Is there a conspiracy to “kettle” the poor, the marginalized, the socially excluded in digital dead zones and use this to deny them access to social benefits?
A recent thread on the Community Informatics e-list brought together a range of separate issue areas that combined, indicate a significant push in a number of OECD countries to de-universalize access to the Internet and perhaps, not incidentally, to undermine the basis for the social contract in the English speaking democracies.
• Implementation of “digital by default” provisions for access to public services in the UK (where an electronic account will be necessary for example to receive social assistance payments)
• Moves toward the implementation of a digital only transaction system by the Canadian government.
• The (Conservative) Harper Government of Canada cancels funding for the Community Internet Access program (CAP)
• Movement in the US to remove High Cost area and Universal Service regulatory provisions ensuring Universal telephone service to all
To connect the dots a bit— access to public services and social support payments are increasingly requiring the use of electronic media to support the transactions including through online access, digital signatures, electronic funds transfers and so on. The Cameron government in the UK has adopted a “Digital by Default” program which means that all services will be “born digital” and made available in analogue form only on an as required and secondary or tertiary basis. This is paralleled by developments in Canada by Cameron’s great friend in Conservatism Steven Harper which is moving towards an even more draconian “digital only transaction system”. It would appear that both of these initiatives will result in access and use of the government services and benefits will require the use of the Internet and other digital media.
Meanwhile, funding for facilities providing free or very low cost public access to the Internet is being eliminated in Canada, regionally within the US and elsewhere (the argument being in Canada at least that in the age of Internet accessing smart phones public Internet access facilities are no longer required: “in 2010 about 79 per cent of Canadians had access to the Internet at home.” Thus those without personal in-home access to the Internet (the other 21%) will either have to access it through libraries (where only limited if any training and support is likely to be available and whose own means for providing access are being further restricted because of overall funding cuts) or go without.
All this is happening when even those with in-home Internet access for the poor is under threat through the relaxation of requirements for balanced rates for remote areas, for landline services to high cost service areas, and to basic low cost life line service in the US (and likely to be followed quickly in other jurisdictions) as telecom carriers make a somewhat similar case that mobile telephone service (where there are no public service requirements) eliminates the need for landline services. Access to low cost in-home Internet service via dial-up or even ADSL is thus about to be severely restricted.
Thus those wishing to access and make use of government services or benefits may be quite out of luck if they can’t afford in home Internet service, live in a remote area, don’t own a computer and/or lack the necessary knowledge, skill, physical facility, and cognitive capacity to manage computer and Internet access and use.
Individually each of these developments represents a significant cut-back in service availability to the poor, marginalized, recent immigrants, internal migrants and so on. However, separately, there are available workarounds which at least in the short run would partially minimize their impacts.
However, taken together (and while each of these is particularly identifiable in one country there are indications that similar processes are taking place in parallel in a number of countries) these represent a quite significant undermining of one of the basic provisions of citizenship which is equal access to government services and operations. In fact, the likelihood is that these developments combined would create a totally new category of those who have been “pushed off the grid” in this case the ubiquitous and increasingly essential electronic Internet enabled grid through which government and its relationship to citizens are increasingly being made operational.
While on the one hand in the name of austerity governments are making frontal assaults on basic provisions of the social contract in areas such as pensions and employment insurance on the other hand they are making quite serious and basic if rather less visible assaults through the undermining of the basic provisions of universal access and universal service. Without the means to access the services the uptake in the services will necessarily be restricted and thus the cost to the treasury for those services will of course be less.
Are those who are having increasing difficulty imposing austerity onto reluctant populations looking to achieve the same ends but by other if rather less frontal means?
To answer my own question, I don’t think it is in fact a conspiracy but rather an unhappy conjuncture of a variety of social and economic pressures looking to undermine the long term commitments of governments to ensure universal access, universally available services, and ultimately universal inclusion within the social contract of the modern democratic state.
john horvath
June 3, 2012
Hi Mike
I would like to provide you with an example of “Electronic Kettling” in the Public Service:
Approximately five years ago the “advantages” of electronic provision of “services” was urged on public service union members (I was at that time President of the Canadian Union of Professional Employees, [CAPE]). We were alarmed to find that while the “advantages” were expected to be major savings of trees, reduction of our carbon foot print, convenience, among others, there was no admission of the “disadvantages” which would be immediate to our members. These disadvantages included the fact that many had little or no experience in dealing with on-line services. There was no training, no provision, and no acknowledgement on the part of the government of possible problems with this approach. It was only through a year long battle that the approach was changed for an interim period of time to allow for continued paper-based service. The federal government employer was selling “non-service” (of traditional paper based services) to its faithful employees under the guise of “more efficient, eco-friendly, electronic service”.
Trust them! Have they ever misled to you before?
John J. Horvath
(former president of CAPE, Health Canada)
Michael Gurstein
June 3, 2012
Excellent example, thanks John.
mfioretti
June 4, 2012
There is one thing I don’t understand in J. Horvath’s example, which is very relevant for me to understand why it would be an excellent example for this article.
What was exactly that the Canadian government imposed five years ago on Public Employees?
a) the government said they should immediately stop provide services to _citizens_ via paper, and do it only through digital systems
b) the government said that Public Employees should stop immediately to receive services for themselves by the Government via paper (e.g. applying for pension or other benefits, receiving paychecks etc) and receive the same services only through digital systems
c) both the things above
d) something else? Please explain
Michael Gurstein
June 5, 2012
To answer your question, I believe it is b) in our list above. It is I think an excellent example of the introduction of digital services with no provision being made (apparently) to bridge those who may have difficulty for whatever reason with the new systems into their use. The effect of that would ultimately be to isolate those unable (or unwilling) to use the new technology from the benefits/services to which they would otherwise be entitled.
mfioretti
June 12, 2012
Having received direct confirmation (also from Horvath) that he was talking of this case:
b) the government said that Public Employees should stop immediately to receive services for themselves by the Government via paper (e.g. applying for pension or other benefits, receiving paychecks etc) and receive the same services only through digital systems
here is how I would answer IF (please note the IF!) Canada was Italy and instead of CAPE we were talking of its Italian equivalents:
########################################################################
CAPE is (http://www.acep-cape.ca/EN/whoWeAre) “the bargaining agent for the combined memberships of the former Social Science Employees Association, and the Canadian Union of Professional and Technical Employees”
Social Science, Professional and Technical Employees? Are we kidding? How could, in 2007, people with THOSE skills still dare to whine because they must use computers, fill web forms etc… instead of paper to get services? The computer skills needed to perform such activities are surely not higher than those they surely have if they have had any computer at all in the office in the last 10 years. The general population may be a different case, but I really don’t understand how people of those specific categories don’t feel embarassed to throw a tantrum because somebody tells them to use a computer at that level. Sorry CAPE folks, but if you wish to keep your name you can’t afford such complaints.
########################################################################
I am not Canadian, I’ve never been in Canada and I am well aware that there are a billion differencies between countries, at all levels, that make it hard to understand what the situation really is. As I said at the beginning, the above is what I’d answer without problems IF etc etc. that is if the same request happened in my own country. I have written that answer here to explain why I have troubles to see the CAPE story as an “excellent example etc.”
I am much interested in reading the explanation of the differences wrt this point between Canada & Italy that would make my answer above for Italy not applicable, or just plain dumb, in Canada. PS: I acknowledge the general problem in the post, but probably disagree on how to handle it in some cases.
Michael Gurstein
June 12, 2012
I don’t know the details but I believe that the overall CAPE category covers a wide range of employees so part of the issue may be that certain employees have not had the requisite training but I think the overall issue is that of being required to master a skill where the opportunities for this may be exceptionally difficult/costly and so on but where the absence of acquiring the skill would lead to quite severe negative consequences. The issue here is one of “blaming the victim” where the “victim” is the person who is being penalized for not having the requisite skill but where acquiring the skill may be out of their reach or resources for reasons over which they have no control.
Tamir Israel
June 8, 2012
And in more grim news, it looks like the universal services framework relied on by the CRTC in TD CRTC 2010-639 (the CRTC’s last framework universal service ruling) is *not* working out according to plan. Bell, apparently, is way behind in meeting its targets for rural deployment:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6526/125/
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2010/r100831.htm
mfioretti
June 23, 2012
“I think the overall issue is that of being required to master a skill where the opportunities for this may be exceptionally difficult/costly and so on”
this is exactly the point that led to my original question, and the point that I find difficult to grasp and accept. We (Hovarth, actually) are talking of USING some online system to request certificates, verify pension payments etc.
If we are talking of only USING it as end users, that is not administering the software or having some data management responsibilities, then we are talking of procedures that are NOT more intrinsically difficult than adding a comment to this blog: using web forms, clicking here and there, reading a web page…
In this case, the “person who is being penalized for not having the requisite skill” is a very precise type of person: somebody who has already worked for a while as a public employee, using a computer to do his/her job. In other words, is someone who surely has the required skills already, otherwise they couldn’t be CAPE members!
How can anyone in such a situation throw a tantrum if all that is being required is using the SAME skills they surely already have for something else? What am I missing here?
mfioretti
June 23, 2012
at risk of being verbose, let me repeat that I am not trying to troll or insult anybody here. I am just genuinely confused!
Michael Gurstein
June 23, 2012
As I said earlier, I don’t know the details of the CAPE issue but I think the argument is that certain members of CAPE for whatever reason did not have “the SAME skills they surely already have for something else” as you are suggesting (or perhaps were unreasonably expected to have certain skills that they might or might not have). These are I think, empirical questions rather than theoretical ones but it is not unreasonable to suggest that many people — including public servants — for a variety of reasons might not without additional training or assistance be able to “add… a comment to this blog: using web forms, clicking here and there, reading a web page”.
Tamir Israel
June 23, 2012
There’s also the fact that many may not have regular internet access, let’s not forget. Also, if you’re talking about pension benefits, I personally pensioners who would find navigating to this blog and then posting a comment to be a somewhat daunting task.
Lareen Newman
April 17, 2013
One has to assume that the ‘put everything online’ lobby comprises mainly people who are advantaged with good Internet access & skills, and have all the education, social connections, income and other resources to support frequent, regular, fast and successful Internet use. To such an extent that they fail to see that a considerable proportion of the population is NOT like them, and hence they make such changes that have considerable negative implications for many others.
Michael Gurstein
May 7, 2013
Indeed!