Slashdot Mirror
Experiences w/ Tech-Savvy Politicians?
leperjuice asks: "I recently had the pleasure of speaking with John Podesta (Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, now a visiting professor at Georgetown ) about tech issues and was pleasantly surprised: not only did he know of the DeCSS case but he knew of Jon Johansen and actually quoted an interview with him. This got me thinking; which politicos out there actually understand tech issues (rather than just have a staffer who occasionally reads Wired)? Which ones don't? What have been your experiences?"
I've heard that he writes gospel music, and he likes the idea of being able to distribute it sans Mega-Corporations.
:)
Interesting intersection between the religious right and the hackers, eh?
At the same time, while I feel that the Right (hell, the Left too) has forsaken the normal citizen for corporate interests, it's interesting to see that when a legislator is directly, adversely affected by a corporate interest, all of a sudden they sing a different tune. So to speak.
I mean, if you told me that Orrin Hatch was on the Napster side of the online music distribution argument, I'd think you were nuts - if I didn't know that he had personal reasons to snub the RIAA.
One politician who deserves to be recognized is Russ Feingold, the idiosyncratic senator from Wisconsin. Best known for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill (and one of the few politicians to refuse PAC money in a campaign for national office), Feingold has also long been one of the few tech-savvy people in a notoriously over-age, anti-tech government body. His finest hour in this regard was the Leahy-Feingold bill to overturn the Communications Decency Act, which was left to the courts to litigate; but he's often spoken out on issues near and dear to the EFF, with support for encryption freedoms and online privacy.
The only Senator who really outstrips him in this area is Patrick Leahy, D-VT, who takes the lead on more tech issues (Feingold often being a co-sponsor), especially since Feingold has put so much effort into the campaign finance issue.
But especially in those early days around 1995, when hardly anyone really knew what the internet was, Feingold said on the Senate floor,
Guaranteeing the Internet is free of speech restrictions, other than the statutory restrictions on obscenity and pornography which already exist, should be of concern to all Americans who want to be able to freely discuss issues of importance to them regardless of whether others might view those statements as offensive or distasteful. Shifting political views about what types of speech are unsuitable should not be allowed to determine what is or is not an appropriate use of electronic communications. While the current target of our political climate is indecent speech (the so-called "seven dirty words"), a weakening of First Amendment protections could lead to the censorship of other crucial types of speech, including religious expression and political dissent. I believe the censorship of the Internet is a perilous road for the Congress to walk down. It sets a dangerous precedent for First Amendment protections and it is unclear where that road will end.
Very impressive. Remember, this was nineteen-ninety-five, TIME magazine was running cover stories suggesting the internet was some sinister force creeping into our homes, and most people still had to have the word explained to them. In those days, it was difficult to find anyone who would stand up for the rights of internet users, who were seen as a fringe group of suspicious characters, hackers, pornographers, terrorists and worse -- rather than today's view that the internet is a basic utility to be enjoyed by all citizens. Fortunately, shortly after this I attended a Rotary Club meeting where he spoke (we are from the same home town), and in the Q&A time I stood up and let him know that a lot of people online considered him a hero.
----
lake effect weblog
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
--
in which he discussed, perhaps for the first time for many Americans, including techies, the socio-economic importance of the "Information Highway."
He got it. And he got it years before many of you youngun's first heard of the internet.
By 1994, White House aide John Podesta had been called into the inner circle of the Clipper project. Meanwhile, Podesta's brother, Tony, a lobbyist and fund-raiser was representing AT&T. His donors and clients, including AT&T, were invited to participate in trade trips to China and obtain valuable export deals with Beijing. Only a year earlier, John Podesta had signed a legal statement promising not to engage in any conflicts of interest involving his brother.
John Podesta WAS a staffer. Chief of Staff is an employee of the White House, not an appointed office. Appointees must be confirmed by the Senate. Staff refers to the people within a politicians team that are paid for as part of their office expenses. This is quite ironic, given the power and influence of staff members and their role in legislation. One key difference is that they have no authority in themselves, merely acting on behalf of their poss.
For example, Ashcroft has powers granted by the legislature and the head of the DoJ. He is therefore confirmed by the Senate.
When the President hires an aide (normally done by someone assigned to this task by the Chief of Staff, who is responsible for overseeing the staff), they are not approved by the Senate.
Staff members extend the policians range by acting on their behalf.
However, in the article you state, "This got me thinking; which politicos out there actually understand tech issues (rather than just have a staffer who occasionally reads Wired)?" This is an ironic question to ask when you are excited about a Staffer understanding tech...
Alex
I wasn't doubting the power of the CoS, that's an incredibly powerful position. Nor are White House aides all minor positions... Remember Iran-Contra... The White House established a private military, multiple corporations to launder the funds, etc., all under the White House aides. They do quite a bit.
however, the Chief of Staff is NOT the same as a politician. In the cabinet, people are normally accomplished politicians... i.e. popular Senators, Governors, or the occaisional undersecretary from the last White House of that party.
When picking Cabinet members, the President has to make certain that the Senate will go along. For this reason, the people in the "official" capacity are choosen for their political skills to influence people, etc. They are done to "appease a constituency", "secure a state" for the next election, etc. Rarely are they chosen for their ability to manage the organization that they head. Bush's shortened transistion may have helped in this regard, because he plucked a LOT of No. 2s from the last GOP administration, his father's.
The Chief of Staff is choosen to get the job done. As a result, they are chosen for their political sense and administrative efficiency. Most of the Chiefs of Staff could never have been elected President or Vice President (although Cheney seems to act like a Chief of Staff at times...), but they can run the White House like nobody's business.
They are NOT a politician in the regards that Slashdotters think, but they are not an aide as you suggested that I implied. Senior level White House staff are a unique breed... influential, powerful, and significant.
Alex
The Yahoo News story actually says that Bush asked federal employees to "cut back" on email, not to "send less" email. Two very different things.
With the way you worded it, you made it sound as if Bush thought having the computer on (and sitting there), did not use as much power as having the computer on AND sending email.
The actual wording indicates that Bush wanted people to use their computers less by cutting back on the time they spend in email. Seems reasonable to me.
I also suspect that Bush has a fairly good idea as to how much time an average person could waste reading non-essential email from friends/family.
I'm a constituent of Michigan's 5th congressional district (and a minor, by the way, so no vote for me). I've been pleasantly surprised when talking to Democratic Rep. Jim Barcia. I first met Jim as a result of attending a candidate forum held a few days before the 2000 election in my home town. Jim had legislative business in Washington, and as such, couldn't make it, but was represented by a campaign worker.
During the forum, I had a chance to ask a question about whether the congressional candidates had supported the DMCA, and what they thought of its potential ramifications for independent computer scientists. While the worker couldn't provide an answer, she did take my name and phone number, and a few days later, Rep. Barcia called me at my home.
While he was be no means a geek, Jim seemed to have a very good grasp of many issues relating to technology and society (he serves on the house Science and Technology committee). We spoke about DeCSS and Napster in particular. He mentioned that his son is a Napster user, and agreed that modern record contracts are unfair to artists, relating a story about some high school friends of his who sold the rights to a rather popular song of theirs for the price of a new amp.
So, in short, I found Mr. Barcia to be very open-minded and well informed, as far as politicians go. If only the rest of the congress could be as cluefull as reps Boucher and Barcia...
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
However, we elect our representatives primarily for their integrity and political acumen. Their knowledge of technical issues is a pleasant plus, but even more important is if they have an open mind and keen interest in adressing technical issues such as our Virginia freshman congressman, Bob Schrock who is already on key technical committees. Senator Warner can also be trusted to study, consult with aides and vote meaningfully on technical issues.
The two engineers we elected as President, Herbert Hoover and Billy Carter, were voted out of office after leading our nation to undesireable economic states, despite their strong technical background.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Within 15 minutes I recieved a reply message with my answer: Christmas Islands. I'm telling you, this guy is GOOD. You'd think the founder of the Internet would be working on implementing IPv6 or something lofty like that, but good ol' Al never loses his touch with the common people. It's really a shame that he didn't win the election. A President with a command of his essentials like that would be a credit to the nation. I know you're all thinking one of his staffers wrote it, but you're wrong. If anyone else has had any other positive experiences with Al Gore or goatse.cx, please reply below.
- Dan I.
Senator Orrin Hatch (see a statement about Napster) has always seemed to have a clue (and an anti-Microsoft one) about these matters. This seems to be because of geography as well -- he's served in the Senate with Novell located in his state.
Currently Australia doesn't have someone quite of that calibre. There are no more tax breaks for corporate R&D, professors in Australian Universities are stuck with declining pay rates compared to their overseas equivalents and it seems that all the worthwhile Australian inventions are being brought to market by non-Australian companies.
All of which might explain why half of the bright people I know have left to work in London, San Francisco, New York and Boston.
The AC's I can see, of course. But to put them in the same sentence with "sending email"?
My personal guess is that they have him running an Etch-A-Sketch.