Slashdot Mirror
Government Web Sites Are Not for the Incumbents
Hal Plotkin has a column pointing out a severe deficiency in how the U.S. government handles web sites - they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs. The practice of using official resources for partisan political purposes is not new - the big rush actually hit about 3-4 years ago - but we could make such better use of the web, if only...
Those who seek the power are least deserving of it.
Ravenn
Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a dark room, sleep is not one of them.
the big new here is ?
i mean the president (take your pic any one ive been alive for) has flown all over the counrty on tax payer provided planes and fuel to campain for OTHER canadates in tight races not to mention a convient trip to a party fund raiser
Damn the man!
It's standard practice in .gov to "rewrite" some of the findings, achievements, etc. of the previous administration to appeal to the current politicians thoughts and ideals.
I've always thought what a waste of time and resources it is for a particular State to rewrite road signs and post the picture and "thoughts" of the current governor on the backs of road maps. Of course there's many things you see, such as this /. article that shows just how much waste (and graft) occurs in .gov.
No matter how the politicians spin things, their primary goal is to get reelected. Very few policitians have enough guile to tell the establishment (and stick to their guns) that they're only there for one/two terms, to make a difference.
Jerry Fletcher,
Privacy Protection By:
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
The US Government promotes candidates currently in office... this can't be fair. we didn't elect them there in the first place.
-1: sarcastic
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
IIRC, there are some limitations to updating an office holders website close to an election.
Certainly incumbents hold many advantages... but perhaps the most important is the turnout: to a large degree, its the same people, especially in an "off-year" election. I'd ask anyone who's unhappy with the way things are to GO VOTE on NOV 5th.
If you have to write-in a candidate just to feel good about your vote, go ahead and do that. Vote for that potted plant, even. I need a laugh.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
"they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs."
And the other avenues of communications aren't? How is Congressman Tauzin's self-promotional website different from, say, the form letter I got from Congressman Tauzin explaining how good the Tauzin-Dingel through franked mail (who needs to buy stamps when you're a member of Congress?) in response to the complaint I sent to him about said bill? Tell me how that letter and all the other form letters various members of Congress send to concerned voters isn't just so much political advertising?
No, I'm not saying all members of Congress are guilty of this (at the very least somebody read letters I've sent to my Senators, for example), but there are some who are quite guilty of this, and all we've seen come of it is legislation against using franked mail within X number of days of election day.
Come back when you've noticed the problem in general and not just the websites in particular.
What we need are congressional terms limits and less seneiority priviliges. Once representatives realize that gorverning should be a short detour from their normal lives, and not an occupation, our government should improve.
1. Minor complaint: The article headline is backwards. These sites are biased toward the incumbents, as the article notes.
2. If we want less bias, have a nonpartisan agency write the bios and update the pages. Something like the Congressional Budget Office -- not immune to politics, but one step removed from the process and beholden to no single representative.
3. Incumbents win over 90% of Congressional races and have for some time, so the bias issue really isn't all that important. There is so much inherent bias in the fact that incumbents get to do newsworthy things in front of cameras that websites don't really change anything.
4. The real scandal about government websites, especially the Congressional ones, is the almost total lack of content. The home pages should include all votes cast by the representative -- Thomas is clunky and difficult to use. As the artcile notes, it would also be nice to know when the official is up for re-election. Personally, I'd also like to see links to FEC campiagn finance reports on the same page to make correlating funding sources and voting patterns easier, but asking Congress to commit mass political suicide is probably not a realistic option.
Make cheese not war 8:)
...is designed to favour the incumbents.
The two big parties have enough funding to brainwash the masses into thinking that they are the only parties capable of winning, yet their policies differ very little.
The net effect is that by voting for either of them, you are voting for the status quo - nothing ever happens and they keep lining their pockets.
Vote for someone else. Left or right, it doesn't matter, just shake out the incumbents.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
While this is certainly an unfortunate practice, it's hardly a new one, except perhaps with regards to the internet.
One of the many benefits of incumbency is the access to government resources which can be used in functionally political ways. The most basic of these is what is known in the business as "franking," whereby congresspeople can send mail to their constituents on the public dime. In 1994, the Republicans ran on a platform of reforming the franking rules, but quickly changed their minds when they found themselves in office.
As with most problems related to political campaigning, the only real fix I see is public campaign financing. By allowing anyone, incumbent or challenger, who can demonstrate a certain threshold of public support (typically through collecting a large number of very small contributions), the advantages of incumbency, fund-raising connections, etc. can be mitigated, candidates can be free to spend their time speaking to the issues, rather than raising money, and, once elected, they won't be quite so loyal to big-money interests.
(If you live in Massachusetts, be sure to vote yes on Ballot Question 2, to preserve our Clean Elections public-financing system.)
Red All Over: Rambling Missives from an Aspiring Revolutionary
...once he/she is elected to office is to do everything they can to guarentee they get re-elected the next time around.
I am a firm believer in term limits, and public financing of campaigns. I also believe how congresscritters are paid needs to be changed. Some dork making a hundred grand a year is too out of touch with reality to represent the average American who is making 15 thousand a year. It should work like the Peace Corps...while you're in office, all you get is what the average American makes per year. Then at the end of your (limited) term, you get a lump sum to make up the difference between what the average Joe gets and what a congresscritter is paid.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
His main point seems to be that government web sites should be dedicated to organizing grass roots groups. First of all, the idea of the government organizing grass roots groups is oxymoronic. It is also a pretty dumb idea. I can just imagine the paranoia if the government tried to monopolize all of the grass roots organizations by hosting them on government web sites. "I spent the last 5 hours typing up my opposition to the mayor's speech when my computer crashed and the whole thing was lost. Then I got to thinking, who controls the web site? (The mayor.) Was it really a mistake that my post was lost?"
This guy, Plotkin, should go back and dig up some real abuses to complain about. Lacking that, this article just sounds like a big long whine.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
From MoveOn.org ("working to bring ordinary people back into politics") -- download your very own "Regime Change Begins at Home... VOTE!" poster.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
And a lack of transpanrency? Nonsense, one guy is so open and honest I even managed to find his price list on the net!
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
Democracy.org lets you find all your local candidates, their voting records and positions on issues, their addresses and websites, etc.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
One of the more eye-catching examples of this sorry trend occurred earlier this year, when a member of California Gov. Gray Davis' administration issued rules that required state employees to place Davis' picture on every single one of the approximately 100 home pages run by the state, ranging from the home page for the Department of Motor Vehicles to that of the State Energy Commission. (bold by me)
Is it just me, or do any of my fellow Calfornians find all too much irony in Gray Davis trying to promote himself on a website of what is commonly referred to as the bane of his governorship?
they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs.
If you visit your congressmens' offices in Washington, you find it is exactly the same. The physical office space belongs to the officeholder, and is used by his or her staff to promote a particular agenda.
Of course rival candidates aren't given equivalent resources by the government, but this is a feature, not a bug. The incumbent is the one who currently has the office, after all.
Yes, it is an uneven playing field because the government gives congressmen a web presence. But congressmen can also promote their campaigns and agenda on the House and Senate floors.
It may be unfair to rival candidates, but it would be worse to deny government resources that are needed to carry out representation. And it's really not as bad as it may seem. Voters are not that stupid. They can figure out that incumbents have an inherent advantage and so the voters can each account for this as they wish.
Incumbents usually have more money, a government web site and all of these advantages. I would like to say that the government site should have a picture of the incumbent, but they should write the rest of the site so that the rest of it concentrates arounf what the governer, senate member or president do in a general sense. Make them learning ans service access websites and not political ads.
Gorkman
I go to the freedom.gov site, and get:
"The site freedom.gov wishes to set a cookie. Do you want to allow it?"
It's important that the government tracks everyone interested in freedom very carefully, after all.
Why do some sites try to set cookies when there isn't any sensible reason for them doing so, from my POV? I can understand when I actually have some server state to be linked with, but can setting cookies on the main page right away have any credible purpose, apart from tracking?
Is anyone else here uncomfortable with "government agencies" trying to "facilitate a wide variety of bottum-up groups to tackle ... problems"? It is hard enough to gather a group
of people with enough energy and committment to address a
problem. When such efforts are "facilitated" by the government
itself, all that energy is likely to get co-opted.
That's the "bloody shirt" to be waved about while organizing. E.g., chatting with your barber, you might say, "I checked out the (local governemt) web site just to see who I could call to ask a question about my water bill, and guess what? Twenty high resolution photos of Supervisor Snort, and not a single damn phone number!! To heck with that! So I just set up my own website with some of that information..."
Well, duh.... If you are not part of a "small group of connected individuals" and if you don't "know the rules," then you won't get anywhere, period. The solution is to form your own small group and learn the rules. If you're an opportunist, you then go about getting yourself and your buddies into office. If you're an altruistic reformer, you use your newly gained "power" (such as it is) to address whatever issues concern you. If you are a radical, then you offer seminars -- teach those rules to everyone! Supply hints on group formation! And at the same time, recruit for your own outfit. Now things are moving...
No!! That would take the fun out of everything! We want to use the deficiencies of their websites to promote our own organizations!
I basically agree with the sentiment here. What forms you need to file and where you get them and where you file them is pretty basic information. And as long as governmental units are deficient, activist sites have something to complain about and also a void that they can fill.
By the way, I live in Southwestern Oakland County, Michigan, and, the last I looked, the Huron Valley School system website had many problems -- PDF files where simple HTML would do, etc., etc. Any readers in this area who are interested in a bit of mild-mannered cybernetical activism can send me an e-mail, maybe we can work together and Try to Fix Things (TM).
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
Most of the campaign finance reform bills, including the one backed by McCain and passed by Congress and signed by Bush recently, basically limit the ability of challengers to campaign, while leaving untouched the ability of incumbents to campaign.
This is just one example of it: the incumbents get government-subsidized campaign web sites, while the challengers do not.
Don't say that having the government pay for all campaigns is the answer, as that gets rid of democracy by having the government choose who will be in government (bye bye grass roots).
The Web does not need to be simply another channel for PR. With Clinton-Gore the idea was partly PR but also what Mark Boncheck called Disintermediation. What we wanted to do was to have a clear channel between the politicians and the people, clear of press 'interpretation'.
The point is not that people are going to trust the politicians more than the press, they will not. However it does prevent the press from some of its wilder distortions. During the '92 campaign the media made much of 'fact checks', doing a reality check on the statements made by both sides. What they never told the people is that they relied 100% on press releases put out by the parties, this was an innovation of James Carville that the GOP quickly followed.
The point of Whitehouse.gov was that the people should have access to the same information as the journalists. That is why we put every whitehouse press release on the web site and through an email server and onto USEnet from day 1 of the administration. This was originally done at MIT and the site later moved to the EOP itself.
The two people mainly responsible for putting the government online were Gore and Gingrich. Gore genuinely believed in the Web and Internet, that is why the GOP had to invent the lie of his claiming to have invented it - to deny him the ability to discuss a major achievement.
Gingrich had a much harder challenge. The congress is divided in many ways, although the speaker controlls the house floor the committee chairs control their individual committees. Gingrich wanted the whole process of government to be transparent so the people could see what was going on. The committee chairs and the lobyists did not, any such democratising move would threaten their power. It would no longer be possible for last minute changes to be made to a bill in secret before it was rushed through committee. This is how many major legislative abuses take place. During the DMCA the lobyists for the RIAA inserted a clause to steal the returned rights of the artists. This was done behind closed doors without the knowledge of many committee members, let alone the people.
In comparison the UK hansard web site is genuinely open. The site was set up to eventually replace the printing and distribution of 'the vote' which is the collection of papers sent to MPs every day. As such the site has every bill and critically every proposed ammendment at the same time the members get it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Wow, this is really big news considering in many states the demopublicans and replubicrats have setup ballot access laws designed to prevent third parties from making ever even making it onto the ballet.
Then there's old Federal Matching funds. I love that one. We need to PAY to help re-elect these shitheads.
The worst part is, nobody cares. Who's playing on Monday night football??
And she complained bitterly about partisan use on both sides.
I recall her complaining bitterly about a trip to Thailand for the Secretary of State. She said 'SEC State', but with the distance between the decks of our homes across which we spoke, I thought she said 'Sex Aid'. I recall thinking that very decadent (having been to Phattaya Beach a few times in the Nav', myself). Took a few repeats to straighten that one out...
OTOH, pilots are required to log a certain amount of hours to retain proficiency. So they wind up logging them in support of activities that are easily objectionable. Andrews AFB is functionally an international airport in service of the gubmint.
However, I don't consider any of this a bad thing, in general. You really want your leadership to have freedom of mobility. You also don't want them showing up looking like they flew economy everywhere they go. Do you really want your representatives vicitimized by luggage handlers?
Yes, these travel facilities are subject to abuse like web sites. How about some useful feedback? Why don't we celebrate good leadership, good use of technology to articulate issues and garner feedback? Whores that politicians are (speaking as an IT whore myself), they are going to respond in the desired fashion to votes in the ballot box that reward desired behavior. So, who are some good examples?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.cf m?ID=81458&CFID=5557730&CFTOKEN=2161477
... senators running for re-election can't update their Web sites for the last 60 days before Election Day."
"Under Senate rules
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
vote-smart is another good source of information about politicians, among the others that people have already mentioned in this thread.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
GDict says:
Shouldn't the headline read:
as the incumbents are the people already in power?All data is speech. All speech is Free.
3 or 4 years? ROTFLMAO!
To give one relatively recent example, in the late sixties all construction projects receiving Federal money sprouted signs announcing that fact. The largest letters on those signs spelled out "PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
From the article:
"If an elected official tried, for example, to drape a banner with his or her picture on it over the state Capitol building, the police would yank it down and cite the offender."
Not in Boston. When my friends come to town, we go to the middle of the city and I give them five minutes to figure out the name of the mayor without speaking. They all do.
How? His name (Thomas Menino) is on every park bench. Every construction sign. The entrance plaque of every building public funds played a role in erecting. Associated with anything where the people and the tangible actions of the city government meet.
It's blatent, and it is an extra use of public funds, occuring in meatspace. This is a blatent contradiction of the ideas in the quote above.
But then, Boston and Chi-Town pols have been aquiring votes by unethical means for hundreds of years now...
Support a few technologists in Washington.
41,944 is the median household income, according to the page you linked. Most households have more than person with income.
It's not what a median job pays, for example.
The question of how the typical American is doing financially can't be answered in a simple way. Any single number you look at can and should be subject to interpretation. The median income for full time males is 37K. What about men who can't get full time work? Or men who have to work more than one full time job?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I MET a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which still survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-Percy Bysse Shelley
Political leaders putting their names on public works is no new thing. If anything is novel about the web aspect of this, it's that the edifice they're affixing their name to is so much more transitory than masonry.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There is a fairly simple solution to this - don't let incumbants run for re-election.
More specifically, do not allow a person who holds a government office (either elected, appointed or simply cashing a goverment paycheck) to run for office for any government position until they have been out of government office for at least one full term of the position they are running for.
Let me give an example to make that clear: Maynard is currently a Senator. He wishes to run for Senate again. Under my rules, if he serves out his current term (let's say he was elected in 2000), then he's out in 2006, and one full term of the Senate would be six more years, so he cannot run until 2012. If he decides to settle for Representative, then that would be 2008. If he resigns TODAY, he can run for Representative in 2004, president in 2008.
Mary is currently Attorney General, an appointed position. Mary wants to run for President. Mary cannot run 2004. The best she can do is hold office until 2004, resign, then run in 2008.
Now, this is different than term limits - you can be Senator however many times you can get elected, just not consecutive terms. AND since you cannot hold ANY goverment position, you cannot be Senator for 6 years, hold appointed office for 6 years, be Senator for 6 years, etc. - you HAVE to get out into the private sector (at least as far as being a lobbyist) (but note well the extant restrictions on lobbying after holding office!).
As a result, an incumbant cannot use their position for their own relection. They won't spend the last two years of office campaining. You won't have the dynastic legacies of a Ted Kennedy or Bob Dole.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Let's see. . .what CAN'T they fly Coach: the rest of us do. And as for baggage handlers, why not subject them to the joys of our new Federalized (and supposedly "Professionalized". . .) Baggage Handlers and screeners. Thay're SUPPOSEDLY there to represent us, as opposed to being the Senator from Disney or whereever.
Then again, if **I** was running things, I'd have Congresscritters and Senators living in general-issue family housing on any of the local military bases in the DC area. After all, if it's good enough for our boys and girls in uniform, it oughta be good enough for a Congressman or Senator....
... until that dark day when they shut down the open relay. I had a lot of fun telnetting into it and using it to create nearly perfect forged e-mail from "bill@whitehouse.gov". Because I used the actual whitehouse.gov server as the relay, even the path of Received headers looked good.
Of course, most people don't even know how to find the headers much less know what they mean, so forging e-mails to your more gullible friends can still be a riot.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I consulted on a "transition team" for the state of NJ's current governor (J. McGreevey) - after I had help build the previous governor's (C. Whitman) version of the state web site.
The web site has over 1,000,000 documents. Each head honcho wants the site branded to them specifically.
This is an actual line of process:
Find:
img src="/assets/images/logo_top_gov_whitman.jpg"
Replace with:
img src="/assets/images/logo_top_gov_mcgreevey.jpg"
Do that about 1,000 times for each variation. Then use the site's spider engine to index all of the pages where the old name appears and go through manually.
That was soo much fun! Almost as fun as doing my COBOL Y2K contract!
..is that it doesn't clearly identify who it belongs go ("Office of the House Majority Leader" is really vague to some occasional voter from Podunk, Iowa) so the average visitor is misled into thinking this is some official gov't site with offical gov't statements (being a .gov and all). Especially since the presentation is very much "news site", not "personal site".
Then it has statements like "Free the Daschle Fifty" -- which the average voter is going to interpret quite out of context.
IMO this site borders on actively deceptive.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Yes, I do.
The matching funds program that you reference is funded by the voluntary "Presidential Election Campaign" checkoff on the 1040 form (and its variants).
I've have often thought that once everyone, or nearly everyone is wired we should only allow communication about canidates and their positions to be posted on a government sponsored website. This way it could have the benefit of making a level playing ground and will keep campaign costs down. Each candidate would get a certain amount of webspace and that's it. If you can't get your position across with 200 Meg of space then something is wrong.
Granted this would take a constitutional amendment to pass but that does not make it impossible. Think about it, people were actually able to ratify a constitutional amendment banning alcohol, why not campaign reform? The beauty of it is that once people start really moving on such a scheme the big corporations will start a media blitz to try and convince people to not support it. Their efforts will only drive home the point that they need to be taken out of the equation.
Government is supposed to be for the people, not for the corporations.
Quite right, to see what kind of politician we have running the country take a look at Governor Cashmore's diary. From the biography on the site:
American has had many scheming politicians but few as devious as Governor Cashmore. Free from both ideological commitments and moral scruples, Governor Cashmore believes that in a country where electors consider only their own self-interest, electors should do likewise.
Governor Cashmore's self interest consists of the pursuit of money, power and sex in roughly equal measure. He is happiest though when he manages to achieve all three at the same time, for example taking a 'bung' (campaign bribe) from an interest group and embezzling all or part of it to buy sex from a prostitute.
Governor Cashmore's constituents are perhaps fortunate that his lack of moral scruples allows him to also double-cross the corporations and interests who fund his campaigns, even if only for the purpose of keeping them dependent on him so that he can touch their purse in future years.
It is difficult to say what motivates Cashmore's compulsive quest for sexual gratification. Some might argue that his insatiable appetite for power in all forms motivates his interest in sex. Others might counter that his addiction to sex drives him to seek the ultimate aphrodisiac, power. Whatever the reason these interests are inseparable and the Governor documents his conquests in both fields, recording the conquest of a member of his campaign staff ('exercise') or a call from the President with equal satisfaction.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
You actually expect me to spend a few hours educating myself on the issues and the candidates? You actually expect me to take five minutes to register to vote, and another half an hour to vote on election day?
Pah! You jackass! How dare you? I'd much rather whine and complain from the critics gallery without even bothering to participate. After all, it's a lot easier to blame everything on "stupid voters" when you're not one of them. ;-)
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
As I see it, the problem is that the internet and the web represent a problem to politics and government - it isn't something they can control, though they try harder every year to do so. Here is a system that they cannot master, cannot bend to serve them how they need to be served, namely to be able to control the populace and tell them how to think. The internet isn't TV, no matter how hard they try. I fear if they are successful, somehow, and manage to put the net under thier thumb, they will likely see a backlash so huge that it will make the day the internet went black look like a party.
What would be my vision for a good political/governmental web site? It would mainly allow the participation of the people - I can easilty envision a slash/scoop web site where users could log in, and DISCUSS issues related to government - a central area where one could see all the legislation passed, all that is on the table or "coming up", all the text of everything, so that it can be seen by the people and discussed - and they (the govt/politicians/congressmen/etc) would take the peoples reaction into account and allow the process to refine the bill properly. I know you can't please all of the people - it would have to be compromise. But by doing so, it is better than the secrecy and hidden gotchas/riders we have now. Furthermore, it would keep people informed as to what is going on in their government, and would possible help keep corruption down by being an open forum. Constituents could communicate better with their representatives, and know that what they are saying is being heard.
One thing I wish was out there was a list of "who voted for what" - ie, wouldn't it be great to know what congresspersons/senators vote for what bills, on a per state basis - so you can see at a glance, based on a search, what your reps for your state voted for what legislation, so you can more easily make a decision to support them or not come next election? Especially things that limit our freedom, etc (think PATRIOT act, DMCA, UCITA, CCDBTA) - then be able to discuss this with other people in your area, in a moderated, threaded discussion forum? It would be true government by the people - true representation.
Instead, we have at best a "mismash" of segregated and separated forums and sites - there are some govt sites that allow you to find out the information (on some things, but not all), then discussion sites like /. and k5 that allow for the political discussion - but nothing that relates to each community/state - so no way to organise with fellow constituents.
You will never see this though, they will likely openly oppose such ability, if anyone tried to set such a thing up. If anyone know of such a thing (I can't be the only one who has thought about this), please let me know. I would love to know who to vote out (as it is, I am thinking about simply voting a straight ticket for one of the alternate parties - but I don't like the idea of doing that as it isn't a good informed decision).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
MI - state representative Paul DeWeese (running for state senate) spammed a list of state email addresses, with a message about how he stands with state employees, shares their outrage at the overuse of contractors, etc. and how he'll continue to work to have more of them, and less of contractors. A blatent political ad.
What he didn't realize it that many contractors have state email addresses. At my workplace, many, many contractors got this email. I don't think it had the effect he was hoping for! ;)
Not really I was working on the Whitehouse publications server at the MIT AI lab as the security consultant.
So I worked with many of the people but not for them.
Governor Cashmore is not a Clinton, he is a Gingrich, he screws anything in a skirt and then lectures on the imorality of adultery.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Which is why he started 'when I was in the Congress'. Gore got us the money to turn ARPANET into the Internet. Al also got us the money for ARPANET.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/