Klossner: Is "smart mob" an oxymoron?

" I believe that there is a historic opportunity to enhance public participation, but if we lose the public audience by deploying applications that do not achieve results and that recreate smart mob behavior, simply on the Web, then the public trust will be lost and we will be back at a new starting point. The public cynicism will be reinforced, not lessened."
- Kim Patrick Kobza, president and CEO of Neighborhood America

"That's the wonderful thing about e-mail; you can write without thinking."
- Stuart McLean, host of the Vinyl Cafe

Since I last checked in on the Open Government Dialogue, the Web site has been hijacked by some single-issue groups — in particular a group that, inspired by radio talk show hosts, are claiming that President Obama is not a legitimate U.S. citizen and are clamoring for him to produce a birth certificate proving that he is. I went back to view some of their missives. I can accurately describe my jaw as being on the ground. I guess one of the byproducts of a bad economy is that folks have more time to write Web site entries and comments.

This leaves me in a professional quandary. The sheer volume of entries and comments shows that there is a large contingent (or a small, very active contingent) of birth certificate theorists. If I were to engage these viewers — by, say, making a negative reference to their genetics and / or intelligence — it would bring more viewers to FCW.com, making it more valuable to advertisers. This would make me more valuable to FCW. So you can understand the urge to insult the birth-certificate crowd and create a downward spiral of communication.

But I hold out hope that there is a better way. I can appeal to the greater humanity of these contributors and find the good in their efforts. I can, for example:

* Look for the positive. There were very few spelling mistakes in the birthers' entries.

* Find the common ground. President Obama and the birthers both share an interest in constitutional law.

* Offer them choices. Would the birthers like to obsess over a made up problem like the birth certificate or contribute to a real problem like how to have civil discourse on Web sites?

* Find more positives. It's impressive how the Open Government Dialogue site designers made it so easily accessible.

* Mirror their behavior. What are the birthers trying to hide?

* Try the therapy angle. How does parroting radio talk show hosts' words make you feel?

* Find more positives. It's not easy to get so many people to write the exact same message. This shows excellent organizational skills.

* Look for commercial opportunities. If we charged these groups per entry, we could make a dent in the federal deficit.

* Look at the big picture. It's heartwarming that so many citizens have banded together to urge the president to be better organized with his personal records.

And by the way, I've been having trouble locating my birth certificate lately, if anyone wants to start a request to see it.

Posted on Jul 08, 2009 at 3:12 PM5 comments

Klossner: Those guys are wearing underwear on the outside ...

While doing research for a cartoon and blog entry on open source software, I made a couple discoveries:

* Current discussions on Web 2.0 systems -- specifically social networks and cloud computing -- focus on the security questions that arise with new technologies. Many of these comments border on paranoia: After reading the comments sections of several articles, in fact, I worry that by posting this blog entry my bank account will be emptied tomorrow.

* As I read archived open source articles, I found that current fears over Web 2.0 technology echoed the fears expressed earlier about open source. Specifically, the security questions. But, as I read more recent entries on open source software, the worries subsided, and now there are numerous successful cases of agencies using open source software.

I call this the superhero phenomenon. Let's face it, the first time a guy showed up wearing long underwear with briefs on the outside (not to mention a cape and mask), folks weren't too ready to accept this as "help." People probably grumbled about how somebody that dressed this way couldn't possibly be secure, that a cape would be of no use in cold weather, and that those booties didn't look very safe (what if the car he was lifting dropped on his foot?).

But after watching this underwear-clad person lift a car, prevent a building from collapsing or win a reality show, people started to trust the underwear-on-the-outside guy. A couple influential voices might have even had their businesses saved by the superhero, allowing them to spread the word and winning the public over to the masked guy's side.

_______

Entries / questions from comments sections when the first superhero appeared

* A recent battle between a superhero and a mutant space alien caused tremendous damage to the downtown infrastructure, resulting in increased taxes. Should we expect this from all future "rescues?"

* The entry into our community of superheroes will attract evil geniuses intent on battling these caped freaks. Are we prepared to suffer the threat this presents to our security?

* If this person uses x-ray vision, won't that contribute to climate change?

* Our local superhero hasn't provided us with a birth certificate. Should we allow him to save us from the mad scientist who lives on the next street?

* How soon until these "heroes" will start presenting us with invoices for services rendered? Or go to the other side for a better offer?

_______

I'm not saying open source is a superhero; it's more like a team (the Fantastic Four, say). I'm just pointing out that open-source software is going through the same process in gaining public acceptance as superheroes did (and Web 2.0 technologies probably will). But this takes time, allowing for maturity of the technologies and public acclimation.

I imagine that social networks and cloud computing -- not to mention whatever technology is released next week that will make communications easier but have security concerns at the start -- will, by a combination of users becoming more comfortable with them and the providers fixing any glitches, be acceptable in the next few years. In the meantime, we need a superhero who can defend us from the comments sections.

Posted on Jun 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM0 comments

Klossner: 18 wonderfully goofy ideas from the Open Government Dialogue

I recently spent a couple afternoons reading through the many submissions received during the brainstorming phase of the Open Government Dialogue. This was before the site was commandeered by some single-issue Web crawlers who eventually flooded the site with their, well ... single issue. (For a more extensive description, go here).

But in the good old, innocent days, the Open Government Dialogue site provided a wide variety of suggestions for improving our government. Here are some that caught my eye (Note: I apologize for missing any newer entries. This being the Internet, things change quickly, and my recording of one moment on a Web site will almost certainly eliminate later worthy candidates):

TELL THE TRUTH — That's it. tell the truth. But I think we should send this person a copy of the movie Rashomon first.

RELEASE EXTRATERRESTRIALS DATA — Disclose all secret information on extraterrestrials, including their birth certificates.

ANGER — A call for the administration to resign. I didn't look closely — was this submitted by Rush or Glen?

MAKING SUBMISSIONS SIMPLE — Submit ideas in 500 words or less. Or, as it will be called, "the Twitter Grande rule."

SOCIAL MEDIA MADE EXCLUSIVE — Government use of social media should focus more on small groups of smart people arguing with each other. I believe this idea has already been implemented. They call it the Kennedy School.

BAR CODE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT STOCK — Bar code (and inventory) every object owned by the federal government. The bar code can be smartly fitted into Henry Waxman's mustache.

SIMULATED GOVERNMENT TRAINING — Create a government simulator for legislators. Or make all their Sim City scores public.

IT'S ALL ABOUT ME — This person would like to know what the government knows about him or her. Based on a reading of this proposal, I know that this person failed high school English.

TEACH MARRIAGE COUNSELING SKILLS TO GOVERNMENT — This person, a marriage councilor, would like people to speak in non-absolutist terms. But what if one political party wants to see a Merchant Ivory film and the other wants to see a Judd Apatow flick?

CREATE A GOVERNMENT CABLE CHANNEL — Create a government cable channel devoted to delivering news and information about the government. I believe this idea has already been implemented. They call it the Kennedy School.

GETTING CREDIT FOR IDEAS — People who provide good ideas get recognition. I found this one a little self-referential. If you provided the good idea of giving recognition to the other good ideas, should you get bigger recognition?

ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT INTRANET — Create a Government-wide Intranet. The proposal states that this Intranet will "facilitate vital information sharing and collaboration across the entire U.S. federal government." But federal employees will still have to use the regular Internet to access YouTube.

LEGALIZING POT / BACKING OFF OF THE DRUG WAR — Calls for legalizing or re-classifying marijuana and cannabis. Before the Obama birth certificate issue came up, this may have been the most popular proposal. Maybe these folks and the birthers should get together and form a marketing firm.

ELIMINATE ELECTORAL COLLEGE — No unintended humor here, but I found the debate in the comments section to be rational, respectful and informative. Unfortunately, like the Electoral College, I worry that these qualities might also be arcane.

REDUCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — Wait: By reducing the effectiveness of the federal government, we'd be increasing the effectiveness of the federal government? But then we wouldn't be reducing the effectiveness of the federal government ... wait ...

And my top 3:

No. 1: CUT DOWN ON NUMBER OF PENS USED IN BILL SIGNINGS — I need a little more information here: Should we have two presidential pens? Should there be a decoy pen in case of theft? Should there be a specific Secret Service position for carrying refills?

No. 2: WINDMILL IN IOWA — Build a giant windmill in Iowa, for tourism and alternative energy purposes. Not a bad idea, but then they'd have to build something for each state, and I worry that the giant clown in New York State would scare my children.

No. 1: FREE PIZZA ON FRIDAYS — I'm kind of surprised that this didn't get a more positive response, scoring a miserable -42. Who could possibly be against free pizza?

Posted on Jun 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM0 comments

Government contractors vs. federal employees: How to tell the difference

I am new to the grudge match between federal employees and federal contractors. Like lions and hyenas, Yankees fans and Red Sox fans, the French and everybody, there seems to be a natural conflict here. While reading the comments section of a recent FCW Insider piece on this issue, I wondered if there was some sort of list or primer to help us identify the combatants -- er, co-workers.

CIVIL SERVANTS...	CONTRACTORS...
will let you know within 5 years that they are a federal employee	will let you know within 5 minutes that they are contractors
can lose job by filling out necessary paperwork and waiting for response	can lose job by not meeting contracted goals
think G-14 is something to aspire to	think G-14 is a bingo space
can tell you where the bathrooms are	can tell you how much better bathrooms are in private sector
have change of shirt	have change for a twenty
have maps for public transportation	have own parking spaces
make better cookies	buy better cookies
spend free time reading disparaging entries about fed employees on Web site comments sections	spend free time writing disparaging entries about fed employees on Web site comments sections
enjoy the four seasons	have eaten at the Four Seasons
share a desk with a fellow fed employee	share elevators with fed employees, but won't readily admit it
counting the days until they "have more time to travel"	counting the days until they "go back to the real world"

 

Posted on Jun 10, 2009 at 5:43 PM1 comments

Klossner: Virtual training

It was within moments of submitting my recent blog entry on social networks that I felt like something was wrong. Oh, I can always get a joke or two out of the Luddite angle -- "nothing's been the same since I changed from my tin can and string" -- but it's getting old. There have always been changes in technology, and there always will be. Networking is networking, whether it is gathering around the fire in front of the cave or tweeting to your 90 "friends."

I want to be a Luddite. I want to complain about new technologies and wax nostalgic about the way things were when I was a kid and we had Tang, and Twinkies and how these new technologies are all just hopped-up games. Of course, Luddite-ism is relative. I'm sure that at some point in history people were whining about the development of shoes, umbrellas and sliced bread (but the whining would have been legitimate only if the subject were using sliced bread for shoes).

Why is it so attractive to me to be a Luddite? I think I've figured it out: Technology has created an environment that limits possibilities for visual humor. To put it more plainly, it's hard to draw good cartoons with computers in them. By good cartoons, I want to say that I enjoy -- and aim for, with mixed results -- a combination of visual and verbal in cartoons. I like a funny drawing, accompanied by a funny caption, and vice versa.

Current technology makes it harder to create this combination, leaving us with cartoons that rely more on the caption to provide the humor. You can draw a couple people standing around a ... computer monitor. Or you can draw someone holding a ... cell phone. Or you can draw someone staring at ... their laptop. I want to draw an Alpine goat herder with one of those giant horns, poised over a mountain precipice, complaining that the network seems slow today, but it ends up looking like anyone else standing outside with their cell phone. It's just not the same.

(I also wonder if the urge to gripe about new technologies is a byproduct of aging. If so, are there any minor Luddites? Nine year-olds who wish the world was the way they remember it -- before they started mixing the peanut butter and jelly together in the same jar? I imagine a lot of technology is being met with resistance because it first gains a following with younger users. And does this trickle down? Do 12-year-olds get disgusted with 7-year-olds? I have a control group composed of these ages in my house. I would say "yes," but not for technology-based reasons as much as "don't come in my room!" reasons. Therefore, I can make the logical progression that all complaints about new technology are based on not wanting the new users of these technologies to enter our rooms and touch our things.)

If anything, I should celebrate and encourage the fast growth of technologies. People's tendency to jump to the newest technology, coupled with spammers' and hackers' desires to follow the crowds, means that those of us who linger over our older technologies will benefit from the smaller numbers of users and abusers involved in them. (I find this philosophy also works well in movie rentals.)

Fortunately for those of us in the humor business, there is still plenty of human involvement in all things technology. Virtual training, a subject currently on many minds and blogs, is such an issue. The use of many social media are unpredictable -- they have no established rules, users are making up the standards as they go, and the applications that best serve government and business are still unclear. Throw in IT's and management's need to control technologies and communications in their sphere and -- bingo -- plenty of irony for all.

It seems that many sites that are used for virtual training are also blocked by agency security settings. You can't imagine what a relief this is for me. All this time I had been considering Luddite-ism to be a line in the sand -- a black and white issue. But seeing that even those in the IT business can't decide what technologies are appropriate or not helps me realize that there are plenty of gray areas, and that I'm not alone.

And there will be plenty of cartoon possibilities in the future.

Posted on Jun 01, 2009 at 1:09 PM0 comments

Klossner: An experiment in Social Studies

Posted on May 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM0 comments

Making Stuff Up

Some of the most innovative work I have done is in describing what I do.

As a professional cartoonist, I suppose I could be considered to have some insight into innovation and creativity. (My family, after experiencing yet another combination of pasta and chicken when I'm in charge of dinner, might disagree.) I spend my waking hours trying (that's a key word) to think of ways to tell a joke or illustrate a humorous point uniquely, with varying results. Some would argue that I have found a veneer of an excuse for sitting in a coffee shop and staring into space all day, but I've found people to pay me to do this, so the ruse works for now. (Or, as I like to point out when asked if I make a living cartooning, it depends on your definition of living.)

(Before I start, I would like to take a tangent about the "cloud computing" metaphor, since the cloud is one of the technology innovations du jour. A cloud is not something I would ever think about storing anything in. Clouds have no foundations. They are moist. Every time I have ever been "in" a cloud, I could not see anything. Why would I store something in a place that is wet and has no floor? This reminds me of my problems with the Peter Pan (http://www.peterpanbus.com) bus company name - do you want to use a transportation company that is named after the eternal boy, who kidnaps children and takes them to "Never Never Land?" I didn't think so.)

• There is a basketball term, in reference to coaching, called "rolling out the balls." It is usually used in a pejorative sense to mean a coach or manager who isn't teaching and is merely letting his or her players play all day. I have always thought this could be seen as a creative process also - many discoveries come in unregulated environs, and it's up to management to recognize what is and what isn't useful to their needs. How do you "roll out the balls" in an agency setting? Have an office "recess" each day from 2-4 PM? "Play" procurement? The problem with "rolling out the balls" is that you may have to suffer through days of sloppy play and multiple failures to discover one thing that works. Most managers don't have the time or the budget to sit through this, leaving employees to be innovative on their own.
• People who really think outside the box don't say "think outside the box."
• I have rarely been innovative on deadline. I have been safe.
• There is a huge difference between being creative and looking creative. Some of the most creative people I know dress like pharmacists.
• There are more creative pharmacists than you think.
• Don't confuse a good idea with a well-presented idea. I remember, in college art classes, resenting a particular person who didn't come up with strong concepts but spoke well when presenting them and, therefore, did well in the class. This rankled those of us who did our speaking through our drawings and had no language left for the presentation. Heck, if we wanted to be public speakers we would have majored in it. Since then I have learned why, as a general rule, PR people make more money than cartoonists.
• On a related note, just because someone isn't using the same language as you doesn't mean they're not creative. Unless it's pig latin.
• Some of the most innovative acts occur on behalf of procrastinating.
• Personalized license plates make me think that there are hordes of creative folks roaming the streets, yearning to break free.
• I have often found creative ideas by paying attention to something that I dislike, and trying to learn about it. This hasn't always been easy, as in the cases of Vin Diesel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004874/) movies and John Tesh's unique mash-up of almost every musical and dance genre known to western culture. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9so2wcOiv40)
• There's a difference between being creative and being creative for a living. Again, this depends on your definition of living.

Posted on May 04, 2009 at 12:02 PM0 comments

Klossner: On your mark, get set, stimulate!

I once knew a British man who worked in security for royal families and VIPs when they visited the British Isles. He told me of a client who gave him a large denomination pound note to use in a McDonalds in Ireland. When the cashier — and eventually the manager — told him they didn't have enough money in the till to make change, he went back to the limo and told his client, who instructed him to tell them they could keep the change, which might have been more than the manager's weekly salary.

This led me to thinking about the stimulus packages. Specifically, how federal agencies prepare for dealing with their individual stimulus requirements.

My new favorite reality show is now in full swing. Agencies are being given piles of stimulus funding and being instructed to spend it by September, without having the infrastructure or past experience to deal with it. For many — all? — this is the first time they have ever experienced anything like this. In fact, for many of us, this is a new situation. I can't recall the last time I had more money than I was prepared to spend, other than the time I got sick on the extra large container of malted milk balls I had purchased.

I imagine any agency is prepared for an influx of funding, even if it's in their fantasies, and I also imagine each agency is prepared to make quick procurement decisions — having a to-do list — but on a much smaller scale. How do agencies practice for the perfect storm of large funding with a spending deadline? Do they have all employees undergo "spend more money than you've ever had before as fast as you can" training?
 
Haven't we all worked at one time for a company or government agency where we were told we had to "use up our budget, or else we won't get the same amount budgeted for next year?" (You haven't? Then I have a couple extra job experiences to average out for yours.) Can you imagine this thinking applied to this situation? Is it even possible that some company or agency will return stimulus funding? I'd pay attention to see if any agency personnel suddenly are outfitted with new iPhones.

But, getting back to my original thought (there was one, I'm pretty sure), how do you train for a project or situation that has had no precedent in your agency? Do you give random employees $5,000 for lunch, with the stipulation that they don't bring back change? Do you go to Wal-Mart with a stopwatch?

And then there are the mistakes. Mistakes are going to be made. But in this climate, with the intense scrutiny every expenditure is undergoing, people are afraid of making mistakes or — worse  — being caught making mistakes. This may be the biggest potential hazard — fear of bad publicity may create cautious, non-innovative moves. If you're given $5,000 for lunch, don't bring back 2000 Happy Meals. (Or, 909 if you get the six piece chicken and upgrade the drink to a shake).

On the bright side, I don't think any federal agency management has to worry about dealing with the public stigma of receiving large bonuses.

Posted on Apr 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM0 comments

Klossner: The next 20 years of IT? How predictable

 

I was looking at the future of technology hardware while thinking about the Fed 100 awards. One thing noted in this year's 20th anniversary of the awards was the growth/change in projects over 20 years. For example, in 1991, a project was awarded for running an electronic bulletin board on air quality information using a 386 PC with 700M of data. This year, someone won a Fed 100 award for making hurricane and weather data available in Second Life.

Could anyone have imagined, 20 years ago, that in the future you would be able to go to another "world" and get the weather?

(As an aside, does this mean weather data for the real world? Or weather data in this virtual world? I wonder if anyone dressed for the wrong world. And if, as I imagine, it is for the real world, does that mean viewers go to a virtual world to get information on the real world? Oh, my head hurts. I'm going to go curl up with my rotary phone.)

When I was a kid, it it seemed like we were focused on the future. The first moon landing had just taken place, "The Jetsons" was a popular TV show, and imagery and fantasies about the future seemed to be everywhere.  What would it be like? Where and how would we live? For some reason, a picture of the Osmond family gathered around a large television viewing screen drinking Tang sticks in my head, and that particular image of the future seems as outdated as the actual world of that time does to us now.

With such a large change in projects over the 20 years -- in sophistication of systems, amount of data used, the devices we access the information from -- it would be almost foolish to predict what kinds of projects get awarded 20 years from now. And it would almost certainly seem that when that time rolled around the predictions would look as outdated as my Tang-drinking-family-gathered-around-the-giant-TV memories.

With that in mind, here's a stab at highlights from the next 20 years.

• * 2011: All federal employees are required to participate in a social network. The most popular social network now consists of federal employees complaining about being required to participate in a social network.
• * 2013: The Office of Luddite Affairs is established as a federal agency. Formerly known as the Labor Department (just kidding, guys).
• * 2014: Thriving underground market causes agencies to allow employees to create virtual management legally.
• * 2015: Second Life avatars have better health insurance coverage, with dental, than real-life counterparts.
• * 2017: Software is developed allowing personnel to hold two or more full-time positions at one time.  Software is also developed allowing agencies to identify and pay multiple position personnel one salary.
• *2020: All virtual employees receive pay upgrades. They will be paid in currency with image of current technology czar Larry Ellison on it.
• * 2022: Entire agency can be recreated on a chip, which will be required to be implanted in employees. Legislation is passed requiring employees to pay for agency chips implanted in bodies.
• * 2025: The virtual DOD Christmas party is better than the actual DOD Christmas party.
• * 2027: Chips implanted in bodies of employees now let them know what the special of the day is in agency cafeterias.
• * 2029: Web 35.0 technologies now gain favor in federal circles. All employees at G-9 and above are allowed to disapparate. They refer to Web 34.0 technologies as "so old school."

Since predicting the future is a no-lose situation, please feel free to submit a few of your own.

Posted on Apr 06, 2009 at 2:50 PM0 comments

Must-stimulate TV

I have to admit to a little disappointment in this administration's efforts to provide transparency in the stimulus spending. This is a group of folks who have shown themselves -- through the long campaign and in the short time they have been in charge -- to be tech-savvy, innovative and in touch with the culture of communications. Their plan to publicize the stimulus plans through their website, Recovery.gov, is nice but falls far short of what we've come to expect from people fully aware of the capabilities of a Web 2.0 world.

Especially when the situation so clearly cries out for a reality television show.

Think about how many problems this could solve. Besides making the stimulus data accessible to more non-technology-abled citizens, it would bring families and communities together as they congregate around the newest must-see TV to watch where their tax dollars are going. It could help shore up whatever network it appears on, giving a much-needed boost to the dying television industry (one would probably assume that this show would be on PBS, but I propose that it rotates, with whatever network has the lowest ratings each rating period gets this show for the next one).

In addition to making the stimulus data accessible to more people, this show would generate rooting interests in the spending itself. It could provide an education opportunity, as children would join their families to watch, and indirectly learn about the economy.

Here are some of the specifics I've come up with for my pitch so far:

Working Title: Follow the Money
(Other possible titles: Nickel and Dimed, Trickle Down with The Donald, Brother Can You Spare a Trillion?)

Host: This is my biggest challenge. I'd like someone with entertainment value who has a "widely diverse" history with personal finances. Donald Trump comes to mind, but he is already overexposed, and it might make take away from the show's potential seriousness (although it would make for a great running gag of him trying to take some stimulus money for himself every week, and getting caught in a variety of embarrassing situations). Mickey Rourke might be a good fit, as he is the current celebrity face of recovery and comeback, but that would run up production expenses by having to hire extra editors. The show might be better served by having a hosting team comprised of an economic expert and an unemployed non-celebrity who, based on his financial experiences, can connect with the viewers. (Added bonus: The non-celeb will now have a job.)

We could also have a lead-in reality show featuring discredited financial executives, whose companies have gone under, trying out for the hosting position on our show. A simple "start with 13, whittle down to one or two" format -- another possible network boost. (Note to self: develop pitch for another new show which will follow the prison careers of the losers on this show.)

(Note to self: If Bernard Madoff says yes, forget other host possibilities.)

Sponsorship: This show should not overlook the revenue possibilities of advertising. I propose a mixture of local and national advertising, but no ads from AIG.

(Note: could we use station breaks for economic educational tidbits? Vocabulary, trivia, music videos? Think "Schoolhouse Rock" for adults. Just an idea.)

Setting: The show is set in one of two locations -- Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon. This allows us to have a shot of a container of money being thrown over the precipice when we cut to another scene. (Note: make sure the bills are loose, so the image includes a cloud of bills flying in the air as the container goes out of sight.)

There will also be a prominently featured monitor, with a graphic depicting how the various markets are reacting to the spending proposed on the show. With lots of sound effects.

Contestants: A fed agency rep, a Fortune 500 executive, a bank official, a local official, and an unemployed school teacher.

Premise: Each contestant starts with 50 million dollars. With this as a budget, they create a proposal for how they would use the money. They produce a video of the project, which gets aired on the show. (The administration can archive these on recovery.gov, since they paid for the URL.) After viewing the videos, the studio and viewing audience get to vote (background music: "We're in the Money") on which contestant's project / proposal is the best. Contestant getting the fewest votes is eliminated, and receives one million dollars in pennies as a parting gift. (Note to self: develop pitch for new show which will follow the prison careers of these people.) The remaining contestants move on to the second round, where they get a 100 million dollar budget. This continues (with the budget doubling in each successive round) until there is one remaining contestant, who enters the final segment, called the "Checkout Line," which is comprised of having to spend one billion dollars in 3 minutes.

(Note: Between rounds, feature biographies of each contestant are aired. These will include a look at the best and worst financial decision they've made in their lives.)

The "Checkout Line" has extra excitement. The home and studio audiences have instant feedback capabilities, allowing them to shoot down any proposals they don't like in this round. They have also been notified that they will get to split amongst themselves any money that is not spent in this round, ensuring that the final contestant will try to spend as quickly as possible, before the audience can stop them.

The winner gets to spend what money they have left and return on the following season's show, if they are not incarcerated in the meantime.

(Note: if successful, I can envision this format being used at local levels, featuring state officials, local officials, etc.)

As you can see, this idea is still in its incubation phase. I appreciate any comments or suggestions that will assist in its development.

Posted on Mar 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM2 comments

John Klossner: Everybody's doing it

Earlier this month the Federal Aviation Administration became the latest in a long line of agencies and companies that have had data hacked into and/or stolen. It announced that "the personally identifiable information of more than 45,000 employees and retirees was stolen electronically.(As an aside, the FCW headline said that a "massive" data breach had occurred. It makes me wonder what the journalistic levels are for this terminology. At what number does it become a "massive" breach? I suggest the following terminology levels:

• 1- 99 "Human error."
• 100 - 751 "Trend-setting."
• 752 - 5,499 "Noticeable."
• 5,500 - 10,000 "Knocking on problem's door."
• 10,001 - 24,999 "someone's bound to hear about this."
• 25,000 - 39,999 "Typical."
• 40,000 - 74,999 "Massive."
• 75,000 - 125,000 "There's no such thing as bad publicity, right?"
• 125,001 - 250,000 "I'll call the press just as soon as I update my Monster.com profile."
• 250,001 - 750,000 "I'm not telling. You tell."
• 750,001 - 999,999 "Thank goodness we have a form letter for this."
• 1,000,000 - 10,000,000 "What's the record?"
• 10,000,001 - 50,000,000 "Can we get a book deal?"
• More than 50,000,000 "Do you think California will be mad?"

I was all prepared to write a sarcastic piece on this breach. I was ready to put on my school teacher's hat and play another version of the "Why aren't these people practicing commonly acknowledged security measures?" lecture. I had prepared a concept to make anyone losing data look foolish. I had lined up quotes taken out of context. I was poised to shoot fish in a barrel.

This snark tour de force was written and ready to ship earlier this week. I like to wait one more day before sending it out, in order to give myself 24 hours to look at it again and clean up the numerous mistakes in logic and spelling I normally accumulate in a short space, or come to my senses. In the meantime, I did some reading.

I draw cartoons for a couple of technology publications. In order to educate myself on possible cartoon subjects, I spend several hours reading whatever I can find on the topics. This week, while reading the various tech journalism outlets and waiting to send out the blog entry, a couple items caught my eye.

• Federal Computer Week ran a follow-up on the FAA data breach situation.
• In the course of checking out my usual outlets, I found stories covering at least a half dozen breaches -- in both the federal and private sectors -- this week alone, with remnants and follow-ups on three or four other breaches. In short, data breaches aren't the isolated incidents they used to be. In addition, to ridicule them -- as entertaining as that can be -- is simplistic and doesn't nearly acknowledge the depth of the problem, or the efforts of those addressing it. (As a working cartoonist, I will deny ever having made that statement. The editors added it. And this.)

In particular, the FCW article fleshed out the issue with points that can be applied to all data breaches. In particular, this line: "A new report from the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) adds even more fuel to the fire. The report listed 18,050 cybersecurity incidents in agencies in fiscal 2008, compared to 5,144 in fiscal 2006."

The piece goes on to point out that the increase in reported attacks has a couple of angles to it. Is there really an increase? Or better discovery and reporting by those attacked? There may have been 18,000 attacks -- according to my chart, this would be headlined as a "someone's bound to hear about this" number -- in 2006, but the available security detection technology, combined with the fear of bad publicity, allowed only 5,000 ("noticeable") to be reported. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but I don't think anyone would argue that there aren't many more data attacks occurring today. Everybody is vulnerable, despite their best security efforts. Heck, the FAA's systems' security is so highly regarded that OMB chose it to be one of four agencies to help other agencies with their cybersecurity efforts. And they just had 45,000 names hit. (In a future snark piece, I will work up the recognition one receives based on the size of the security breach. e.g., 40,000 - 49,999, you get to advise other agencies, 50,000 - 74,999, you get named the cybersecurity czar, etc.)

The bottom line is that every computer system is under attack, and even vulnerable, despite the best security measures. Based on my own highly unscientific and even more highly anecdotal count, the vast majority of us have experienced a data theft in one way or another.

There are some legitimate complaints, however. The FAA, other than notifying authorities, was mum, waiting a week to notify those affected. As someone who has experienced several data breaches I can empathize with employees who receive little to no information and await communication from those supposedly charged with protecting that information. At the least, please realize I'm going to have to spend my time replacing information, so acknowledge that; don't add to my work by making me have to chase you down for the smallest tidbit of information. If I can go back to my snarky opus, why is everything about a data breach high tech, 24/7, etc., and the organization responds with...a good old-fashioned letter? What, the Pony Express wasn't available? The FAA also used Social Security numbers as identification. If we're going to acknowledge that data attacks are ever present, it's probably not a good idea to leave skeleton keys laying about.

I'm also a little uncomfortable with one point of the FAA's defense. It was mentioned in the follow-up reports:

"The IT and security shop did it right," he said. "They couldn't stop all attacks, but they, unlike most agencies, actually found the problem. The user groups, on the other hand, had some files with personally identifiable information left in a vulnerable location.

In other words, it's the users who have a problem, not us.

You're only as strong as your weakest link, guys, and something tells me that, as a fed agency, you're going to have a wide variety of user groups with a wide variety of systems and security practices. It's going to be a long road getting everyone on the same security page, so please don't start by throwing bombs at the folks whose data you're storing. We're all on the same team here.

But this is going to be really hard for us snarkers.

Posted on Mar 03, 2009 at 9:18 AM0 comments

John Klossner: Is anybody there?

In the past few weeks I have encountered a variety of technology-related problems. At the risk of boring you, it goes like this:

The battery on my laptop started acting strange. The machine would turn off even though the battery claimed to be 50-65 percent full. It is a little over two-year-old battery, with much fewer cycles than the claimed lifetime of the battery. I found a chat room on the Apple site (LINK BELOW) (I'm a Mac user) that fully recognized and described the same troubles I was experiencing. The discussion also claimed that in some cases Apple would replace the faulty battery for free. When I took the laptop into my local Mac dealer, a place where I have done frequent business, the clerk and store manager wouldn't even listen to my story -- once they heard my described symptoms, they immediately declared that I needed a new battery. When I told them about the discussion online, they acted as if they hadn't heard me, and repeated that I needed a new battery. I went home and called Apple support, which did know of the problem I described. They looked up the serial number of my machine and battery, and then told me that my battery was not among those listed that would have been replaced. I bought a new battery.

I received a new cell phone for Christmas. The volume switch on my new phone did not work, so I returned to the point of purchase. They told me that they had no replacement models in the store but that it would be no problem - they would order another phone. When I did not hear from them for a week, I stopped in the store again. The manager (who stayed in his office, relaying these messages through the clerk at the counter) told me that this model had been discontinued, (Maybe the entire line had faulty volume switches?) and that my choices were to upgrade or let them call other stores seeing if they could find some back stock of these phones. This phone was a fairly recent model, and I liked it, so I asked them to look around for other phones. When I did not hear from them for another week, I stopped by the store again. This time the manager came out of his office to tell me "Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to make that call. I dropped the ball." (While refreshing in its honesty, this is not something you want to hear from someone you're doing business with.) Not being savvy on how to get out of wireless contracts, being able to use my volume-limited phone in the meantime, and having this store en route of my daily errands, I chose to give him another chance. When I made my stop the next week (funny, for a phone store they don't seem to make many calls) the manager told me that he could find no phones. Being a borderline Luddite and not wanting to a) spend on another model or b) have to spend too much time learning another phone (as an aside, I have avoided the cell phone lifestyle up until this phone. It's another story.) I asked him what he suggested. He then told me of an option where I contact AT&T (the provider) and they can do something called a "warranty swap." This involves them sending me a refurbished phone in the same model, and I send them my faulty phone. The only risk here, kind of like buying a used car, is not knowing what the refurbished phone's history was. I took the chance, thinking that a) the refurbished phone may have had a tiny problem, like a non-working volume switch, and b) this new phone had certainly received a lot of attention. I promise to declare in a future blog entry if I made a terrible mistake. As of now I am awaiting delivery of the new phone, after which I will take it to the store to have the transfers of my data completed. (NOTE: Since starting this blog entry, I have received the replacement phone. The camera didn't work. Oops. I contacted AT&T and they were very nice and put another replacement phone in the mail. I am wondering whether I have gone through enough to be able to legally say I am now in a Kafkaesque technology experience.) (ADDITIONAL NOTE: I have received the second replacement phone. It is in perfect working order.)

On Super Bowl Sunday, I noticed that I hadn't received any e-mail. At the time I was glad to take a day away from e-mail and I figured, it being Super Bowl Sunday, that maybe the world had gone offline for a day, something I aspire to and occasionally pull off. When I went online Monday morning, I still had no e-mail. For me to have no e-mail two days in a row would require an event larger than even the Super Bowl. It would mean either the end of civilization (and spamming) as we know it, or that something was wrong with my computer. Since having former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor on "Dancing With the Stars" (LINK BELOW) is probably the end of civilization as we know it, I thought I'd check the second option, just to eliminate all possibilities. I went to my ISP's site, where I can check my e-mail when I have problems. (I was able to get online; I was just not receiving mail.) From the ISP site I was reminded that my former telecommunications provider, Verizon, had in the past year sold its Northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont) accounts to Fairpoint Communications. Fairpoint has been our local telephone provider for several months now, and they had chosen Feb. 1 to move all the data from the Verizon systems they had been using to their own systems. On my end, this meant I had to enter new settings to my computers' mail accounts. In their defense, Fairpoint had sent out a mailer describing this transfer, including the necessary settings, in December. Being a 21st century English-speaking American male who believes that all information is at our fingertips all the time, I noted on the mailer that this wasn't happening for a couple months, and I would be able to look up the settings at that time. I then "lost" (either threw out or put in one of the many piles of paper in my non-paperless office) the mailer.

Verizon had a link to the Fairpoint site. The link was dead. When I went to the Fairpoint site independently, I found no working links to webmail or the information I was looking for. There was a page of phone numbers, however. I called the customer support number. It was busy. I figured okay, they probably have a few people with problems, I'll try again. (Over the next 48 hours, I tried that number no fewer than 25 times. It was always busy. Isn't it required by law that any telecommunications provider have a maze of automated options before telling you that an operator will be with you in 25 minutes?) After some frustration had built - I knew what I needed, I just couldn't find it - I started calling other numbers on Fairpoint's page. One operator told me she was sorry - the phones had been ringing off the hook and even she couldn't get ahold of anyone in technical support. A later operator was much snippier and told me that they "are going through a major transfer. I'll just have to be patient." Well, that helps. I'm sure they won't have difficulties billing me for these days. One person (it was in sales, I believe) offered another URL for me to look into.  (She told me a caller had informed her of this page.) This URL wasn't linked from the main page, but it did offer a live chat link. I entered it and -- voila!, -- I was told that I was in a queue, and would be talking with someone in five minutes. After the four and a half minute wait, I was told that I was next. I was then told that the live chat was not operating that day. (See? That's how telecommunications works!)

I then called my state's Public Utilities Commission. I spoke with a person with excellent listening skills who told me that she would call her contact at Fairpoint and get back to me. She called an hour later to give me a phone number and URL. These were the customer support number and the live chat URL. Later that day, Fairpoint had put up a page with the necessary mail account server settings -- the info I had been looking for all along -- and I was able to set up and receive my e-mail. (I just looked up the Fairpoint site again and noticed they had put a link to these settings on their home page. Wouldn't that have been one of the first things you should've done, when scheduling a systems transfer six months down the road?)

I share this technology trifecta not to relive the stress, nor to offer an insight into my mishandling (and I'm sure there's much) of these situations. The time spent listening to busy signals and waiting for web pages to load allowed me to reflect on the thread in each of these situations - lack of communications. While I can point to problems in each company's handling of these situations, better communications - and, specifically, better listening -  on their parts would have alleviated much of the trouble. I didn't feel heard by any of the parties involved. The local Mac store could have listened to the research I had done, and discovered for themselves that Apple had, in fact, declared some batteries faulty and replaced them. When the Apple technician acknowledged this, even though my battery didn't qualify, I felt satisfied in the resolution. The AT&T store would not have told me anything had I not stopped in each week to check up on  the situation. I certainly didn't feel listened to there. And the Fairpoint systems transfer? - that speaks for itself. AT BEST they were unprepared for the magnitude of the transfer. (Based on this and other service experiences I have had with them, I don't look forward to having my phone and internet service reliant on their growing pains.) This went beyond not being listened to -- this felt like being avoided.

You could argue that being listened to wouldn't have necessarily solved my problems, and I would agree. Maybe being listened to would have merely been a symbolic gesture to placate me while they continued to ignore the specifics of my problem. Perhaps, but in this climate I think it is important to a) use all available resources in problem-solving, which may mean including the off-base experiences of your customers / users, and b) keep your customer / user base satisfied. If they felt heard, this would prevent them from taking their business elsewhere.

This brings us to the president's smart phone. I have found the hubbub over this piece of equipment to be silly. Does anyone really think someone with the discipline necessary to survive the national primary and election process and who is surrounded by advisors and security personnel is itching to sneak away so he can drop state secrets on his handheld to his old college roommate? Please. Besides, since he is the first president to go through this scrutiny about his PDA, it makes me think that not too many other world leaders have smart phones either, making it less likely that high security topics would be shared, should he be texting another head of state. No, I think this falls into the symbolism I mentioned earlier. If the president's smart phone was taken away, it would give the appearance of not communicating, wouldn't it?  Even if he sends out an "I thought you'd be interested in this" a couple times a day, it gives the appearance that he's communicating.

That said, is the president's smart phone even a legitimate piece of equipment? Between running the country, making numerous public appearances, and having family time he probably has about 15 minutes to send off a couple YouTube links. (LINK BELOW) This handheld screams of "symbolic." Nevertheless, it allows me some fantasizing…

If I were a political cynic, I'd ask if it's possible that the president's smart phone has better security than several East Coast ports.
Which would be the bigger "get": a picture of the president on his smart phone or with a cigarette?

If you were one of the persons given access to the president's handheld device, what could you possibly send? Is there any privacy here? I imagine a scene where you have to get clearance before sending updates on the Cubs' chances in 2009. (LINK BELOW)
There was an old comedy routine -- I believe during the Ford administration -- which relied on the running joke of "...Secret Service agents jumped on the offending _______ and wrestled it/them to the ground." This started with human characters filling in the blank, but got humor out of inanimate objects - "The president was hit on the head by a tree branch today. Secret Service agents jumped on the offending branch and wrestled it to the ground. The President poked himself in the eye with his thumb today. Secret Service agents jumped on the offending thumb and wrestled it to the ground." This joke can now be resurrected to include the smart phone.

Of course, there's always the chance that he's dealing with one of my suppliers, in which case we know the smart phone isn't working properly.

LINKS:

"chat room on the Apple site"

former NY GIants linebacker Lawrence Taylor on "Dancing With the Stars"

YouTube links

Cubs' chances in 2009

Posted on Feb 12, 2009 at 9:18 AM1 comments

John Klossner: Telecommuting heck

My daughter once came home from her elementary school to tell us how embarrassed she was because that day someone was speaking to her class about careers and asked everyone whose parents went to a workplace to raise their hands, leaving my daughter as the only student with her arms by her sides.

We'd like our children not to be ostracized at school, but we also like working at home. I have not gone to a workplace for anything other than a meeting with a client for over 20 years now, and my wife, who works part time for a federal agency, goes in one day each week, working the rest of her hours from home.

(As an aside, the president works from home, doesn't he? Does that mean that the people who go into a centralized workplace are the exceptions? Or is this merely executive privilege? When asked the same question, are the president's children singled out among their classmates? I've never seen the president with a half-finished bowl of cereal on his desk in the Oval Office, but I assume that's something that's off the record.)

I suppose I can't call myself a telecommuter. I have been working from home since before the term "telecommuting" was coined. I assume that in order to telecommute, you have to be telecommuting from some central office. Also, I would suggest that one of the rules of telecommuting be that you know what the person or people on the other end of the telecommute look like. I rarely know what the people I'm working with look like and, if I do, it is always by accident.

My wife is probably a more official telecommuter. She works part time -- 18 hours -- for a federal agency, half of that from home. When I recently reached her in the kitchen, I was able to ask her a few questions about her fed telecommuting experience.

What are the pluses to your telecommuting experience?

Not having to commute, obviously. The time and money saved by not commuting. Could you pass me the sugar? And the flexibility of being here. There are no interruptions, and I'm able to be more productive.

And the minuses?

I feel out of the loop, but that might be because I'm part time. I think this causes my co-workers not to ask me to do as much, because I'm not there to ask. Communications are harder on my end -- sometimes I can't reach someone I need to talk with as easily as if I could go into their office. Are you going to the store today?

Is lunch better at work or at home?

Much better at work, because I go out to lunch there. I think my office relationships are better from my telecommuting. We make a more concerted effort to connect with each other when I'm in the office. Speaking of which, don't eat that leftover salad in the fridge -- I'm saving it for my lunch.

How has working from home affected your relationships with managers?

I think everyone who works at home feels a sense of guilt by not being at the office. I've always had bosses who understand that productivity is more important than the time clock. I've heard of bosses who are constantly checking in to make sure the workers are at home. Not that I'm not.

I've got you covered.

Can you remove that? I don't want to give the wrong impression. I'm very productive.

I know that. I don't think I should remove it. You have nothing to hide.

No. Seriously. Please remove it.

But then it will seem like this interview is hiding something. I want it to be a truthful experience for the reader.

How can it seem hidden if the piece isn't there to begin with?

This is a very savvy reader group. They can pick up on these things.

C'mon. Please take it out.

No. It will be okay. Trust me.

I'll let you have my leftover salad.

No, thanks.

See if you ever get an interview with me again.

I'm sure that I can find another federal employee in a pinch.

Think they'll let you have their salad? Fat chance.

Maybe I should consider going to an office.

You? I'm sure there are all kinds of openings for a cartoonist who watches old Jack Benny clips on YouTube for an hour each day.

That's pretty harmless on the list of potential flaws. Besides, it gives me ideas.

I've got to get to work. See you at lunch.

Can I have this salad?

Posted on Jan 30, 2009 at 9:18 AM3 comments

Klossner: You’re new around here, aren’t you?

Having never lived in the greater Washington, D.C., region, I've never experienced a presidential transition on the streets. From the stories I've heard, it sounds like every August/September in a college town (an experience I have had), only with better dressed people and less drinking (I'm referring to the college town). I imagine it helps that this happens only once every 4 or 8 years. Is it like giving birth, where you forget the pain, allowing you to go through it again?

Whenever the community I'm living in is going through transition, it's the little things I've found most annoying. Having longer lines and waits at my favorite small eateries. Having to find a new easy parking space all over again. I think this is why they created tourist sections of most communities – to shepherd all the new folks into a section of town where they won't bother the regulars.

On a related note, Federal Computer Week has a new editor, David Rapp. This is the sixth editor I have worked under in my 12+ years working with FCW. There are similarities to college and administration transitions, only with fewer people. The poor dressing continues on my end, however. (I can't speak for David.) I have mixed feelings whenever I start work with a new editor or art director. Being – or, more accurately, fantasizing on being – a creature of habit, I'll grump about having to begin a new relationship and all the work that goes into establishing a working relationship. This includes figuring out the best times and means to communicate, learning this editor's particular vision for the magazine and how I can best fit in that vision, and worrying that they want me to draw Garfield. (For the record, I can't.)

David has already assuaged one of my biggest fears – the editor who wants to be a cartoonist. I've worked with editors in the past who want me to render their ideas. They think of an idea, and ask me to draw it. I have no problem with people sharing their ideas – it can help me get a better understanding of the situation and, if it's really good, I don't mind stealing it. However, one of the best parts of cartooning for me is the concept phase. I like thinking of the cartoons, and it feels like an integral part of my work. Fortunately, I've never worked with an editor like that at FCW (trust me – I have elsewhere). I'm not sure if this is due to their respect for my abilities or that they are so overworked that they don't have time to think of their own ideas – much less someone else's – but I'll delude myself with the first option.

Fortunately, editor transitions don't usually mean increased crowds in D.C. (although, once again, I can't speak for David. For all I know, he's brought an entourage with him. Having a small familiarity with print budgets, however, I would doubt it is too big a crowd.) or at my favorite hangouts. Of course, being a self-employed cartoonist, my favorite hangout is my kitchen.

Posted on Jan 13, 2009 at 9:18 AM0 comments

To-Do Without

I am writing you from a Starbucks in Dover, N.H. The reason this is serving as my office today is that the other night we received a freezing rain storm just as we were falling asleep, during which we heard an explosion. The 100-plus-year-old maple tree in front of our neighbor's house had collapsed from the weight of the ice and taken out a couple telephone poles with it.

This ended up being a sample of the whole region, as the majority of the New Hampshire and Southern Maine area lost power. We were without power for four days, and have not had telephone or cable service for six days due to the size of the problem. (From the reports — both news and word of mouth — that we have heard, there are many homes which are in much worse shape.)

We heated our house with our wood stove, and we were fortunate that our kitchen stove is a propane model. The temperature dipped down to single digits one night, and we made do with sleeping bags and an extra comforter or two. The first morning I went out and stood in the middle of the road in front of our house and listened to trees collapse in the woods behind our house. As I sit in my new corporate office I am listening to accounts of people still without power.

I remember when, as a kid, we lost power it was an adventure — we lighted some candles and played a lot of cards, but the water and stove worked. I am not sure if that was because of my child's sense of being or whether things have changed, but I am amazed how handcuffed we have been by the power outage today — no sense of time, no computers and, for those like my wife who can't function without it, no coffee. (If I had had power yesterday, I would've bought stock in all drive-through coffee shops in the region. It may be quicker to drive down to Washington, D.C., for coffee than wait through these lines.)

Is this vulnerability a sign of how technology-reliant we are? Should the next terrorist find a way to pull the plug? Personally, my thought is that the next terrorists will find a way to shut off access to coffee.

Personal note: I am one of those critters who is used to coffee shops with free Wi-Fi. As my usual haunts are closed or crowded beyond practical use, I am forced to come to Starbucks, where I have to pay for Internet access, as I don't have an AT&T or TMobile account. Nice touch, Starbucks — don't count on my support when you come to Capitol Hill looking for a bailout.

Also, as long as I'm in an "I'm operating without the usual comforts and I'm paying for Wi-Fi and therefore I have every right to be grumpy" mode, I have to admit that I am new to the Starbucks' vernacular. I absent-mindedly ordered a "tall" -sized beverage. My thinking was to get the largest container of hot drink that is offered. Imagine my surprise when I received the smallest container, as Starbucks calls their small size a "tall." Excuse me if this is common knowledge for the rest of you, but being new to this country (the Caffeinated Republic of Starbucks), I can't imagine what the large size containers are called — "tankers?"

The reason I share this with you is because of the recent FCW story which tried to configure a "To-Do" list of technology issues for the incoming administration. My thoughts/contributions to such a list are as follows:

No matter how well-defined and -researched your list is, you can't plan for the unexpected. (See 09/11/01, or Hurricane Katrina or any ice storm in the Northeast U.S.)

The persons in charge of this list should remove themselves from all technology for a couple days, a weekend, a week or two and think about what priorities they find in that space. Is having access to YouTube or Netflix more important than heat? Is Google more important than hot water? Have these same people meet at a local Starbucks, and have them order drinks without knowing the Starbucks names for their sizes.

Posted on Dec 19, 2008 at 9:18 AM0 comments