Dave Farber's Year In Washington

Tim O'Reilly writes "Dave Farber is not only a great technologist (one of the founding fathers of the Internet) but also one of the people most concerned with technology and society (co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example). This brief report on Dave's year as Chief Technologist of the FCC gives a few impressions of the policy makers in Washington D.C. Well worth a read, and immensely credible to those of us who know Dave." (Read More.)

"One highlight:

Washington is a town with very, very few technical people advising the top levels of decision-makers. In an era where technology has such an impact on our economy, that is dangerous. Most of the senior people are lawyers and economists with little knowledge of science and technology. They get their information largely from the few technical people on their staffs and from hordes of lobbyists.

For those who don't know it, Dave's IP (Interesting People) email list is a previous generation of the same spirit that led to slashdot. The interesting people on the list send interesting tidbits to Dave, who forwards them on (or not) depending on whether he finds them interesting. Dave does no reformatting or cleanup of submissions, so the stuff is sometimes a bit hard to read, depending on how many times it's been forwarded, but the content is almost always worthwhile. And Dave's own pieces are almost always worth a read. They range from what's new and hot in Akihabra (Dave's a gadget guy) to what Dave had to eat on that same trip to Tokyo. There's a leaning towards stories that hit the intersection between technology and policy, but lots of other goodies come by here too.

For web archives going back to mid-1993, see http://www.interesting-people.org/."

Comments

Re:Bipartisanship

[e_lehman]

The cynical stuff we see on-camera comes from a media fascination with partisanship and conflict rather than from politicians being two-faced. Media people choose to point the camera at conflict, not thoughtful policy discussion. They prefer soap opera drama over substantive concepts. Fox News is the worst offender. They cast EVERYTHING in terms of an American left-right political struggle. That's just not a very meaningful way to look at the world, but I guess that's the way Rupert Murdoch likes it.

Re:Bipartisanship

[jeffsenter]

This also could be because the good old boys in Washington don't differ all that much deep down inside. The interpretation depends on your perspective. Do you believe that America's politicians are working for the good of the country or not?

Re:The Problem With Washington...

[charvolant]

The existence of strong encryption technologies, software that defeates copyright-protection ... Technical problems can only be solved technical solutions

These two examples are social problems.

Strong encryption technologies are -- until quantum computing arrives, at least -- pretty much a solved technological problem. The problems it poses are ones like: "Does society, as a whole, want to allow anyone to hide the evidence of their activities? Including that guy collecting protection money? Including those kidnappers? Including that serial killer?" or "Does society, as a whole, want to allow a government that can erase all records of their activities simply by forgetting a few passwords?&quot Human-rights trials for nasties like the Khmer Rouge or the Stazi often have to use the records that they, themselves, have gathered. Nice of us to give them an "instant erase" button on a plate.

Similarly, the copyright-breaking software is, pretty much, a solved technical problem. But the question remains as to how much reward a creator should be given and how that reward is gathered and distributed. Nobody wants copyright-breaking software in and of itself; what they want is the stuff that is copyrighted -- the creative work. If copyright-breaking software helps dry up the source of readily available of creative work, then it's a net loss. Looks like a social problem to me.

And technical problems can be solved by non-technical solutions. A way of solving a problem is to make the root of the problem go away. If you reduce the burglary problem to insignificance, all those technical problems to do with the control of laser-cannon in home security also vanish.

This touches on a larger question. How much responsibility do the creators of software owe to the rest of society? Most software has unforseen consequences. (As do grandiose political programs, but I'm talking about the software domain, here.) Technologies such as strong encryption can have quite large societal consequences, not all of them begnin. When does everybody else get a say? Is releasing them without the general agreement of society an abuse of power?

I'm just not that impressed with arrogant, power-hungry techheads, as well.

"I walk the line"

[wytcld]

"walking a fine line between not regulating the Internet to death and keeping it the open, vibrant network it is today"

Say again? No, that makes sense, to keep it open and vibrant it has to be regulated, but not to death. ?? But this is in the context of the Time/AOL merger, so it's Time/AOL that has to be regulated, but not to death? Why not?

Re:Washington and Canberra

[Stephen Samuel]

I think that a far more revealing quote would be:

With respect to technical information, Washington is a mushroom farm.

Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit until you've got what you want.

If you're living in or near Washington, I suggest you contact you favorite rep, and offer your services.
--

Re:Bipartisanship

[Wellspring]

It's a little more complicated than that.

• Reps aren't usually the ones you see. Those old white guys spouting opinions on your network are, typically, other journalists-- typically ones promoted to the level of Pundit. When congressmen/senators/appointees are interviewed, they are typically given only a few seconds, and are put into situations where there is a strong opponent right next to them. Even then, they are typically gracious to their colleagues. The media works very hard to keep them at each others' throats. But usually, they just stick a few real leaders in between hoards of the media elite, who are paid to be jerks.
• This happens because the media benefits from conflict. A news story about a learned debate between a tax cut of N% and a cut of (.95)N% just won't earn ratings. So they find the one guy in congress who is storming mad about it, and interview him. That's, IMO, why Sen. McCain gets so much media attention: he isn't easily pigeonholed by party, and is more often at odds with other Senators about something than his colleagues.
• The legislative process is fundamentally boring and consensus driven. It consists of legislative assistants (working for the various committees and in the Member's personal offices) getting together and hammering out a budget based largely on that agency's requests. It takes months and is filled with formal letters requesting fair consideration from other members, then rushed markup sessions where priorities are set and horses traded. The members themselves only set goals and targets; they personally negotiate only if things break down. This is totally unreportable. For one thing, the people who are doing the work are between 25 and 35 years old-- way too young to look like Government Officials. For another, they won't talk to the press-- that's what press secretaries are for, to shield legislative staff from reporters (with the occasional senior staffer who does off the record interviews). So the press interviews the only people who will still talk to them: each other.
• Sit down with a stopwatch one night on the nightly news and record how much time people with real political power (someone with a position in the government) speaks. Then do the same with crossfire (on a night when they have anyone who actually does policy-making for a living at all). You just don't have time to be thoughtful.

• One excellent point I drew out of the report was the shortage of technical people. You have no idea how easy it is to get into politics and be in a position of at least moderate influence. The trick is to always work to put more into your efforts than you ever want to take out. Find some state rep or state senator who you agree with on most issues. Then contribute your most valuable resource: time. With recent layoffs, this shouldn't be a problem for some of us. Read Heinlein's book, Take Back Your Government.

  You won't get everything you want, but you'll gain a new respect for our leaders, and also help them make good decisions about many of our most critical issues in technology.

Re:Bipartisanship

[Kyobu]

Now, you raise a good point. I certainly agree that principled opposition is important on many issues. The Democrats have been coddling the Republicans since the Resident was sworn in, and it's time for that to change. That's not what I meant in my post, though.

Debate, not argument, is the essence of politics. Constructive conflict is good; shouting is not, except when it's necessary, as in the Ashcroft controversy--there, even the antidemocratic tactic of filibustering was warranted on account of the Republicans' absolute dereliction of their responsibilites. Bush was acting as if he'd won the Presidency by a landslide, and he still seems to think that, and that's not OK.

In general, though, politics is best approached with a constructive mindset. Since this article is about the FCC, I might take the example of media regulation. Clearly, allowing one company to own too many media outlets in one region is strongly against the interests of the residents of that region, because doing so diminishes the range of voices they may hear. Since at least some Republicans are not in the pockets of the News Corp. and Time Warner, it is their responsibility and that of all principled people to act as their conscience dictates and act constructively, instead of shouting at the top of their lungs about "an out-of-control regulatory machine" or some such nonsense as their party line demands.

Speaking of Dave Farber...

[AntiNorm]

Has he ever responded to his interview?

---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!

Bipartisanship

[Kyobu]

When our elected representatives are off-mike and off-camera, they show a genuine interest in the issues they deal with and a bipartisan spirit that I had not expected to see.

I think this is interesting. So much posturing and counterproductive argument goes on in Washington these days (and almost always has, I guess) that it's depressing, especialy for politics nerds like me who think that politics is not inherently evil, but can be a force of good. It's good to hear that some politicians are earnest and wish for progress, but it's unfortunate that most of them do not extend this spirit to their public personae.

Where are the answers?

[Roblimo]

Dave Farber agreed to a Slashdot interview back in January. I sent the questions but he never returned the answers despite several resendings and requests.

Other than that, he seems like a decent guy.

- Robin