I work at home and depend on broadband internet to make my living. This week I lost about two full working days because my broadband went out. My internet service provider (ISP), Comcast, was unable to get it working or even steer me in a useful direction, despite keeping me on the phone for hours and running lots of tests of the connection between their equipment and my equipment.

Were I not lucky enough to know a programmer with lots of networking experience who could spend time helping me investigate other possible points of failure, I’d be out of luck for home wifi right now — which would severely hinder my business and life.

Here’s what happened with my home wifi, and how I fixed it. Also here’s why ISPs need to do a much better job of helping residential customers diagnose possible network problems that lie beyond the narrow scope of the wires and modems they sell…

WHY ISP TECH SUPPORT IS HELPFUL ONLY TO A POINT

Unless there is a local internet outage in your neighborhood, or there’s an apparent problem with your line connection or cable/DSL modem, your ISP probably will be no help on diagnosing and fixing your problem. They won’t help you investigate other avenues beyond the narrow scope of what they’re selling you.

Unfortunately, wifi has many potential points of failure — most of which are unfamiliar territory to the typical consumer. Your home wifi also depends on internet equipment like domain name servers, and on local conditions like wifi interference. It takes some knowledge and skill to diagnose and fix these conditions.

Ever since I moved into an apartment building in Oakland, CA last summer and signed up for Comcast’s cable modem broadband service (now Xfinity), my connection has been a bit flaky. My Mac laptop would suddenly either lose its connection to the wifi router, or my home wifi network would be working but I wouldn’t be able to access any web sites or online services.

Sometimes resetting the router and modem would fix this. Other times the service would just as mysteriously reappear a half hour or so later. And sometimes, I’d call Comcast and learn that they were having an outage that affected my area.

This week, the problem was different: The service never came back on. I called Comcast, and they verified that there was no local outage. I then spent nearly two hours on the phone with their tech support running through various fixes that basically reset my home equipment (my Mac laptop and its built-in Airport wireless modem, the Comcast cable modem, and my Apple Airport Express wifi router) in various combinations.

Nothing worked. Especially odd was that my laptop was repeatedly unable to show a valid IP address.

So I packed up my laptop and headed off to a local coffee shop with free wifi to get some work done. My laptop accessed that network immediately and with no problems, so I knew the problem was not my computer.

Even though the Comcast tech saw no problems with my modem, he suggested that if my computer worked fine elsewhere, it wouldn’t hurt to go to the local Comcast service center to exchange my modem for a new one. Comcast exchanged my modem at no charge.

When I got home later that night, I connected and activated the new modem — and boom, I was online just fine. No problem. I went to bed relieved, thinking I’d fixed the problem.

PROBLEM SOLVED? NOT!!!

The next day I was online just fine until about the middle of the afternoon. Then, suddenly, I lost my internet connection again: first I was unable to hit any sites, and then my laptop stopped being able to connect to my home wifi at all.

I was on the phone to Comcast again, and again they ran me through the same diagnostics. The problem was weird: everything seemed to be working, but I was still failing to obtain a valid IP address.

The end result: Comcast said, “There’s nothing we can do here. We can send a technician to your house, but if the problem is not our equipment, you’d have to pay for that visit.”

I understand their perspective, but that is a really shitty approach to customer service. Comcast could have — and should have — offered further resources for self-diagnosis, but they didn’t.

At my wits’ end and not knowing what else to do, I scheduled a technician visit for the following day. I was pretty angry.

Then I called my friend Tom Vilot, an actor and software developer. He saved my butt.

REAL PROBLEM PART 1: FLAKY COMCAST DNS

Tom had me connect my laptop directly to my cable modem via ethernet, and turn off the built-in Airport modem in my laptop. He then walked me through opening a terminal window (under “utilities” in my Mac’s applications menu) and we ran several “ping” tests using UNIX commands to determine whether I was in fact communicating with the internet.

From this he determined that at least part of my problem was related to Comcast’s domain name servers (DNS) — a core part of the internet that translates human-readable domain names into computer-readable numeric IP addresses.

“I’ve seen this before, Comcast’s DNS is really flaky,” said Tom. “So Comcast is definitely part of the problem here, but not in a way that their tech support staff can do anything about. That’s why they didn’t mention it.”

Tom then directed me to go into my Mac’s system preferences. Under “network” he had me select the active ethernet connection and then click “advanced.” Then, under the DNS tab he had me enter the address for one of Google’s own domain name servers: 8.8.4.4

Once I applied that setting change, I was suddenly able to access web sites and other online services again. So the first part of my problem was solved.

“Google’s DNS is much, much more reliable than Comcast’s. It needs to be,” said Tom.

But Tom cautioned me that a direct ethernet connection to my cable modem is not a safe option. It’ll suffice in an emergency — but there are a lot of port sniffers out there looking for unprotected access to computers. I don’t want my computer to get hacked. Apple wifi routers provide a fair amount of security against such invasions, so I knew I needed a functioning home wifi network.

REAL PROBLEM PART 2: LOCAL WIFI INTERFERENCE

Next, Tom had me unplug the power from my cable modem, unplug my Airport Express wifi router, reconnect the ethernet cable from the modem to the router (what you normally need to do to have a local wifi network), and then plug both devices back in to power. For good measure, I also restarted my laptop. Then I turned my laptop’s Airport modem back on.

My laptop was unable to connect to my local wifi network. It would see the network on the list of available networks, but couldn’t connect.

At this point Tom speculated that I might be getting wifi interference from someone else’s router in my building. he explained that Apple’s Airport Express routers — and most other basic router models — operate only on a handful of common wifi “channels” in the 2.5 Ghz spectrum band. In a setting like an apartment building, where many occupants are likely to have their own wifi networks, wifi interference can become a problem.

Tom explained that the Airport Express modem automatically picks which wifi channel it will use to broadcast your home wifi network. This device only has one ethernet port, so it offers no easy access to diagnostics related to possible interference, and it’s difficult to get it to change channels.

Apple’s higher-end router, the Airport Extreme, has four Ethernet ports and access to a far wider range of wifi channels. It’s not cheap (almost $200 with tax), but it does give you more options to diagnose and circumvent wifi signal interference.

Since home wifi is a necessity, not a luxury, for me, I hopped on my bike and went to the nearest Apple Store, where I purchased an Airport Extreme.

When I got home, I called Tom again. (I am so grateful he was available to me that evening!) I hooked up the new router to my cable modem, recreated my home wifi network (password protected, of course), and boom! I was online again, no problem.

At that point I called Comcast and canceled the technician visit.

Tom then had me download the free application KISmac, which provides additional information about available local wifi networks.

I installed and launched KISmac. This program showed me which local networks were available and what channels they were using. I could see about 20 local networks, all on channels 2,4,6,7, and 9 (in the 2.5 GHz spectrum band). This indicates a situation where wifi interference is more likely to occur.

My network, with its new souped-up router, was the only network using channel 149 — in the 5 GHz spectrum band.

Tom notes: “It’s worth running KisMAC every once in a while to scan around and see what channels are being used. What I usually do is sort by signal ‘Avg.’ My wifi will, of course, show up at the top or near the top, since it’s got the strongest local signal as far as my computer is concerned.

“I then look at the other wifi stations that are near mine in signal strength (since they are obviously the ones most likely to interfere with mine). If they are on channels sufficiently far away from mine, I don’t need to change anything.

“But if I am on channel 7 and the neighbor with the nearest wifi is on 6, I will reconfigure the router to use channel 1 or 12. Similarly, if the next-strongest local network is on channel 11 and I’m on 7, I’m probably ok — but I might switch to channel 1 to be safer.”

LESSONS LEARNED

1. If you use home wifi, you need to learn a bit about how the internet works. It’s not like electricity, where you can mostly afford to not understand how the power grid works. Your ISP is only part of what gets you online.

Your ISP is responsible only for the cable/DSL “wired” connection to your home, and (usually) the modem device which receives that signal. What happens with your wifi router and computer(s) is your responsibility. These devices can fail as well, but your ISP can’t test them for you.

Be aware of other potential points of failure — especially DNS problems and wifi interference.

2. Know how to manually specify the DNS your computer uses. Two Google public DNS servers that I now have programmed into my network preferences panel are: 8.8.4.4 and 8.8.8.8. Here are Google’s instructions for accessing these servers from your computer.

ArsTechnica cautions that Google’s Public DNS is not the right solution for everyone. Fortunately, there are many other public DNS servers, and some commercial services like Open DNS.

3. If you live near lots of other wifi networks, get a higher-end wifi router. This costs more, but it’s more likely to keep you online since it gives you more options to diagnose and circumvent local wifi interference. This is especially true for apartment dwellers, but also can be the case in crowded neighborhoods.

4. Don’t expect your broadband provider’s tech support to help. It’s worth running through their diagnostics because their equipment and systems can — and do — fail. But when they reach the end of what they can help you check, you need to know what else to check and do.

That’s why I took the time to write this post. Comcast gave me no hints or indications of how I might continue to track down this problem. If I didn’t have an ubergeeky friend to call who happened to have the time to help me, I would be in serious trouble right now.

There is a lot of information available about these problems online, but it’s REALLY geeky and most people wouldn’t know how to begin to search for solutions.

HOW BROADBAND PROVIDERS COULD HELP

I wish broadband providers would teach their tech support staff how to explain to non-technical customers additional possible points of failure in home wifi networks — and then offer a resource guide for further diagnosis.

Such a guide would cover the kinds of topics I’ve covered in this post. It should be available with instructions for Mac and PC systems, and in multiple languages. Where possible it should recommend specific devices (such as routers) and tools (such as the KISmac application) that might help solve the problem.

Broadband providers could easily get this information to customers whose home networks aren’t working. Here’s how:

1. Provide a printed resource guide at installation. Cable and DSL providers have to send out a technician to activate service and install the customer’s modem. They should take that opportunity to explain that their equipment is only part of the broadband ecosystem, and offer a relevant guide for diagnosing problems that might fall outside their area of responsibility. They should encourage customers to keep this guide in a place where they don’t lose it.
2. If the customer has a smartphone, they could send a text message with a link to the appropriate version of the guide — or at least post this info in an obvious place on their mobile site (one that doesn’t require too much searching or clicking around, which is challenging even on a smartphone).
3. If the customer has an e-mail-enabled feature phone, they could e-mail the guide in text form to the customer’s phone-accessible e-mail address.
4. Fax or e-mail to a secondary contact. Most people know someone nearby who does have internet access, or a local copy shop or other place where they could receive a fax. This alternate contact could receive the document on behalf of the customer and print it out. Customers should be able to specify this alternate contact on the spot, during a problem, so they’re directing it to the most easily available contact at that moment.
5. Snail-mail a printed copy. This is a last-ditch solution since it would take the a day or two to arrive, but it would work.
6. Provide a call-in Q&A service. Some of this could be automated, and maybe make it available for a low fee. But give customers who have already determined that the problem is not the ISP someone they can talk to who can actually try to help them. Don’t just leave them stranded.

WHY THIS MATTERS: BROADBAND IS A UTILITY

Home broadband service is increasingly being recognized as crucial infrastructure, since it’s the best (and sometimes the only) way to access key services for work, education, government, social services, health, and more. In many ways it’s becoming as important to daily life as electricity.

Personally, I wish broadband internet service (both “wired”, like cable modems, and wireless, via smartphones) was regulated as a utility — because then providers would have a far greater responsibility to make sure customers have truly reliable service. They also would be more accountable for performance.

Under the current scheme, it’s too easy for non-tech-savvy customers to end up stranded without resources by their ISPs who can afford to neglect them.

This situation was stressful enough for me — and I’m tech-savvy enough to figure out at least part of the problem, and I also had an expert I could call for help. To someone who lacks these resources, this situation would look pretty hopeless.

This whole fiasco made me wonder: How many people end up giving up on home broadband, and the opportunities it affords, simply because their ISPs leave them stranded? Bridging the digital divide isn’t just about having computers — it’s also about having access to the internet that works and that keeps working.

Right now, ISPs should be willing to provide at least some basic education about connectivity needs beyond the products and services they sell — enough to help non-technical customers get started solving their own connectivity problems. The current situation (“Not our fault, sorry. Good luck. Bye!”) is callous and untenable.

COMMENTS WANTED

…I’m sure I’ve overlooked some issues, and that there must be some existing resources that would be useful to the typical consumer out there. I’d appreciate comments below that fill in some of those gaps, and I’ll update this post (or create new posts) to expand upon that information.

Note that I cannot solve other people’s connection problems, so I won’t publish comments seeking personal assistance for individual difficulties. I’d like to try to build a bit of a consumer-friendly resource here.

You could try to figure that out by looking at the coverage maps the carriers all provide, but take that information with a big grain of salt. Those maps often overstate the reach, strength, and quality of their coverage, and they don’t give detail down to the block level.

On CNN.com Tech today, I wrote about two projects where mobile users are creating their own maps of carrier coverage:

Crowdsourced maps help mobile users compare network reliability

These efforts are handled via iPhone and Android apps — which means that BlackBerry, Palm, and feature phone users can’t participate in making these maps. But the maps (which you can view on Open Signal Maps and RootMetrics) are potentially useful to anyone.

…Well, at least, to anyone in a major metro area, so far. There’s sparse reporting from other regions, but the more people who use these apps, the better these maps will get.

I really like these projects, not least because they’re an important way to hold wireless carriers accountable for delivering the speed and coverage they advertise. They’re also useful if you want to figure out whether your carrier is throttling your data.

Today at the Knight Digital Media Center, I wrote about new advocacy/awareness tool from Sunshine Week: a model proclamation that news orgs and other activists/advocates can customize, publish, and challenge specific government officials and agencies to adopt. It gets into specifics, at least to some extent.

See: Sunshine Week shows how to call for open government

It’s a good start, but here’s what else I’d love to see from Sunshine Week…

I’d really love it if they called for no more pdf-format publishing of government documents with arcane meaningless titles and no useful metadata. (City of Oakland, are you listening? Nah, I didn’t think so….)

…OK, personally I’m skeptical of the value of proclamations, even ones that call for specific actions. What I’d really love to see from Sunshine Week is an online interactive database where people and groups could file public incident reports about specific examples of government opacity or obstructionism, so we can track this issue better.

We’re approaching this from the perspective of empowering Oaklanders to be able to wield influence on how police operate in their neighborhoods. There’s been a lot of friction and violence, and community members have often felt powerless on this front.

So here’s what I’ve written so far on this topic:

• Police misconduct in Oakland? How to file a complaint (includes embedded forms, which can be a bit hard to find on the City’s site)
• Experts, community discuss how to combat race bias in Oakland policing

Also, today Eric Arnold published an excellent overview of what Oakland’s Citizens Police Review Board is and how it works:

• Inside police accountability: An interview with Oakland CPRB Acting Manager Patrick Caceres

Much more to come on this front. Stay tuned!

I’m doing this as a pilot test for a new professional service I’d like to start offering: Great live event coverage.

In my experience, most online event coverage isn’t so great. A few folks will be tweeting or blogging in several places, some hashtags will be used, but it’s all rather confusing and inconsistent to follow. Also, a lot of people tend to tweet items like “Jane Doe is speaking at this session now.” Uh-huh… AND….?

Liveblogging/tweeting has turned out to be a real strength of mine — I’m good at it, and I enjoy it. I’ve also had the good fortune to collect a sizable Twitter following among folks whose interests in media, business, and other fields overlap with mine — and who enjoy my particular blend of reporting, analysis, and attitude. (Or at least I guess they do, because every time I do live event coverage my Twitter posse swells noticeably and those folks tend to stick around afterward.)

I do a lot of live event coverage via Twitter and CoverItLive. For instance, earlier this month for my client the Reynolds Journalism Institute I liveblogged/tweeted J-Lab’s Fund My Media Startup workshop at the 2009 Online News Association conference.

So, being a longtime entrepreneur always on the lookout for new opportunities, I’m looking for ways to offer live event coverage as a service for my clients. Today’s event is an experiment on this front.

I want to figure out how this service could work in a way that would appeal to my Twitter posse, maintain my integrity and independence, and provide value to clients who’d pay for it.

Here are some of the issues I’m wrestling with, that I’d welcome your thoughts on…

QUALITY AND RELEVANCE

I wouldn’t accept just any live-coverage gig. It has to be a good fit for my interests, and those of my Twitter followers. So I’d be concentrating on events in areas such as:

• Media and journalism
• Energy
• Environment
• Government transparency and civic engagement/action
• Key media technologies (mobile, mapping, databases, collaboration, etc.)
• Social trends/dynamics (including race, gender, sexuality)
• Offbeat entertainment (science fiction, indy arts & music, strange festivals, zombies, etc.)

INDEPENDENCE

I’m a lousy lapdog. I don’t generally go out of my way to be rude or snarky — especially when someone has invited me to their event and given me a platform. But I do have attitude, a sense of humor, and I say what I think. I must always feel free in my event coverage to disagree, question, criticize, or challenge.

The people who hire me to cover their events need to understand that at some point I will say something they won’t be 100% comfortable with. I am not their mouthpiece. I am providing a service of visibility and engagement. That’s always going to be a bit uncomfortable. In fact, that’s the point.

So, hiring me is not like hiring a PR agency to make you look good. It’s more like issuing a press pass — but knowing that there will be consistent coverage throughout the event. I’ll also work to make sure the online audience gets represented in the live event, by posing questions and comments on their behalf.

TRANSPARENCY

Here’s the background on today’s gig, so you know what the terms of this coverage are.

Doyle Albee, president of Metzger Associates (a PR/communications firm based in Boulder, CO) has hired me to cover this event. I chose to do this because:

1. Doyle is a cool guy and a friend of mine from Boulder. He appreciates my perspective, even though we regularly disagree. He likes how I cover events and wants me to just do what I do — which includes allowing me to question or critize what happens at the event, if I see fit to do so.
2. Dave Taylor, another longtime Boulder friend of mine, is co-leading the event. Doyle and Dave are both great presenters, and I learn much from observing them.
3. The lineup of speakers looks pretty good.
4. This isn’t a mob scene. While I like covering events, major mob scenes like South by Southwest tend to put me on sensory/info overload pretty quickly, and leave me quaking in a fetal position. I prefer covering events for small-to-medium groups where I can get a real sense of what participants think, how peoples’ thinking evolves, and which takeaways are most meaningful.
5. It’s not summertime. Vegas summers slay me. Today is a pleasant, cool early autumn day, more my style.

Full disclosure: Metzger has paid my expenses and waived my fee to participate in this event. I did not ask for a fee for this coverage since I’m fine-tuning this service offer. However, for future live event coverage with this or other clients I will get paid a professional rate for the service.

I decided to not ask for a fee for this event because I want to engage my Twitter posse in a discussion about how I can do event coverage as a professional (fee-based) service in a way that works well for my Twitter followers. That is, I didn’t want to start selling this service before talking to my tweeps about how I can make this work for them.

My liveblog is appearing on Metzger’s site, and I’ll be cross-tweeting to Metzger’s own Twitter account. So while I might occasionally have something to critize, since they’re opening up their platforms for me to use I’ll be civil. Unless something truly egregious happens — and in that case, I’ll still be civil, but I’ll say what I mean.

Anyway, that’s the general plan. What are your thoughts, opinions, questions, criticisms? Please comment below, or tweet me @agahran, or e-mail me.

Again, this is an experiment. I’m not expecting everyone to be happy, or everything to run smoothly. But I do expect to learn a lot. Let me know what you think.

Recently I wrote about how a Los Angeles Police Dept. geocoding data glitch yielded inaccurate crime maps at LAPDcrimemaps.org and the database-powered network of hyperlocal sites, Everyblock.

On Apr. 8, Everyblock founder Adrian Holovaty blogged about the two ways his company is addressing the problem of inaccurate geodata.

1. Latitude/longitude crosschecking. “From now on, rather than relying blindly on our data sources’ longitude/latitude points, we cross-check those points with our own geocoding of the address provided. If the LAPD’s geocoding for a particular crime is significantly off from our own geocoder’s results, then we won’t geocode that crime at all, and we publish a note on the crime page that explains why a map isn’t available. (If you’re curious, we’re using 375 meters as our threshold. That is, if our own geocoder comes up with a point more than 375 meters away from the point that LAPD provides, then we won’t place the crime on a map, or on block/neighborhood pages.)
2. Surfacing ungeocoded data. “Starting today, wherever we have aggregate charts by neighborhood, ZIP or other boundary, we include the number, and percentage, of records that couldn’t be geocoded. Each location chart has a new “Unknown” row that provides these figures. Note that technically this figure includes more than nongeocodable records — it also includes any records that were successfully geocoded but don’t lie in any neighborhood. For example, in our Philadelphia crime section, you can see that one percent of crime reports in the last 30 days are in an ‘unknown’ neighborhood; this means those 35 records either couldn’t be geocoded or lie outside any of the Philadelphia neighborhood boundaries that we’ve compiled.”

These strategies could — and probably should — be employed by any organization publishing online maps that rely on government or third-party geodata.

Holovaty’s post also includes a great plain-language explanation of what geodata really is and how it works in practical terms. This is the kind of information that constitutes journalism 101 in the online age.

(NOTE: I originally published this post in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)

However, many news organizations still could take a lesson from the second item on HuffPost‘s list:

“2. Do research and include links to back it up. Whether you are referencing a quote, statistic, or specific event, you should include a link that supports your statement. If you’re not sure, it’s better to lean on the cautious side. More links enhance the piece and let readers know where you’re coming from.”

It amazes me how often I still see mainstream news stories which completely lack links, or which ghettoize links in a box in a sidebar or at the bottom of the story…

In online media, links enhance credibility and invite engagement. Yet many (perhaps most) major news organizations (including the Associated Press, Wall St. Journal, and USA Today) still include few or no outbound links to sources or context from their stories.

I know from speaking to many, many journalists that in some news organizations, outdated print- or broadcast-focused content management systems make it cumbersome for reporters to add links to stories. In other cases, reporters either don’t know how to add links, or don’t bother to do so. And in a few cases, editors still actively discourage reporters from adding links to stories due to mistaken ideas about what drives online traffic and demonstrates value to readers.

Look at this from the perspective of the community you’re trying to engage online: Dead ends are bad news on the internet. A story without source or context links (especially obvious ones) may appear suspect, as if the news org hopes to discourage independent followup. Yes, it’s a good idea to link to your own related stories — but if you only link to your own news from your own news, you risk looking like an echo chamber. The more value you offer (which includes useful external links), the more likely it is that your online news will attract repeat traffic, inbound links, and personal referrals.

Of course, links are not everything. It’s true that original research (including interviewing) still matters in journalism. It’s also true that not every fact reported has an online link for reference. That said, much (perhaps most) of the information and context that journalists gather and assemble into most stories does indeed have some sort of primary online reference.

Avoiding those links implies hubris (the impression that the news organization is pretending to be the original source/gatherer of all the information presented), laziness (the news org couldn’t be bothered to link), or cluelessness (the news org doesn’t recognize the value of links).

Also, when linking to sources of context, quality counts. I’d have preferred it if HuffPost had stated a preference for links to primary sources, and qualification for any link that is not a primary source. But still — when soliciting news and reporting from amateur journalists, this list is an adequate starting point.

(NOTE: I originally published another version of this article in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits.)

gov20planners

Several planners of the recent Government 2.0 camp (By Patrick at work, via Flickr)

There is a movement afoot among government employees to use “social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more effective, efficient and collaborative U.S. government on all levels.” It’s called Government 2.0, and it could end up being very useful for journalists, citizens, and government officials and employees.

Members of this movement held a lively and productive unconference, Government 2.0 camp, in late March in Washington, D.C. The Twitter stream for the hashtags #gov20camp and #gov20 are still going strong.

Personally, I find this movement remarkable and encouraging. One of the great difficulties citizens encounter in learning about or interacting with their government has been the top-down, silo-focused, and generally tight-lipped or obfuscatory approach typical of government communication…

While there is often good reason for government officials to be cautious and circumspect in their communication, not being able to speak plainly, collaborate easily, or respond quickly often frustrates government employees as much as journalists or citizens. Also, as the comments to the field manual for Government 2.0 camp, many government employees also are frustrated with their own access barriers — like not being able to access Facebook from work (even when it’s work-related).

If you cover the government and use online or social media, I’d recommend following this effort and participating in discussions. That’s the best way to make sure that, if this movement gains traction under the Obama Administration and in state and local governments, it will benefit the practice of journalism as well as direct interaction with government. Check out the Government 2.0 Facebook group.

On Twitter, the key Government 2.0 people to follow are Peter Corbett (corbett3000), Mark Drapeau (cheeky_geeky), Maxine Teller (mixtmedia) and EPA director of Web communications Jeffrey Levy (levyj413).

(NOTE: I originally published this article in Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits)

According to the Colorado Daily:

“[The runner] agreed Thursday to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, a petty offense. She agreed to undergo six months of unsupervised probation, eight hours of community service and pay $27 in court fees. She will not be required to register as a sex offender, and her record will be cleared if she doesn’t commit any crimes for at least six months.”

Also, Colorado Daily reported that according to prosecutor David Chavel:

“The agreement with [this defendant] would likely represent the same offer extended to all of the accused Halloween streakers. However, he said it would be ‘up to each individual’ to accept such an offer.”

“All of the cases are being handled separately, Chavel said, because some of the runners have attorneys and others do not. He said the remaining cases involving the naked runners are in negotiations with the Boulder District Attorney’s Office.”

What got me, though, was this statement from the Boulder Police Department quoted at the end of the Colorado Daily story. (Note: This statement does not appear to be on the Boulder Police Dept. web site, I’ll request a copy.)

“The decision was made by the District Attorney’s Office, which consulted with the department. Chief Mark Beckner believes this is an appropriate disposition. As for future violations, Boulder officers will continue to issue citations or make arrests based on the law as it is written. It is — and will remain — the province of the District Attorney’s Office to determine whether other charges are possible.”

…Correct me if I’m wrong, but this statement appears to mean that the Boulder cops intend to continue issuing indecent exposure citations to streakers — despite the fact that the DA’s office does not appear to consider that charge appropriate. Which means the cops can (and probably will) continue to bully and intimidate citizens through inappropriate charges — and leave it up to the DA and the courts to spend our resources to bring those charges back to reality.

There’s a much deeper issue at stake here beyond these cases, and it’s why I keep revisiting this story: Is this the kind of law enforcement we want to allow in Boulder?…

Is it really OK for our public servants to use their authority in this way?

Face it: This is Boulder. People WILL keep streaking here. It’s part of the local culture of celebration — and many (perhaps most) Boulderites consider it harmless fun. So this issue WILL come up again.

…I’m not saying that we need to legalize streaking (celebratory or otherwise). People who streak in Boulder are taking a risk by breaking the law. But I do think that when enforcing the law, our police should recognize the difference between an offbeat celebration and a sexual assault. As I wrote earlier, if the cops were truly concerned about public safety at Naked Pumpkin Run, they could have cited runners for disorderly conduct — a charge the DA’s office evidently finds appropriate.

If our community does not find current police policy for busting streakers acceptable, then what can we do to change it? Specifically, what pressure could citizens or city council exert to curb cops’ ability to misuse the law as a tool of intimidation? Or could/should we lobby for changes to the current state sex offender registration law that would prevent this kind of absurdity?

Thoughts? What kinds of action might make sense?

I’ll continue to follow up on this case as my time allows. I expect that all of these cases will be plea bargained to disorderly conduct or a similar charge, or else dismissed. But we’ll see what actually happens.

One listener who called in was Jeffrey Levy, web manager for the US Environmental Protection Agency. He asked O’Reilly how the federal government might be able to use social media to enhance governance and civic engagement.

…To be honest, I didn’t actually catch O’Reilly’s answer because my own mental gears immediately went into overdrive. I’ve been involved with covering environmental issues for nearly 20 years — and thus I’m a frequent user of the EPA Web site. And it’ll come as no surprise to anyone that the EPA site currently is one hellacious frustrating sprawling mess, offputting to professionals as well as citizens. (I assume Levy is working to improve that situation…)

But there is another side to how federal agencies interact with the public that goes beyond their own sites: the regulatory process. Every proposed federal regulation must be published in the Federal Register. (Trust me, it’s really ugly. You definitely don’t want to read this stuff unless you have to — yet another strategy to keep citizens at arms length from government.)

Every proposed regulation must allow for a public comment period. That’s where social media might fit in…

Fairly typical instructions in the Federal Register for submitting public comments for a proposed federal regulation. This just screams: “STAY AWAY!!!!”

Theoretically, the regulatory public comment period is open to anyone. But in practice it’s really a process for insiders: involved parties, lobbyists, organized advocates and activists, and other groups who already know what’s in the works for a given regulation.

To “regular folks” who might care about or be affected by a proposed regulation, it’s pretty hard to even learn that a regulation has been proposed and what it might mean — let alone submit a comment in time for it to be considered by regulators before the rule is finalized.

There’s gotta be an easier way for people to engage in the federal rulemaking process. And maybe social media could help. I’m intrigued by how Medill’s recently unveiled NewsMixer project uses Facebook Connect to add social functionality and to news stories. Specifically, people can raise questions associated with specific paragraphs within stories (a kind of annotation) and also discuss the stories in various ways.

Wouldn’t it be helpful if people could participate in the rulemaking process like that? What if the federal register was available in a newsmixer-style interface that made it easy to make annotation-style queries about specific points in a proposed regulation, and discuss the proposed rule with other interested people?

I’m sure there could be a way to connect this kind of interface with Twitter and Friendfeed too, as well as generate rule-specific feeds that could be used in mashups. I haven’t thought this all through yet.

But if any part of our federal government could use more streamlining and social functionality, it’s the rulemaking process.

What do you think? Please comment below.