followed by corruption in law enforcement agencies (79.7%), land administration (71.2%), and taxation and customs (51.3%). In terms of bribery collection, law enforcement agencies were at the top (68.7%), followed by land administration (67%), the judiciary (59.9%), and taxation and customs (43.9%). The survey also revealed that 66% of respondents reported having to pay a bribe to access basic services in the previous 12 months, while 46% believed that corruption has increased.
In order to address this situation, District e-Service Centres (DESC) and Union (the lowest tier of local government institutions) Information and Services Centres (UISC) have been introduced to improve the accessibility and transparency of public service delivery at the local and remote level.
District e-Service Centres (DESC)14
A DESC centre is an ICT-facilitated one-stop service centre which provides an efficient electronic version of the century-old manual and heavily bureaucratic service delivery system at every DC office. DESC centres have the following objectives:
- To ensure service delivery at the doorstep of the people in the least possible time.
- To uphold citizens’ rights to information through an extensive information flow.
- To reduce corruption and increase accountability by ensuring an enhanced flow of information and more transparent processes.
The services available at the DC office can be requested and received through the one-stop service counters, online, by phone, by post or by fax.
The first centre was piloted in the Jessore DC office in September 2010. Subsequently, more centres were brought online throughout 2011. Finally, on 14 November 2011, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Shaikh Hasina and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon jointly inaugurated DESCs in all 64 districts of the country. Citizens are now able to submit their applications online from service centres located at the DC office, Union Parishad or even from their own home without having to travel to the district headquarters.
Upon submitting their applications, citizens receive an SMS notification with a receipt number and date of service delivery. In addition, citizens will also be able to submit their applications through the District Portal from anywhere in the world, including all the Union Information and Service Centres. Citizens are notified through either SMS or email once the service is ready to be delivered. They can choose to receive the service in-person from the concerned DC office or by postal mail if the application is regarding requests for any documents. During the waiting period, citizens are able to check the status of their lodged applications though SMS or District Portals. This has allowed citizens to avoid in-person visits to DC offices, which previously gave birth to corrupt practices.
Union Information and Service Centres (UISC)15
UISCs are newly established one-stop service outlets operating at all 4,545 Union Parishads (lowest tier of local government) of the country. Through the use of ICTs, a UISC is able to bring various types of information related to government, livelihood and private services to the doorstep of citizens in rural areas. It ensures that service providers and users save time and cost, and has made operations hassle free. Operating under the Public-Private-People Partnership (PPPP) modality, these centres are run by local entrepreneurs, hosted by Union Parishads and supported by the central administration.
UISCs began operations in 2009 in 30 Union Parishads through partnership between the Local Government Division and Access to Information (A2I) programme. The Quick Win initiative expanded rapidly, culminating in a launch in all 4,545 Union Parishads on 11 November 2010 by the prime minister of Bangladesh and UNDP administrator.
Each UISC is operated by two young local entrepreneurs – a male and a female – under the supervision of a local advisory headed by the Union Parishad’s chairman. The Union Parishad provides space and utilities for the centre. The Local Government Division coordinates with the Cabinet Division and Bangladesh Computer Council to establish the basic ICT setup, including computers, laptops, printers, multimedia projector, digital camera, webcam and solar panel. The entrepreneurs are free to install additional facilities to support business growth, at the same time ensuring that the social sustainability of the centre is achieved by delivering government information and services.
Results achieved
Greater access and efficient processing have reduced barriers of culture, class, gender and distance in the delivery of public services. DESCs have made the service delivery process easy by minimising layers of red tape, time, hassle and cost for citizens. Travelling long distances and standing in long queues to receive services in district headquarters has been eliminated. Services have become truly decentralised with the access to DESC at union level through district portals. An enhanced tracking system ensures more accountability and transparency in public service delivery, leading to better governance.
The average official fee to get a copy of a simple land record is BDT 8 (USD 0.10). However, because of the corrupt practices of unscrupulous middlemen, the bribe paid to them is easily 20 to 100 times this amount. Now, with the introduction of e‑services to access land records, the official fee is the only fee paid by the citizens, since the middlemen have no access to how the electronic transactions are done. The elimination of face-to-face interaction with the middlemen has brought about this result.
Also, citizens are saving a significant amount of time and money since they now do not have to travel to district headquarters. Previously, money would be spent on travel for the applicant, travel for an escort accompanying an applicant who is a woman, elderly, illiterate or has a disability, the opportunity cost in terms of daily wages for the applicant and the escort, and sometimes an overnight stay in district headquarters, all of which would create a significant financial burden for the applicant. DESCs accessible from UISCs have eliminated most of these costs.
The tracking number received over mobile phone is a remarkable addition for the elimination of corruption – it allows citizens to track the status of processing and brings a higher measure of predictability. Previously, the unpredictability and the long delays would open up opportunities for rent seeking by non-officer middlemen and sometimes even government officers.
In addition, the dashboards visible to the higher authorities displaying the status of application processing put the officers in the DC office on high alert, increasing efficiency and reducing the tendency to ask for bribes from citizen applicants.
The electronic documents and land records are less prone to corrupt practices of tampering than their paper counterparts. And even if hackers emerge among the government officers, the introduction of digital signatures starting in 2013 will safeguard the electronic documents, adding another barrier to corrupt practices.
Since 14 November 2011,16 all DC offices combined have finalised 809,219 applications, while 1,280,576 applications are in process; 389,423 land records have been delivered to citizens against 758,153 applications received. Four million citizens visit the UISCs per month to access various services.
Action steps
As indicated by the TIB survey, the majority of corruption occurs at the level of services that the government provides to the general public. Initially the Bangladeshi government pursued automation to improve internal processing and coordination. This resulted in an expensive procurement of state-of-the-art equipment, but did not bring any qualitative change at the service delivery end. Neither did it stop the corrupt practices. Therefore it is important that the government pursue innovative approaches, such the DESCs and UISCs, and bring as much openness, automation and transparency as possible through decentralisation and e‑services. The government should start to use its National e‑GP Portal for e‑procurement of goods and services. Currently, any local tender package up to BDT 500 million (USD 6 million) for goods or works and up to BDT 100 million (USD 1.2 million) for services can now be processed through this portal.
In order to address corruption, the government needs to protect whistleblowers and encourage ICT-based communication allowing anonymity. The parliament enacted an act for protection of whistleblowers in 2011. This needs to be promoted along with the Right to Information Act that may encourage others to seek or share information on corruption taking place even in remote areas.
It is generally believed that ICTs can eliminate the need or possibility of direct face-to-face interaction for people seeking information or services, thereby reducing the chances of abuse of decretory power by officials and opportunities for corruption. But this needs to be backed by enough political will and institutional strengthening efforts. The ACC can prepare a strategic plan for harnessing the full potential of ICTs in its activities, both in prevention and enforcement. Citizens need to be engaged and encouraged to be vigilant in an innovative way that brings forward an anti-corruption friendly environment.
Report Year:
2012 - The internet and corruption
Organization:
Bytes for All Bangladesh
Website:
http://www.bytesforall.org| Bangladesh | 260.26 KB |
Source: http://www.giswatch.org/en/country-report/transparency-and-accountability-online/bangladesh
1 World Bank data on Bangladesh: data.worldbank.org/country/bangladesh
2 UN Human Development Indicators on Bangladesh:hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/bgd.html
3 Bangladesh Telecom Regulatory Commission: www.btrc.gov.bd
4 Zaman, I. (2006) Measuring Corruption in Bangladesh: Can Communication Work?, Transparency International Bangladesh. ti-bangladesh.org/index.php/research-a-knowledge
6 Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 275.
7 Zaman (2006) op. cit.
9 Mauro, P. (1995) Corruption and Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (3), p. 681-712.
10 Iqbal, M. (2008) Tackling Corruption in South Asia: Are the Recent Initiatives Enough? An Appraisal of Bangladesh, Korea University, Seoul.
12 UNDP (2012) Project document of the “Access to Information (II): E-service delivery for transparency and responsiveness” project.
13 Transparency International Bangladesh (2010) Corruption in the Service Sectors: National Household Survey 2010. www.ti-bangladesh.org/research/Executive%20Summary_23122010%20FINAL.pdf
14 UNDP (2012) op. cit.
15 Ibid.
16 Chowdhury, A. (2012) Service Delivery Transformation in Bangladesh: ICT as the Catalyst and Lessons from Korea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)