Does Twitter Have a Place in Government?

Not surprisingly, heralding a transparent government is much easier to do when in opposition than in leadership.  Case in point is last week’s admission by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that the White House has blocked online access to Twitter.  Although, the White House does have several  official Twitter accounts, actual White House employees are not Twittering about their daily adventures.

Government transparency in the form of social media is a hotly contested issue.  Some say that blocking employee access to social media sites is great news as taxpayer money is not being wasted on using Twitter on White House time.  Of course this logic is slightly flawed for those of us living in the digital age can access Twitter via our mobile phones.  However, the message being sent by invoking this policy is strong; social media is vital on the campaign trail but dangerous when governing.

Can social networks be harmful to government?  Worse yet do they pose a security risk?

Before delving into those questions, lets take a look at identity manipulations issues on Twitter.  Now when I joined Twitter I used my favorite screen name and linked it to my email and full name.  I am who I  say I am.  This is not always the case on Twitter, especially where celebrities are involved.  Twitter profile fakes for celebrities such as Emma Watson, the Dhali Lama, and Tony LaRussa have gained huge followings.   In an effort to delegitimize these impostors Twitter has created verified account status, which can only be obtained by the celebrity or their agent.

In a more serious case, Michigan-based public relations firm Tanner Friedman was “brandjacked” when it found in March that a Twitter account, under the username @TannerFriedman, had existed for two months without the firm’s knowledge. It filed a lawsuit against the account owner, and, in June, the judge ordered Twitter to reveal the account owner’s IP address. The address was traced back to rival PR firm Marx Layne. Tanner Friedman eventually regained control of the account.

The above demonstrates how easy it is to create false accounts, aliases, and infiltrate competitors through Twitter.  The Federal Court in Michigan forced Twitter to produce confidential user information to determine who was falsely using the competitor’s name on Twitter, which sets a precedence for whistle-blower Twitter users. Should a court be able to force Twitter to produce this type of information?  In extreme cases like the protests in Iran, what would have happened to all of those people protesting against their government if Twitter would have been forced to give up their account information?  On the other hand, Tanner Friedman’s brand and good name were being fraudulently used on the social web, surely the person behind those false statements should be enjoined to stop their activities.

Given this information, is Twitter, Facebook and other social networks bad for government…do they pose national security risks?  Clearly if used wrong, these sites can cause an internal raukus; however, I’m not sure they will be the cause for leaking state secrets.

Social media is another mode of communication just like email, the telephone, and text messaging.  Social networks allow users to communicate quickly and attach media to their posts.  Social media can be used for good and act as a government watchdog.  Anyone who has worked for a government entity knows that their office has complete monitoring control over their PC, so posting false, dangerous, or inappropriate information onto your social network at work is NOT a good idea (no matter where you work, but especially if you happen to be at 1600 Pennsylvania).

Further, instead of banning social media sites the White House should invoke stricter usage policies  requiring employees to disclose their social network user names and agree to allow their employer access to their IP address and other registration information from social networks.

Employees can of course simply use their mobile devices to tweet and communicate from work but the message being sent from the White House by banning this technology is paranoid and restrictive.  Smart work place policies for government entities will keep employees from abusing social media tools and send a message of openness and transparency.

What are your thoughts?  What are your work place policies in regards to social media networking?