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?"

Comments

Sens. Russ Feingold D-WI & Pat Leahy D-VT

[DHartung]

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

Podesta is a criminal & threat to the Republic

[AntiBasic]

The story starts in 1992 when AT&T developed secure telephones untappable by the federal government. The company planned to make them available to the American public. Instead, the Clinton administration interceded and bought up all the phones with a secret slush fund. The plan also involved refitting the phones with a new chip called "Clipper," which would permit the government to tap the phones easily once they found their way back into the hands of American consumers.

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.

My experience with James Barcia

[spoonboy42]

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?"

Re:Not a great example...

[zhensel]

Your average staffer may not have that much power, but the chief of staff is one of the most powerful people in Washington. To say that they aren't a politician just because they weren't confirmed or elected is a joke. If you say that, you are missing 99% of the politicians in Washington. Hell, I bet Bush's CoS has more power than he does :)

Your average college intern staffer (like those found in congressional offices, white house mail guys/tour guides, whatever) may not have much power, but don't think that the Chief of Staff is a peon just because the people's opinion doesn't give him/her authority.

It's nice that you can point out irony, but the poster wasn't wrong in the slightest. The Chief of Staff is a politician to the same level that a cabinet member / Judicial apointee / etc is. (H/Sh)e probably has more power than either during the time of their appointment as well. The Chief of Staff is responsible for more than the White House aides. The CoS also must arrange for the thousands of other executive branch run departments. Some of these jobs need Senate approval, some don't. Suffice to say, it's a demanding job and provides one with more power than almost any other in Washington.