22 Feb 2008

DirectGov Ts&Cs and the spirit of transformational gov

What do the DirectGov terms and conditions say about the spirit of e-enabled “transformational” government? An innocuous-looking offer of help turns out to be an overt threat for a transgression we’ve already - inadvertently - committed.

In a phrase of Richard Granger’s, it takes you in one step from dealing with Numpty to dealing with Dracula.

On the “about” page, my friend N. points out, it sweetly says:

Linking to Directgov
Directgov welcomes and encourages other websites to link to its information pages. You don’t have to ask permission to link to Directgov but we can provide wording and linking graphics.

...and there’s then a link called

* Get help with linking to Directgov

It’s reasonable to suppose that if you want help you click the link, and if you don’t need help you don’t. There’s nothing to suggest that “getting help” actually means “here is a set of arbitrary and unenforceable rules by which we insist you abide if you link to us”. If you ask for the “help” what you get is this (or see extended text below).

By creating a link, asserts DirectGov, you have accepted all these Ts&Cs. But does linking need permission as a matter of law? As N. puts it:

If you came to a building on a public road, and saw a notice on the outside to the effect that you could if you wished put up signposts on your own land pointing to the building, on condition that they described it as the architectural marvel of the town, you would think it absurd. And you would be right. No permission is needed, and no conditions can therefore be placed on granting it. I think the same is the answer to linking to web pages.

This idea of saying that “by linking to Directgov you are deemed to have signed up to the terms and conditions” won’t wash. Most people linking will be unaware of these Ts&Cs. You’d never be aware of them unless you clicked on a link asking for “help” linking to DirectGov. Most of us manage to link to other web sites without asking for help. I only clicked because I’m curious.

IdealGov has many links to DirectGov, dating back years. DirectGov (whatever that entity may be) therefore asserts I’m bound by their terms and conditions of how to describe it, use its logo and material, and what sort of content I can have on my on site. They insist I describe DirectGov as “Directgov - public services all in one place”. But I’m already on record describing DirectGov (unfairly, The Economist says) as a “random generator of self-referential public-service information”. I didn’t mean that as a defining and complete description of everything DirectGov aspires to be, or suggest they adopt it as their strapline. But I maintain it’s a fair description of DirectGov’s search capability, especially compared to the Google-scraper DirectionlessGov.

(IdealGov has far more links to DirectionlessGov, which doesn’t editorialise, searches better, and (we now have to add) doesn’t impose unreasonable, intrusive and unenforceable Ts&Cs under the guide of “help”.)

As N. puts it: “It seems especially obnoxious for a government site to try to dictate how it is described.”

And what about this:

Removal of links - If we contact you to remove your links to Directgov, you must do so immediately.

Can I just contact Google and require it to remove all links to here immediately? IdealGov doesn’t fall into the various categories of sites that are proscribed from linking to DirectGov, but it is critical. That’s a matter of free speech. It’s meant to be constructive, and we try to say “wouldnt it be better if...” but people don’t always take kindly to criticism.

I take the view, and it’s echoed by many Whitehall insiders, that government is less good at listening, more over-sensitive and insecure just now than most of us can ever remember. This affects how it plans health records, the ID System, childrens’ databases (as much as the war on drugs, terror etc). At the heart of transformational government, where public services are all in one place, sits DirectGov with these eminently unreasonable and ill-thought-out terms.

Do we need a campaign of civil disobedience, linking to DirectGov using non-standard logos and describing it using my late-night throwaway remark quoted in The Economist instead of the strapline they want? Are they touchy enough to issue a wholly unreasonable request that blogs like IdealGov remove all links to DirectGov, including the backdated ones? I guess we cross that unlikely bridge if we come to it.

(Thought: we could tuck away on IdealGov somewhere a page saying that anyone who ever refers to it online, in print or in conversation is obliged to add the words “Do you know, it’s full of ideas about how to save public money, provide better services quickly, have users participate in the design of successful services and dig deeper to create a foundation of trust in e-enabled public services. They really ought to pay more attention to it”. We could then assert unilaterally that “by clicking on any link on this web site you agree to be bound by these terms”. It might work. Not)

Unfold and continue reading...

Posted by William Heath on 22/02/08 at 1:43pm
Categories · "Transformational Government"
Comments (5) Permalink

Page 1 of 1 pages

Ideal Government

Let's say what we want from e-enabled government. Let's observe government first-hand. Let's say "Wouldn't It Be Better If" (WIBBI). Become an ethnographer of bureaucracy today! It beats getting frustrated with public services.

Comment

Anyone is free to comment. Or mail with an article if you want to be an author. I'll post it up and send you a password. This whole thing is supported by Kable.

Authors

Member List

Sign up for new articles

22 Feb 2008

DirectGov Ts&Cs and the spirit of transformational gov

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics

22 Feb 2008

DirectGov Ts&Cs and the spirit of transformational gov

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Sponsor

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics