This is the second of two posts written by Dr. Mark Drapeau about government 2.0. Click here to read his first post, “Government 2.0: An Insider’s Perspective.”

In June 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ investigative arm, released a report stating that, “more than 4 years after September 11, the nation still lacked the government-wide policies and processes called for in law to provide a framework for guiding and integrating a myriad of ongoing efforts to share terrorism-related information critical to protecting our homeland.”

Simply put, people in the government aren’t talking to each other enough. As one person, I cannot pretend to solve this problem, nor even understand all of the issues involved. And understandably, the details of some of the workings of government are shielded from public consumption. But for our purposes here, I ask a slightly different question: Given that governments are inherently reactive, rather than proactive (I need give no examples), how can this be compatible with the rapidly evolving world of social software?

In what I think is a good trend, people associated with the government are using Web 2.0 (whether they know it or not). Increasingly, senior officials in the national security community have LinkedIn accounts and curiously dip their toes in the Facebook and Twitter waters, if only because they hear about these sites from their daughters or research assistants. The only way to truly understand the power of Web 2.0 is to participate in it, and even the smallest foray should be applauded.

Ironically, however, many government agencies block such sites for use at work. For example, I cannot access MySpace or YouTube from the computer in my office at the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) blocks most social networking sites besides LinkedIn. At least one part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) blocks Google Chat. Not only do these policies make little sense (there are legitimate research uses for all of these sites, while email, iTunes, and non-blocked websites are ‘abused’ daily), the policies are inconsistent.

Despite this, there are overt sprinklings of Web 2.0 influence all over the federal government. For example, in mid-2007, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sponsored a public blog about pandemic influenza, which I contributed to due to my work on global health security. This was a great early example of a government agency engaging with an interested, and in many cases, expert audience.

Contemporary government blogs include very solid efforts by two agencies that people love to hate: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the U.S. Postal Service – the latter of which is a very creative effort. NASA has multiple Twitter-streams in the realm of micro-blogging, and they utilize YouTube and other new media to publicize their exciting work. More budding efforts abound.

There are also promising extra-governmental efforts. Perhaps most notable among them, GovLoop was built using Ning and in only seven weeks has attracted over 500 users from federal, state, and local governments. There was also an event entitled Social Media in Government, with the goal of the conference to “capture the power of social media in your organization, along with helpful tools, tips and techniques to get started.” Activities like these are already making it easier for public servants to share ideas and knowledge.

At a recent Washington, DC-area conference entitled ”Defense 2.0,” Opening Keynote speaker Michael Nelson pointed out that the Internet has ceased to be a tool, and has evolved into a place. And Marketing 101 teaches that you want to be in the places where your target audience is. For the government, whether interested in recruiting employees, talking to subject-matter experts, or collecting counter-terrorism intelligence, using “rich media” to participate in discussions on the Internet and get people to engage with their “brand” will be increasingly important.

But Defense 2.0 is still in its infancy, with a large gap between vision and reality. Thus far, Web 2.0 efforts, while some of them are very promising (for example, Intellipedia), have mainly occurred in isolation, with lack of coordination and no overall Government 2.0 theory, strategy, or framework for using these new social tools to best serve the American people. Here, I begin to describe the beginnings of such a framework.

Mainstream media coverage of the national security community largely involves “guns and ammo,” but increasingly U.S. armed forces leverage the power of other elements of government including diplomatic, intelligence, and economic components to conduct complex, “low-intensity” operations that involve far more than combat. These efforts also regularly involve groups outside the federal government, whether they are state and local responders, military forces of other nations, or global non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

“It’s the notion of unity of effort without unity of control,” says Dr. Linton Wells II, who has a background in the Navy, previously acted as the CIO of the entire U.S. military apparatus, and is now heavily involved with efforts to provide “transportable infrastructures” including inexpensive communications technologies to disaster-relief zones (see STAR-TIDES, below).

Because modern governments now think about military missions for national security in a much broader context, opportunities to use social software can best be divided into three very broad – and diverse – arenas. They are: (1) government internal information sharing, (2) creating and nurturing relationships with non-governmental entities, and (3) empowering people, particularly those in post-disaster, post-war, or impoverished situations. Understanding the pros and cons of incorporating Web 2.0 tools into each of these circumstances is the goal of a research project I have started at the National Defense University called Social Software for Security, or S3.

Internal governmental information sharing means different things to different people. The most commonly-stated objection to the incorporation of social software into national security operations is that malware could be implanted or the social tools could otherwise provide access into government systems, thereby reducing network integrity. However, a good deal of government information, while perhaps private, is not necessarily so much so that off-the-shelf Web 2.0 sites cannot be utilized – they do typically come with some security features.

Examples of such “less secure” information exchanges include Office Directors polling staffs about coordinating schedules or planning social events, Naval Postgraduate School students using iPods with audio/video to supplement lectures, Public Affairs monitoring media feeds about topics of interest, or Human Resources bringing soldiers’ families together using social networks that provide information about local areas. Paraphrasing what Maverick might say about this information, “If I told you, I would not have to kill you.”

In the realm of developing and nurturing a social network of government employees and non-governmental entities, social software also has numerous applications. Sites like kluster can enhance communication and not only help to promote organization within an amorphous and changing coalition, but also help groups discuss problems and arrive at actionable conclusions. Some very important entities, like the Defense Science Board and the Highlands Forum, involve groups of subject matter experts from inside and outside government interacting in various ad hoc ways to solve challenging problems in national security.

A global social network along these same lines is called STAR-TIDES, or Sustainable Technologies, Accelerated Research – Transportable Infrastructures for Development and Emergency Support. STAR-TIDES is a network of governmental, non-profit, academic, and other individuals dedicated to providing low-cost, transportable infrastructure for post-disaster, impoverished, or post-war individuals; including cheap mobile communications technologies.

In the social software space, STAR-TIDES has a Twitter stream detailing conferences attended, sponsored events, daily meetings, and the like. The network may also begin using sites like kluster or DeepDebate to go through an organized, collaborative decision-making process to arrive at actionable conclusions.

Finally, STAR-TIDES is utilizing mashups in their humanitarian efforts. One, constructed by InSTEDD (Innovative Support to Emergencies, Diseases, and Disasters), is called Contacts Nearby. This program interfaces your Facebook biography with Google Maps (geographical information) and Twitter (archivable communications), allowing (say) a refugee to read about, geo-locate, and chat with a U.S. Marine unit, members of an Africa-based NGO, and other refugees with recycled, donated mobile phones. There is now similar software for the new iPhone which concentrates mainly on tagging and auto-tagging geo-located photographic information using mashups with other programs like your Google Calendar. All of these data can then be shared on blogs, wikis, and other social sites.

Related to this, online social communication – particularly scalable micro-blogs like Twitter – can also behave as an “early warning system” to rapidly detect natural disasters, and even localize their origins. As someone who researches the connection between infectious disease and international security, I have been thinking about its uses in the event of a pandemic outbreak. Could Twitter power users like Robert Scoble help to disseminate information on government posters like the one I recently created?

In the end, diverse missions will require differing social software. Many novice end users will probably know their mission requirements, but will not know which Web 2.0 tools are the best fit. As a first step towards helping such users, my Social Software for Security project has funded an effort by Desarae Veit to catalog more than 1,000 social networking sites and describe their properties that may be of use in government and humanitarian efforts – like whether they are mobile-enabled, if they are high or low bandwidth, if they are free to use, and so forth.

This information has now been incorporated into a public website that we have named Sniki, for Social Networking Wiki. To my knowledge, such a public, interactive database has not heretofore existed. I’m happy that the National Defense University could help to provide this resource to the Web 2.0 community, and in the spirit of social software I encourage you all to register on the site, edit it, and consider it yours!

Dr. Mark Drapeau is the 2006-2008 AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow at the Center for Technology and National Security policy of the National Defense University in Washington. These views are his own and not the official policy or position of any part of the U.S. Government. He can be reached at mark.d.drapeau@ugov.gov via email.

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:What Happens When the Government Goes Web 2.0Facebook Banned For Ontario Government EmployeesGovernmentdocs.org Adds Social Twist to the Freedom of Information ActGranicus Gets $10M for Government Webcasting ToolsFootnote.com Releases Digital Copies of US Government UFO FindingsDo Republicans Hate Google?In Finland, Government Disconnects Itself

Source:Mashable!

Google on Wednesday announced that it has launched a music search service in China that allows users to access music legally online through its new service called Music Onebox.  According to the company, the service is backed by some record labels and will be supported by advertising revenue.

As the AP points out, paid music downloads in China are “practically nonexistent.”  According to most estimates, more than 99 percent of all downloaded files in China are pirated and legitimate sales represent less than 1 percent of the world’s total music revenue, reaching just $76 million.

Each time someone uses Google’s Music Onebox to find a song, they’re redirected to Top100.cn, which will offer them the opportunity to download the track for free.  The record labels will then incur the revenue coming from the advertising on the site.

There’s no way to tell if this new model will help curb piracy in China and record labels are more than a little hesitant to allow people to download songs and rely on advertising to turn a profit, but it’s the first step in the right direction that could see them come around and start trusting the Web a bit more.

That said, this will never come to the United States.  Let’s face it – iTunes is the world’s largest music retailer and people seem to be more than happy buying music that’s littered with DRM.  Realizing that, why would the music industry want to bring an ad-supported downloading business to US shores?  It wouldn’t make any sense.

The only reason record labels have agreed to stand behind Top100.cn is because they know they’re losing loads of cash in China as each day passes and more people pirate music.  Piracy isn’t just a problem in China, it’s so commonplace that hardly anyone knows someone that downloads songs legally.  Can the same be said for the US where the RIAA is trying its best to crackdown on the small percentage of pirates?  I didn’t think so.

Top100.cn is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at making the Chinese turn to legitimate sources of music and curb piracy in the country.  If that ever happens, this service will die and the music industry will try to force DRM on every Chinese person, much like they do with the Western world today.

And as much as I would like to see a service like this in the US and abroad, it just won’t happen.

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:Google Giving Away Free Music–In China?Google Losing in ChinaGoogle Blog Search Semi-Launched in ChinaGoogle Gaining on Baidu in ChinaiPhone Coming to China Mobile?Google Throws $1M at Comsenz to Dominate Chinese MarketGoogle China Getting a Makeover?

Last.fm announced today that it has made its service available to Japan and will start streaming music to the country in an effort to expand its presence across the world.  Lost amidst the otherwise mundane news, the company also included an interesting fact: since offering its free on-demand service that lets you stream full songs three times, its click-through purchase rates are up an astounding 119 percent.

The company (rightfully so) believes this success is due to its willingness to let you stream the entire song before you decide whether or not you want to purchase it.

It may seem like a small piece of a far more complicated puzzle of music downloading and purchasing, but it’s an important element.  I don’t know how many times I’ve used iTunes or tried to buy a song on Amazon’s MP3 service only to find that the thirty-second clip didn’t let me hear any lyrics or failed to capture the section of the song that I actually knew and enjoyed.  And when that happened, I was forced to hold off my purchase.

But if I had been able to listen to the entire song, I would have bought it right then and the music industry would have had itself another satisfied shopper.

Of course, it’s that same music industry that doesn’t allow me to stream songs in full and only begrudgingly allowed Last.fm to do just that.  But if it finally wakes up and realizes that it shouldn’t be scared of users, but more inviting to them, it stands to reason that more people would be buying songs, if the Last.fm statistics were representative of buying preference.

But once again, the debate on this issue goes back to trust.  Can the music industry find it within itself to finally trust the users and allow them to consume songs at a rate that they desire?  So far, it can’t.

Regardless of the progress Last.fm has made, we’re still fighting against an industry that has a deep distaste for users and has gone out of its way to make sure you don’t have the kind of freedom you should expect when you license the right to play a song.

The only thing working in our favor is the simple fact that business and money rules all else in the music industry and more times than not, these companies would be willing to jump on the bandwagon if there’s a proven record of streaming an entire song yielding higher revenue.  Unfortunately, the revenue probably won’t hit a suitable level unless full songs can be streamed on iTunes before purchase and the chances of that happening are, well, practically zero.

And so we find ourselves in a Catch-22.  In order to have the ability to stream entire songs, we need to buy them and show the music industry we like that feature.  But in order to have that option, the sales need to be high enough for them to justify allowing major vendors to offer the option.

Maybe one day the music industry will wake up and realize that sharing music and changing business models aren’t bad at all.  But until that day, expect more of the same.

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:Pepsi Leaving iTunes for Amazon, TooLast.FM’s Scrobbler Moves To Logitech HardwareProjections: Music Industry Down 20 Percent by 2011bandFIND is for Professionals. No Music Fans Allowed.Facebook Music?U2 Manager Blames ISPs, Your Mom, For Music Industry’s WoesSonicbids Takes $4.5M in Funding

What can you do in 12 seconds? You can make a fairly interesting video update. With new site 12seconds, you can create a video update to share on the Web, through your own channel on the site. Similar to Twitter’s 140 character limit, the video updates on 12seconds are limited to, well, 12 seconds. It’s just enough to get the point across, and short enough for easy consumption by viewers. Creating a video update is easy enough–just record with your webcam. There’s mobile support as well.

Every user receives their very own email address for sending mobile content to their 12seconds account, making it easy enough to create content on the go. Mobile support was pretty much a necessity for 12seconds, given the target demographic and the current presence of countless updating and microblogging services, both with and without video capabilities. From Seesmic to Pownce, and a number of third-party applications that operate off the Twitter ecosystem, it’s clear that multimedia microblogging is here to stay.

Given the crowded market, I was glad to see that 12seconds also redistributes your content on Twitter, so you can post 12seconds content on other areas of the Web if you’d like. You can even import your Twitter friends to 12seconds. The good thing about 12seconds’ particular take on the microblogging video industry is that with webcam and its existing mobile support, its service becomes a niche tool for the average user. It encompasses much of the mobile user demographic as opposed to focusing on a smaller group that has a select mobile phone device that utilizes live video streaming capabilities.

As cool as live streaming is, there’s still a large portion of the population that doesn’t yet have a device to support this, so creating a niche community focused on short-form video updates that caters to both the Web and the mobile community is something easy for a lot of people to latch onto, though I wouldn’t mind seeing a few more options for the redistribution of content to other blogging and social networking communities across the Web.

There are also embed options and the expected sharing/following options you’ll see on most microblogging sites, so there’s nothing too unfamiliar here. If you’d like a chance to check out 12seconds, click here to fill out a questionnaire in order to receive your beta account.

Source:Mashable!

The British lawmakers and ISPs are now seriously mulling the idea of a preemptive piracy tax; a yearly fee that would be imposed on everyone who uses the Internet - say, 30 pounds - collected by the ISPs, and given back to the artists.

I’ve already written about this proposal and its stupidity; now I’d like to explore the funny side of it.

I don’t want to imply that all artists are drug-taking, booze-gurgling, room-trashing fiends, but I think I can safely say that some of them are well-known for a lavish, extravagant, expensive and debaucherous lifestyle. Lenny Kravitz, for example, will be playing near me soon, and the organizers hired a somewhat famous fashion designer to design the interior of his wardrobe, because he wants it “funky and cool”. This stuff costs a lot of money.

So, without going into details of who owes what to whom and what’s fair (I’ve explored that in the previous article), simply think of this ridiculous situation. Do they really expect that a granny from Sussex will pay a yearly fee to use the Internet, which will go into the hands of artists (the most popular of which are burning more money by the minute than our granny receives in a month), just because the music industry is “in trouble” because of “illegal file sharing”? What does that have to do with her? Or anyone who’s merely using the Internet and doesn’t really care about the latest Duran Duran comeback, or perhaps music in general?

Furthermore, is the music industry really doing some special favor to the world that everyone needs to pay them a fixed tax, no matter how much and in what way they consume their products? What about writers? Actors? Software engineers? Anyone who creates any sort of work that can be easily copied and shared over the Internet? Who decides on who gets the biggest share? And how do you compare Keith Richards to, say, William Gibson?

I’m still hoping that the lawmakers will understand that a music tax is a preposterous idea, impossible to implement in a fair way, and it should never see the light of day. If it does; well, I guess we’ll learn to laugh and cry at the same time.

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:Last.fm Partners with Sony BMGFacebook Music?Music Gifts Facebook App Sends the Real ThingMusic Nation Partners with Bug Music to Find & Sign TalentNapster Launches a New Web-Based Version of Subscription ServiceMusic Industry Looks to Build Its Own iTunes CompetitorSnocap To Distribute NT Media’s Music