The Politics of Technology

airrage writes "An interesting Washington Post article today, concerning technology's voice on Capital Hill, talks about how the high-tech sector is no longer the belle of the congressional ball. Apparently, circa 2000, politicos were simply tripping over themselves to be seen as pro-technology. Currently, it's much harder to get congressional leaders to embrace pro-technology initiatives. Seems like technology in general is trending towards more regulation as the industry is seen as staid as railroads, coal, or shipping."

Comments

High-tech Pork

[Aztech]

I'd say this is way to pessimistic, a lot of government money is washing into technology, which may not be good for the long-term considering the healthiness of most state supported industries.

Uh... Democracy, rememeber?

[Lao-Tzu]

Keep in mind those politicians who aren't interested in technology are there because you put them in power. (Well, at least in the states...) If you want more technically competant congressmen, some technically competant people need to quit their jobs as IT/IS folks and start campaigning instead. I personally would prefer that they stay disinterested in technology as long as they aren't savvy in the field. That's how we get things like the DMCA. Well, rich corporations buying legislation helps there too.

Don't I hear half of slashdot whining about being unemployed all the time too? Of course, if you're unemployed, you may be overly incompetant to be a politician... well, let's be realistic, it's hard to be more incompetant than the current politicians. ;)

Technology is Politics

[locarecords.com]

I think it is important that technologists realise the importance of politics to technology. The centres of power cannot simply be ignored and difficult questions about where technology is leading us and where we want it to lead us need to be addressed particularly by those who understand the technology.

This is especially crucial when politicians start to introduce crazy new laws (DMCA anyone?) without any deeper understanding of the implications.

People claiming that Open Source must remain apolitical and neutral are naive. To address this subject we are running an open debate on technology and politics on our website digitalagora.com and would welcome your comments and debate.

Sure they care about technology....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

If you are one of the companies that can line their pockets with cash.

Some things never change.

Re:Not suprised

[DarkSkiesAhead]

If they really cared about the internet and such, we would have people like Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds (oh yeah, and CowboyNeal and CmdrTaco and...) as top Presidential/Senatorial/Congressional consultants

"Mr Gates, how do you propose we deal with Iraq?"

"Well, have you tried buying up the country and annexing it? Or if that doesn't work you could patent plutonium and sue the pants off of Saddam."

The delusion that "technology is special..."

[trims]

I'm actually not that unhappy that the tech bubble and its attendent fawning are gone. Sorry about all those without a job right now, but in the long run, it's better...

Somehow, the technology sector was promoted (and believed) to be "different" than any other sector in history, and therefore we couldn't, possibly, no never apply the same logic that we'd used to analyse other sectors at it. Look where that attitude got us.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at technology with fresh eyes as to the benefits and possibilities it brings. And I'm definitely not for forcing all technology into previously-defined cubbyholes via direct legal analogy (e.g. it's the Internet folks, not some fucked up mutant telegraph or road system. Look at the new paradigm). However, that doesn't mean we can't learn and use previous analytical and legal tools to help mold the direction of tech.

I'd actually love to see a good chunk more of regulation in the "tech" sector, which actually also includes the "Intellectual Property" sector. We really could use:

• Real Consumer Protection Laws. Just like buying any physical object, whether a vaccuum or car, my software better come with an enforcable warranty of fitness. And I should be able to return defective merchandise, no questions asked (even if I've opened the shrink-wrap).
• Product Liability for Bad Quality. Why the hell don't standard QA laws apply here?
• Real Contract Law. We have 500+ years of Common Law on what constitutes a real contract between two parties. Now, suddenly, the tech and IP sector want to redefine that because the old way simply "doesn't apply" to their paradigm for some reason (primarily because it's not to their liking?)
• Similarly, Application of Traditional IP Standards This whole concept of "licensing" a copy of a problem is bullshit, the same way that "licensing" a copy of a book or music tape was 100 years ago. And we had several hundreds of years without patents on anything other than physical devices. WTF?
• Level Field for Taxation. I see no reason why local sales taxes shouldn't be normalized and then applied to purchases bought on line. There's no real excuse not to tax catalogue and Internet retailers the same as local ones.
• Actual Oversight of Company Finances. This isn't a tech problem per-se, but the biggest egregarious sinners are tech companies, and tech in general doesn't seem to think that the way they did things in the 90s was bad. Another "we're different, so the rules don't apply" delusion.
• Better Labor Law Enforcement. WTF is up with standard 80-hour weeks for tech sector? The enforcable "non-compete" clauses? The "own-your-brain" shit? The royal clusterfuck that is the H1B program (oh, it could be such a great thing, if it wasn't run so badly...)

Tech needs to stop with the "we're special" attitude, and get back into the real world. This includes getting a bunch of regulation and responsibilities. Right now, the tech sector is behaving like a spoiled teenager. The sooner it grows up and realizes it needs to play by the same rules everyone else does the sooner that politicians (and everyone else) takes it seriously again.

-Erik

Techies vs. Politicians

[Alex711]

I worked in the senate this summer for the Majority leader and his top technology advisor (believe me, when I say we are trying to stick it to ICANN), and I saw first hand WHY politicians don't really work closely with the tech industry.

Techies tend to stick to themselves, taking the attitude of "If you don't bother us, we won't bother you." With a few exceptions (MS is one of them), the technology industry does NOT lobby the Hill much at all.

While it isnt always about the money, one indication of their lack of involvement is money donated to campaigns. The technology industry is HUGE, much bigger in revenues than the TV/Movie/Music industry. But when it comes to money donated to campaigns, the tech industry gives considerably less ($12 million less in the last 3 years 2000-2002).

Techies shouldn't suffer all of the blame, but in an atmosphere like the Hill, when everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is vying for the attention of politicians, those who scream loudest get heard. The NRA knows it, the financial institutions know it, but the technology industry DOES NOT.

I am an avid /.'er and I really want things to get done. Hell, I even call my old boss now and again and tell him to put the screws to ICANN (working on it, low priority, unforunately). However, the technology industry as a whole needs, and especially those of us who are smaller in #s but are out their trying to champion rights for everyone, to learn HOW to get their voice heard. Hiring lobbyists is not a "sell-out" thing to do, it is often the smart thing to do. MS figured it out, now it is time for us on the other side to figure out how.

Bush campaign dirty tricks: Gore told the truth.

[maynard]

Here's a nice summary of the "Gore invented the Internet" bullshit. Note that Gore claimed to have been directly involved in providing NSF funding for ARPANET. This, in fact, he did. More importantly, he NEVER claimed to have invented the technology and engineering behind the Internet. Here's what Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the matter. Note that they ARE principal engineers of the original ARPANET. Essentially, they back up Gore and his involvement in providing the necessary funds to keep the ARPANET, and then the Internet alive during tough financial and budgetary times.

You are repeating a political dirty trick the Republican's used to discredit Gore during the 2000 election. That it was completely false and a total misrepresentation of Gore's words and intent didn't matter to Bush and his campaign staff. That people still repeat the slander as though it was God's truth shows how effective negative advertising and media manipulation really is. I note finally that I dod NOT vote for Gore, and was never a Gore supporter. And I won't vote for him in 2004. But that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable to let this untruthful meme perpetuate without refutation.

Cheers,
--Maynard

Not a troll, some truth in the statement

[Brian_Ellenberger]

He did not say he invented the Internet, but he did say "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". From snopes.com:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

Now sure the "urban legend" uses the word invent instead of create, but the point is the same. Al Gore seemed to be taking credit for something that was *MUCH* larger that he was---even as Vice President. Especially for a project that had been going on since the late 60's. What about Vint Cerf the developer of TCP/IP? Or Tim Berners-Lee, developer of the World Wide Web. Or Ray Tomlinson founder of e-mail? Heck, if we are going to talk about politicans what about LBJ since the DARPA project that became the Internet was started during his administration?

There are a thousand people more deserving to proclaim they "took the initiative in creating the Internet". Sure Al may take credit in helping to promote it, but his statement was way too broad and arrogant. He didn't even acknowledge anyone else. It is everything I dislike about a powerful person taking credit for the work of the "little guy".

Brian Ellenberger

Vint Cerf says Gore was 'instrumental' too.

[maynard]

There are a thousand people more deserving to proclaim they "took the initiative in creating the Internet". Sure Al may take credit in helping to promote it, but his statement was way too broad and arrogant.

Those "thousand people" weren't in congress promoting and voting on NSF funding for the net, now were they? While a congressman in the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1984, and while in the Senate from 1984 to 1992, he was one of the principal NSF fundraisers for the APRANET project. It's the truth, as much as some folks would like to overlook that fact. Oftentimes he was among the only members of congress who saw the potential of the net once computing became ubiquitous. Again, I point readers (and you) to what Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the matter. Al Gore has this to say on the subject as well. He plainly makes clear that he never involved himself in deep technical and engineering aspects of the ARPANET project.

Folks may not like the facts of his involvement, especially considering how contentious this issue has been after the factual misrepresentations by operatives from the Republican party and the press during the 2000 election. However, facts are facts and those misrepresentations and lies don't take away the real good that Gore did in promoting the 'net during almost fifteen years in congress, often in tough financial times. According to Kahn and Cerf, Gore actually was instrumental in providing the necessary funding to keep development alive from the late seventies on through to the early nineties, after which it took off on it's own.

Again, I repeat that I am not a fan of Gore, didn't vote for him in 2000, and would not vote for him if given the chance in 2004. That doesn't make the slander that he misrepresented his involvement in funding the development of the net any less worthy of refutation.

Cheers,
--Maynard