Protection is a public service and one that can only effectively be carried out with the support and consent – and participation – of the people. We’ve read stories about how Twitter played a key role in responding to wildfires or iPhone applications show a community map of registered sex offenders and crime areas.
But in public safety, especially, there is a unique source of participants – one that is especially important in these days of tighter state/local budgets. In California, for example, there are nearly 190,000 sworn active public safety officers (police and fire). However, there are nearly a million retired and former officers. This represents, on average, nearly 15 million years of skills and experience walking the streets. This population of people never lost their purpose or their desire to contribute – they just ran out of time!
How can we harness this trusted population? A local government could create an “opt-in” network of these experienced citizens. Typically, public safety training records are centralized through a central state body. A database comparison of the records can be matched against the ‘opt-in’ application.
Once accepted, the officer will receive instantaneous alerts on his cell phone, based on its GPS location, about reported problems. When a problem is reported, the public safety dispatcher would have the ability to examine a geo-spatial screen and discover how many people are in a particular area and who best to solicit or notify.
Governments across the country should enable this skilled population to support public safety problem-solving, in order to identify, recognize, and address problems much faster.
With Jeff Frazier, Cisco IBSG
© 2012 Norman Jacknis
The last plenary session of the US Conference of Mayors (http://usmayors.org) mid-winter meeting consisted of a panel of mayors discussing their use and reaction to social media.
But, first, one side observation about the audience. Last year and certainly two years ago, it was rare to see much technology in the audience at a mayors’ meeting, aside from traditional cell phones. At this session, more than half the audience of mayors seemed to have iPads and almost all of the rest smartphones. This, in itself, is a sea change in attitudes and understanding of technology among elected officials.
Perhaps the biggest news about this session is that it was held and that the mayors were leading it. Here are some of the, perhaps not surprising, highlights that give a flavor of the discussion:
- Some of the mayors, a minority, tied the rise of social media to the increase in petitions to recall mayors from office – even a short time after the election when the mayor won.
- Social media cannot be treated in the same way that mayors used to handle a response to a letter from a constituent, in part because of the expectation of a rapid response and in part because the request and response are both visible to a wider audience. At the same time, there is still a large constituency which is not using social media, so the traditional forms of public communications must also be accommodated.
- The 24 hour a day nature of the Internet and social media also means that there are no private moments for mayors. Everything they do can be recorded on video and posted shortly after the event.
- This also leads to a situation where the professional and personal lives of mayors get intertwined on the Internet. Some have tried to separate these using various approaches, but the difference is often too subtle for the average resident.
- Mayors with Facebook pages, which are completely open, find constituents using those pages to make requests for various city services. More popular mayors in larger cities can end up maxing out at the 5,000 friend limit imposed by Facebook. Thus, the experienced Facebook mayors recommended adopting a politician’s Facebook page. Of course, one of the nice things about this style of page is that it is limited to “Likes”.
- The whole experience of governing with Facebook can be overwhelming to a mayor, if the mayor doesn’t properly think it through. The mayors who have been successful on Facebook and other social media have established a formal protocol (and staffing) within their office for managing and responding to the social media.
- Nevertheless, none of the mayors is turning off the spigot. They find the greater communication with residents helpful. They noted that, especially in emergencies, social media gets the message out better than anything else. Some have experimented with actively using social media in governing. One example is http://www.engageomaha.com/ created by the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska.
© 2012 Norman Jacknis
Zuckerberg Tells Investors, “We Don’t Build Services to Make Money; we make money to build better services”
Liz Gannes, AllThingsD, had an interesting article about Zuckerberg’s political vision for Facebook.
Although the average person tends to think of those who run Internet companies as somewhat anti-social geeks, I’m more often struck by their strong political views and mission. I cannot think of an example of an official corporate statement from a CEO of a traditional company that would contain the sentiments below. It goes beyond the usual corporate social responsibility mantra.
(There was also another news story that Facebook will not yet operate in China because they didn’t see how their model would work, given the political system there.)
Of course, even assuming that Zuckerberg’s intentions are as good as they sound, the question is whether the typical pressures on public companies will diminish the priority of these goals.
Highlights from Zuckerberg’s letter:
Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected. …
There is a huge need and a huge opportunity to get everyone in the world connected, to give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future. The scaleof the technology and infrastructure that must be built is unprecedented, and we believe this is the most important problem we can focus on. …
We hope to change how people relate to their governments and social institutions.
We believe building tools to help people share can bring a more honest and transparent dialogue around government that could lead to more direct empowerment of people, more accountability for officials and better solutions to some of the biggest problems of our time.
By giving people the power to share, we are starting to see people make their voices heard on a different scale from what has historically been possible. These voices will increase in number and volume. They cannot be ignored. Over time, we expect governments will become more responsive to issues and concerns raised directly by all their people rather than through intermediaries controlled by a select few.
Through this process, we believe that leaders will emerge across all countries who are pro-internet and fight for the rights of their people, including the right to share what they want and the right to access all information that people want to share with them.
Finally, as more of the economy moves towards higher-quality products that are personalized, we also expect to see the emergence of new services that are social by design to address the large worldwide problems we face in job creation, education and health care. We look forward to doing what we can to help this progress.
© 2012 Norman Jacknis