As someone who has worked with DSD’s rules, the PSM and ACSI33, I’d suggest that a very strong hand needs to be taken in ensuring any guidance that does emerge isn’t overly onerous, restrictive or heavy handed.
DSD does a great job in what it does, but it has a tendency to consider worst case first and define guidelines from that basis. I realise that’s its job, but what happens is agency security staff get their hands on such guidance and interpret literally and restrictively.
As Kate notes above, DSD rules can be so restrictive they prevent public servants from having access to the tools the public themselves use and expect the public sector might also use.
Very much, the existing rules for public servant conduct already address the vast majority of situations that will be encountered. It is only for extreme edge cases where national security classified material may be at risk that DSD guidance ought to be required
I think even hinting that use of social tools is an ICT problem is fraught with terrible risk. Inevitably, by couching it this way it becomes an “IT problem” and pushed off there, bereft of adequate funding and in the hands of the wrong people entirely (and I consider myself an ICT person).
Nor do I think that “strategic communications” units nor anything like them (the other half of what I am) should have carriage of this responsbility. They are equally the wrong people entirely.
It is a difficult question as to exactly who should, but it is neither of these areas of responsibility alone, nor in concert. Perhaps for the first time, we have a responsibility that truly lies with entire agencies and their entire staff bodies with the agency head owning ultimate responsibility. But help us if guidance on these tools and their use become the responsibility of a committee somewhere in an organisation, because then, nothing will ever happen.
@simonfj you seem to be making the assumption in many of your comments that the Taskforce will continue to exist beyond 31 December. We already know this is unlikely to be the case, and that business as usual carriage of the actions from this report will be distributed amongst several agencies.
There is an inherent risk in that approach, which is why (I assume) the Taskforce recommends a lead agency. But it won’t be the Taskforce (more’s the pity).
The work the public service does serves not only citizen, but also many others.
The term “citizen” is used too often and it sometimes unintentionally excludes those who are not citizens, yet are recipients or users of the services the public sector provides.
I agree with Dave Williams, don’t look to the gatekeepers, look to the enablers and what it’s going to take to enable these things to happen.
And, rather than a “strategy to identify”, why no just identify? Or is that what was meant?
Again, there is a lot of talent around that can help with these projects, but I’d like to say acidlabs would like very much to be involved.
Headshift would be an ideal candidate for this project, though I’d like to offer acidlabs’ services also. Given the two companies know each other, and the project isn’t small, I reckon we could share the load.
Like James, I think there needs to be some seed money for a few pilots to prove things can be done.
And, like Anna, I fear that the thinking is skewing to solutions and thus tools, and away from culture and education.
So, I am keen to see work done on the cultural and educational hurdles as I think that these are the most pressing. As such, you have my vote (and bid, to be honest) for those projects above any other.