Computer Security in Electronic Government: A State-Local Education Information System

International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR)

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 79-99

  Radl, Alison ^a   Chen, Yu Che ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

IS evaluation; IS security; IT in public administration

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001837069     PISSN: 15483886     EISSN: 15483894     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jegr.2005010105     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bishop, M. (2002). Computer Security: Art and Science. Boston. MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Brown. M.M. (2003). Technology diffusion and the “knowledge barrier”: The dilemma of stakeholder participation. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 345–359.
3. Brown, M.M. & Bradney, J.L. (1998). A “smarter, better, faster, and cheaper” government: Contracting and geographic information systems. Public Administration Review, 55(4), 335–345.
4. Brown, M.M., O'Toole, L.J., & Brudney, J. L. (1998). Implementing information technology in government: An empirical assessment of the role of local partnership. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(4), 499–525.
5. Chen, Y.-C., & Perry, J. (2003). Outsourcing for e-government: Managing for success. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(4), 404–421.
6. Danziger, J. & Anderson, K. (2002). The impacts of information technology on public administration: An analysis of empirical research from the “golden age” of transformation. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(5), 591–627.
7. Davis, F. (1989, September). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3). 319–339.
8. DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2003, Spring). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
9. Denning, D. (2001). Information Warfare and Security. New York: Addison-Wesley.
10. Heeks, R. (ed.) (2001). Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT-Enabled Public Sector Reform. London; New York: Brunner-Routledge.
11. Ho, A.T.-K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-governments initiative. Public Administration Review, 52(4), 434–444.
12. Ho, A.T.-K., & Ni, A.Y. (2004). Explaining the adoption of e-government features: A case study of Iowa County treasures' offices. American Review of Public Administration, 34(2), 164–180.
13. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 20 U.S.C. §1232g.
14. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulations, 34 CFR Part 99.
15. FERPA Online Library, U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OM/fpco/ferpaonline.html
16. Garson, D. (2003). Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues. Hershey. PA: IGP.
17. Holden, S., Norris, D., & Fletcher, P. (2003, June). Electronic government at the local level progress to date and future issues. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(4), 325–344.
18. International City/County Management Association (2001). Electronic Government 2000 Survey Dataset. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
19. International City/County Management Association (2002). Electronic Government 2002 Survey Dataset. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
20. Ives, B., Walsh, K., & Schneider, H. (2004. April). The domino effect of password reuse. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 75–78.
21. Karr, A., Dobra, A., & Sansil, A. (2003, January). Table servers protect confidentiality in tabular data releases. Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 57–58
22. King, J.L., Gurbaxani, V, Kraemer, K., McLean, W., Raman, K.S., & Yap, C.S.(1994). Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 139–169.
23. Meier, K., & Brudney, J. (2002). Applied Statistics for Public Administration. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.
24. Melitski, J. (2003). Capacity and e-government performance: An analysis based on early adopters of Internet technologies in New Jersey. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4) 376–390.
25. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
26. National Forum on Education Statistics (2004, March). Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Informotion: State and Local Education Agencies. Washington, DC: National Forum on Education Statistics.
27. Nedovic-Budic, Z., & Godschalk, D. R. (1996). Human factors in adoption of geographic information systems: A local government case study. Public Administration Review, 56(6), 554–567.
28. Norris, D.F., Fletcher, P. D., & Holden, S.H. (2001). Is your local government plugged in? Highlights of the 2000 electronic government survey. University of Maryland. Baltimore County.
29. Pandey, S. K., & Bretschneider, S. (1997). The impact of red tape's administrative delay on public organizations' interest in new information technologies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 113–130.
30. Pfleeger, C. (2000). Security in Computing (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Pierce, E. (2004, February). Assessing data quality with control matrixes. Communications of the ACM, 47(2), 82–86.
32. Rees, J., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Spafford, E. (2003, July). PFIRES: Apolicy framework for information security. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 101–106.
33. Shaw, N. (2003). Identifying relationship among factors in IS implementation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11, 155–165.
34. United Nations and American Society for Public Administration (2002). Benchmarking e-Government: A Global Perspective. New York: United Nations and American Society for Public Administration.
35. United States General Accounting Office (2000). Federal information security: Actions needed to address widespread weaknesses. Statement of Jack Brock, Jr., Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems; Accounting and Information Management Division. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
36. Venkatesh, Viswanath (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
37. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000. February). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204
38. West, D. (2004). E-government and transformation of sendee delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.