Three privacy and online rights pieces have come up in the last couple of weeks, and I thought I’d share them all at once.
- Wired has an interesting piece on how mobile phones are wreaking havoc with the justice systems. You see, the U.S. justice system is built around the idea that a jury is impartial until they have heard evidence that has been vetted for presentation in court. So when Juror #5 decides to log into some forums to check what the random jackasses on the Internet have to say about the case he’s sitting on, there’s a little problem.
- Imagine if you were sent a captured picture or video of your child engaging in illicit activity by your school district. Imagine then that the picture was shot in your own home. How might that have happened, you ask? Well, it might happen if your school district issued your child a laptop and then used the webcam on the laptop to spy on you and your family. Surprise, surprise – there’s a class-action lawsuit.
- Because of a series of conflicting court rulings, it is unclear if speaking ill of others in online social networks is protected speech. This is vitally important question in many domains. Can a child rant against her teacher in MySpace? Can an employee complain that his boss is an a-hole on Facebook? Or more accurately, can these things be done without fear of repercussion? The disturbing answer so far? We don’t know. But so far, the courts are leaning towards defining it as free speech.
As new as the Internet is, it will be a while for case law and the Supreme Court to react to all of the new legal implications of that fact. Can you legally use social networks for hiring? Can you record your employee’s online shenanigans and use them in promotion, raise and firing decisions later? Can you offer employment training only online knowing that there are differences in Internet access across protected classes? Keep an eye here for the latest developments.
Now, only two days after I recommend holding off on adopting new technologies until a need is demonstrated, I give you a warning that might seem contradictory: don’t fear new technology.
A recent article in Slate discusses historical fear of new technology. Consider this quote:
A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both “confusing and harmful” to the mind. The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an “always on” digital environment. It’s worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers. That’s not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565.
New technology itself should not be feared; only the implications of implementing that technology blindly. There’s a big difference between 1) clinging onto your training program because it worked ten years ago and 2) choosing to stay with your training program because you conducted a needs analysis, identified no technology that would do the job any better, and decide not to change anything because it’s the right decision for your business.
So the message is really the same as last time: don’t jump in blindly, but also don’t fear the unknown. The trick is to stay familiar with new technologies such that you are aware of what they offer in case you need them while still maintaining a level head when making implementation decisions.
There’s unfortunately no magic bullet to any organizational problem, and the sooner you realize that, the better off your business will be.
A recent article in THE Journal revealed the $300 million plan to install 3D projectors in Colorado’s Boulder Valley School District. Why? Because it’s the future.
While preparedness is a noble goal, this is not a good idea. There’s no evidence that 3D projectors give students any positive learning outcomes or really even offer any benefit whatsoever to schoolchildren. Having said that, modern 3D projection systems are an incredible technology. But that’s all they are.
It brings to mind a tendency of businesses to adopt new technologies without 1) identifying a purpose for such a change and 2) gathering evidence that such a change would actually bring about the outcomes desired.
Let’s use web-based training systems as an example. Online training was adopted originally because it was new and exciting – just like the 3D projectors above. But there was no particularly compelling reason to do so. At that time, web-based instruction was more expensive to implement than traditional instruction because of the learning curve, and additionally, access was much less common than it is now, limiting its reach. What was the point? There really wasn’t one.
Fast forward to today – web-based training is still being implemented, and if anything, it’s as effective as traditional instruction. High quality instructional design still takes the front seat in terms of the magnitude of the effect. A poorly designed web-based instructional program will most likely encourage less student learning than a well-designed lecture.
But how many job listings do you see for “corporate trainer” without keywords “web,” “Internet,” or “online?” Virtually none.
Let this 3D projector fiasco be a reminder to us all – hype about “the future” is no reason to invest your limited funds into any organizational program. Develop a clear picture of what your organization needs, and only then find a technology that meets your needs. To do so in reverse is just plain silly.