What's Next for E-government? Innovations in E-government Through a Cybersecurity Lens

• Publication year: 2021
• Citation: Vol. 96

96 Nebraska L. Rev. 364. What's Next for E-Government? Innovations in E-Government Through a Cybersecurity Lens

What's Next for E-Government? Innovations in E-Government Through a Cybersecurity Lens

Emefa Agawu(fn*)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction .......................................... 364

II. What Is E-Government? ............................... 367

III. Trends in E-Government Innovation ................... 368
A. Increasing Access to Content ...................... 368
B. Digitize Service Loop .............................. 370
C. Expand or Create New Government Functions ..... 371

IV. State and Local Governments in a Changing Threat Landscape ............................................ 373
A. CIA Framework ................................... 375
B. Applying the CIA Framework ...................... 377
1. Trend 1. Increasing Access to Information ...... 377
2. Trend 2. Digitizing Government Service Loop . . 379
3. Trend 3. Expanding or Creating Government Functions ..................................... 380

V. Innovations in E-Government: Case Studies ........... 381
A. New Jersey: Open Data Initiative .................. 381
B. Boston: Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics . . . 382 VI. Conclusion ............................................ 383

I. INTRODUCTION

Much has been made of the staggering impact of the rapidly digitizing world. Technological innovations often outpace our ability to fully understand how they affect us. However, rather than presenting entirely new paradigms, we often use some form of digital technology in pursuit of a relatively unchanged end goal. One might employ a digital platform to have food delivered or to decide what to eat, use a

1

mobile application to measure and optimize sleep habits, or rely on digital services to facilitate social interactions, but the essential end goals of eating, sleeping, and socializing are not unrecognizable from their earlier forms.

This pattern is often the case with e-government and service provision. State and local government entities generally perform their duties in resource-scarce environments-low on capital, low on personnel, and low on time. Highlighting the revenue shortages facing states, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that in 2017, "25 states are facing or have addressed revenue shortfalls" and "[m]ore states expect mid-year revenue shortfalls than in any year since 2010."(fn1) In such a context, it is unsurprising that governments, often in an ad hoc manner, rely increasingly on digital processes to assist in governing functions.(fn2) Not unlike commercial applications, government entities are often digitizing ancillary systems and procedures for efficiency or optimization, while leaving the essential governing function unchanged. For an obvious example, today one might register to vote using an online system rather than mailing or physically returning a paper form.(fn3)

Champions of technology adoption by governments for service provision point to the many benefits for constituents. It is a thin line between claims that are exaggerated and those that are merely enthusiastic. Seifert and Peterson argue that e-government has the potential to transform citizen access and participation,(fn4) whereas Norris and Reddick critically present a large, overenthusiastic literature arguing for e-government's ability to enhance access, quality, transparency, and efficiency in government.(fn5) Yet, there is evidence to support the claims of the optimists. When it comes to voter registration, a 2015 Brennan Center report found that electronic and online registration increased voter-roll accuracy, saved money, and boosted registra-

2

tion rates.(fn6) However, with online voter registration, as with other e-government innovations, while the end goal is largely the same, the security considerations are not.(fn7) Furthermore, it is not always the case that governments use technology to digitize existing services. In some instances, they create-whether intentionally or not-new governing functions.

The pace and particularities of technology in state and local government can be difficult to follow, not least because of the sheer number of units to keep up with. The 2012 census counted 89,004 local governments in the United States.(fn8) Dawes outlines the major technology, policy, and implementation developments associated with e-governance, characterizing the computing innovations within government from pre-1990 through post-2000 by tracing the evolution of desktop computing, local networks, wireless network and mobile computing, data mining, Web 2.0 tools, and more.(fn9) A number of sites, magazines, and journals chronicle technology adoption in various levels of government-Government Technology Magazine and State Tech Magazine, among others. One only has to glance at the headlines to get a sense of the enormous scope of the disparate ways in which the government uses technology for its aims, ranging from automating snow plowing to creating online town halls.

The range of accompanying risks is as broad as the types of technology being adopted. Put together, technology adoption and its associated, expanding-threat landscape can seem overwhelming. How can we understand the dizzying and diverse array of e-government innovations, and how can we make sense of the cybersecurity concerns they raise?

This Article attempts to answer those questions with two contributions. First, this Article offers a framework through which to understand distinct trends in e-government. Second, the Article applies the classic CIA information-security triad to these trends, suggesting that policy makers and future analysis would be well served in adopting a similar approach. The Article ends with consideration of two relevant

3

e-government initiatives-Open Data Initiative in New Jersey and the Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics in Boston.

II. WHAT IS E-GOVERNMENT?

There are many terms used to refer vaguely to the use of technology within government, including, but not limited to: digital government, e-democracy, e-government, and e-governance. In addition to the overlapping definitions in the academic literature, there are government actors in the field who may employ altogether different rhetoric to describe their activities. As Bannister and Connolly point out, "e-government" and "e-governance" are difficult to define, in no small part, because "government" and "governance" are difficult to define.(fn10) While some use the terms e-government and e-governance interchangeably, many authors find e-governance to be a more encompassing category than e-government.(fn11) This Article is informed by West's useful definition of e-government as "the delivery of [government] information and services online through the Internet or other digital means."(fn12) Recognizing how quickly innovations occur in this space, this definition will suffice.

There are four commonly referenced directions of activity in e-government, categorized by the constituency that interacts with the governmental body (G). They are government-to-citizen (G2C), government-to-business (G2B), government-to-government (G2G), and government-to-employee (G2E).(fn13) While the use of technology affects each of these interactions, this Article is only concerned with the first category of activity: government-to-citizen interaction.(fn14)

In considering governmental service delivery, I propose three trends that capture the current state of G2C activity: (1) increasing access to information, which is the use of digital platforms or services to facilitate citizen access to relevant content; (2) digitizing the service loop, which is the process of digitizing some element of the govern-

4

ment service while leaving the essential function unchanged; and (3) expansion or creation of new governance function, which is the use of technology to expand or create a government service that cannot readily be said to have a non-digital parallel. Part III introduces each of these trends, offering examples to show the range of activity.

III. TRENDS IN E-GOVERNMENT INNOVATION

When it comes to government service delivery, I have identified three categories of activity. While it is tempting to present these categories in terms of stages, implying maturity or path-directional movement, this is not necessarily the case, and the ad hoc nature in which decisions about integrating technology into various government functions is already upsetting and is sure to continue to upset any narrow theoretical pathways. Any one of the objectives detailed below may be desirable in its own right, and a government actor can reasonably aim to achieve one without seriously pursuing one or both of the other objectives.

A. Increasing Access to Content

Increasing access to relevant content is perhaps the most obvious and intuitive objective when considering how governments interact with citizens. This goal is associated with increasingly popular themes, such as open data. The motivations behind open-data initiatives range from transparency and accountability to equipping social scientists with richer datasets to inform their work. President Obama's 2013 Executive Order made open and machine-readable data the new default for government information,(fn15) but the federal government is neither the only nor the first government entity to embrace the concept of open data.

The Sunlight Foundation, supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies' What Works Cities project, developed opendatapolicies.org, which provides a list of open-data policies for various jurisdictions around the country. As of February 2017, the diverse list includes places like Boston, Massachusetts; Cook County, Illinois; New Jersey; and Wichita, Kansas.(fn16)

However, the access-to-content objective is broader than just...