Slashdot Mirror
Politicians Have Poor Grasp of Technology?
Alfred Lee Deon writes "Chris Patten, a former EU Commissioner, was speaking at the three-day conference in Nice, France, on European business and technology. 'Many politicians don't understand the technology issues that could affect government IT schemes,' he said.' Politicians have no sound grasp of technology issues — but politicians don't necessarily have a profound grasp of any issue.' He was especially critical of UK's government's ID card scheme — a scheme he felt would not achieve one of its possible objectives of making borders more secure."
Oh please... It's clear that our fearless leader has been using the google on the internets for years. I hear he looks up maps.
No, politicians have an excellent grasp of technology.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
but in America our politicians have a strong grasp of how to use technology... for hooking up with underage boys.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."-Oscar Wilde
What can be done about it? None of those people are reachable like they claim and everyone who goes against the norm (lobbyists) will be discarded as a radical...
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
It is not just a problem in the EU and UK. We have major IT issues related to privacy, government and oversight here in the US and this is why we need to start populating the political system with politicians who *understand* some of the political issues. People like Pete Ashdown who is running against Orin Hatch (the guy who wanted to remotely destroy computers of those who download music) in Utah are the types of folks that we need to elect. Pete owns one of the first ISPs in Utah and has been at the technological forefront for a number of years. He understands how technology impacts government and business and effects the lives of private citizens.
Populating the political landscape with technologically savvy folks will eventually happen as a matter of statistics, but right now we are dealing with lawyers, jocks and business people as politicians who it seems frequently rely on their staff to even read and answer their emails, much less actually possessing an understanding of more complex technological issues or their wider implications. However, with issues like the massive cost overruns and failure of projects like the FBIs agency wide computer system, loss of privacy and government intrusion into our lives sought by those in the Republican party (OT: what happened to the Republicans? They *used* to be about smaller government, less intrusion into our lives, lower taxes, and a strong military. They are now 180degrees off from all of those issues), we need a new generation of politicians who will be responsive to the people they represent, will understand some of the complex technological issues and all of the social, political and economic implications that technology brings.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Assigning a grade of "poor" to politicians' grasp of technology implies they have grasp, most don't. They (IMO) seemingly react to political winds, political windbags, and moneybags. I can't recall ever seeing a politician on TV, or elsewhere and thinking, "Gee, that politician really gets it!".
And, that's probably why we see laws passed and considered that continue to feed the wealthy and lock in their revenue streams. Technology has so much potential, it is almost mind-boggling what we could and should be doing with it, but instead (IMO) we've watched the train wreck that is our (and now others (BTW, an American here)) government and their bizarre understanding spawning laws that not only hinder technology, they are indecipherable (anyone understand fair use anymore at all?).
The future continues to look more locked in with probably one major provider of technology with a track record of bumbles and fumbles that boggle. Money talks, and politicians listen.
I used to see a future of broad interconnected technology, almost transcendental and transparent. Instead, I see vertical silos of incompatible rubbish that doesn't even mature before generation N+1 is released... the technology moves "forward", our ability to use and access to technology diminishes. (Anyone still confident HDTV, HD DVD, BluRay, etc. will have a soft landing with everyone up and running happily? It's been 10 years since HD, what gives?)
Ironically, glimpses of technology at its best were government funded, the internet is largely an outgrowth of ARPA and DARPA funding. Hubble is NASA. One (the internet) is on the cusp of being regulated to death, to the benefit of the powerful lobbying of powerful groups. The other (Hubble) is on the chopping block for monies in almost any other context would be paltry...
Another interesting lack of understanding manifested after the 2000 elections. The confident rush to technology and electronic voting paradoxically ended up being pointed at as the culprit for another "stolen" election by the very people who had demanded the technology.
There's still a lot of good technology, and there will be a lot more, but it won't be because of the good hands of government. I'm hoping I never see politicians encroach to the point of locking up and out the Open Source and Linux worlds, but I'm fearing I might (Trusted Computing anyone?).
...most politicians are geezers in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and sometimes 90s. so the current crop is ignorant, but in once the current crop starts to really turn over, those politicians should be more up to date. that said, i know some people in that age range that have a good grasp, and other who do not. the latter outweigh the former. additionally, i know a good portion of my classmates on campus are ignorant of technology as well. eh.
always mosh clockwise
...except how to hold on to power. That's their job, really, and the good ones do it well. No one ever lost an election because they didn't understand the things they were supposed to be making laws about. See also http://www.pontification.com/serendipity/index.php ?/archives/117-The-Know-Nothing-Party.html/
I have yet to see a single politician ever talk convincingly on any matter that involves technology. Living in the UK and having to hear some of the claims given about the ID Cards Database is enough to make me laugh at times. On top of that the Government continues to spend huge amounts of money on IT schemes that could be done with a fraction of the money. These schemes are generally run by everyones favourite useless shower of bastards, EDS. Invariably these gigantic schemes fail, leaving the Government without their much-touted improvements (Many of them imaginary, but still) and EDS with a pocket full of cash. Then the cycle begins again with the next eye-watteringly huge contract for another IT scheme.
It seems the highest level of IT amongst UK politicians is the ability to post a stupid clip of yourself on YouTube. I believe Tony Blair doesn't even use email, and I'd be amazed of Gordon Brown can even switch a PC on, frankly.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
A person who gets involved in politics may begin as an ideologue on one or more issues, but with the massive amount of issues that a politician must deal with, it's difficult if not impossible to keep up with them all. Thus, interest groups can influence pols by aligning with political parties to affect whatever outcomes they desire.
Unfortunately, as long as there is an expectation that a government should be involved in every issue, this is the way things will be. A perfectly reasonable solution to the problem would be to ignore these buffoons, and the problem will eventually go away. At the very least, vote for someone who will be ineffectual for a couple of years and routinely toss them out. Or, just vote for a drunken pirate for the laugh value.
Because, in the long run, we are all dead.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
For the most part - politicians in the US are lawyers and tend to be from the boomer generation. As such, they tend to have no training and little exposure to technology. Their technological background ranges from ignorance to neo-luddite. Is it any wonder when they turn out absurd policies regarding science and technology. I suppose we should be grateful that they're not still using quill pens.
[Insert pithy quote here]
"Everyone knows that Congresspeople are assigned to committees based on their greatest weakness! Why else would Senator Ted Stevens, a man more comfortable in the horse and buggy era, wind up in charge of regulating the Internet... which, he believes, is a series of tubes... a series of tubes through which other Congressmen can reach in and fondle sixteen-year olds?"
For them to enact legislation pertaining to my profession, it is necessary for them to acquire a generalized understanding of it, but I wouldn't expect a politician to be able to author a BitTorrent client before attempting to pass legislation about it, any more than I would expect them to be able to perform surgery before passing legislation pertaining to the medical industry. I'm afraid a politician's only possible interest in passing legislation has to be pleasing the greatest number of his/her constituents, regardless of how wrong-minded industry professionals may find that legislation.
As much as I despise people who long for power, this is all a bit misleading. Yes, they probably have poor grasp of IT while making decisions greatly affecting the field, but are you really prepared to say that is a real problem? If it is, then you imply they should have a good knowledge of every single field their decision making touches. Every single one - law, business economy, medicine, pharmaceutics, university research, child care, road planning, ship lane ice breaking, geology, hydrology, satellite communications, nutrition, animal husbandry, criminology, emergency veterinary care, time keeping, library organization, weapon systems development, ....
I would certainly love to have such polymaths in any parliament; I doubt you could find 3-400 such people that are actually competent to make decisions in any country though.
Politicians don't know the ins and outs of their field any more than CxO:s know the details of their company operations. They rely on having people that are experts in their field give the needed input. Is that perfect? No, but, unlike the alternative, it is actually possible to implement.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Nobody can be proficient with all the topics a legislator works on.
What's suppsed to happen is that their hired staff is, or consults, experts in the field and briefs the politician on the issues and options.
We get the politicians we vote for, anyway. I wrote to my state legislator once about e-voting and he'd heard of GEMS: he wrote back to the effect "It's a nightmare. Access was never designed for that kind of application". Be certain I'm voting for him next time he's up.
Interesting that you posit the "No Child Left Behind" bill as GWB's responsibility. Need I remind you that it was primarily authored by Dems... including Kennedy. Accountability will always be problematic for educators, but they should audited as closely as possible to prevent the waste of tax money.
Because it made it clear that the guy who was supposed to be in charge of this stuff for the government was about half way to step 1 on understanding the nature of what he was writing laws about. The guy was giving a talk that was at a level we might have given grade school children in 1995, in 2006, to the US congress. One got the impression that he had just finally read up on how the whole thing worked a week before that speech.
I read the internet for the articles.
From a lot of the "political" comments on /. it's fairly apparent that most IT people/geeks have no real grasp on governmental affairs.
It's fantastic when slashdotters throw around terms like "censorship" when censorship is not really involved (thus proving said posters have no grasp on politics) but god fucking forbid a guy call it "the google".
It's sad how much we sit around here patting ourselves on the back for being so 31337 when the fact is that most of us are severely unqualified to do much more than post on slashdot.
I wonder if on some political site they're discussing how slashdotters have no grasp on politics.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
For as stupid as the Senator sounded when he made those statements, he's really not too far off. I've used the idea of pipes (specifically water pipes) to explain how the internet works as well. In fact, it comes in handy explaining ATM terminology as well.
No, he did not get everything correct, but it was a valiant effort. I think the most obvious problem was his improper use of terms. And I'm sure that if I were to try some political speaking and screwed up the terms, I'd receive the same or similar response. That is, if I was in some sort of public position...
That said, I don't necessarily agree with his views. However, it seems to show that he did put a little effort into it. Personally I think these guys should, at the very least, have someone on their staff to explain these things in detail so they can truly understand what's going on.
Of course, noone expects a technologist to be a perfect political speaker, and likewise, noone should expect a politician to have a complete grasp of technology. Regardless, however, if they plan on delving into the subject, they should be doing some due diligence..
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
Yes, "tubes" is alright if you're using it as an analogy to explain congestion of a single server. He was using it to imply that when there's so much high-media content on the internet, it makes the entire internet slow.
That's why people are harsh on it - he used the wrong analogy, in the wrong situation, pushing an unpopular viewpoint.
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"vouchers"
You bet! When the poor are given food stamps, they have a wide variety of stores where they can redeem them. They aren't forced to go to lousy "we don't have to try at all because we are a monopoly" special government food stores. Why not do the same with education?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Series of tubes, anyone?
Ha ha. That was funny.
It's a lack of represented professions. It's lack of not enough of everyone, or anyone, besides a lawyer. Plain and simple, and old as hat, government is ran by lawyers. Few are from any other profession. No, this is not another lawyer bashing, it is pointing out the fact that the masses would benefit from a more even, representative, spread of professions and knowledge-bases than are currently represented.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
"Private schools can pick and chose whom they wish to educate, and can cut off poor, misbehaving, lazy, underperforming students at any time."
Except that they don't. Private schools have to actually do a good job or they don't stay open. Public schools can waste millions on their administrators and leave the students without toilet paper for years at a time. Public schools do not have to educate any students at all, and it's becoming rather clear that they don't really try all that hard. Private schools have a far higher percentage of students continue to post-secondary education.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Yeah, go ahead and make fun of him again for the whole inventing the internet thing or whatever, but it's pretty clear that he's comfortable around technology.
They did use CNN to get their information on Katrina...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Mary Carey is one politician who has a firm conception of how we "grasp the tubes."
IT people aren't in the position to make good decisions to affect millions (or dare I say, billions?) of people, and, most importantly it's not their job. Politicians are SUPPOSED to make good decisions. Whether that requires them to learn something or get people that do, that IS their job. This post is like responding to a situation of a coach of a losing team by saying that some complaining players on the losing team don't know anything about coaching.
military
US reliance on mercenaries is at an all time high. Though the polically correct term is 'private security contractors'.
Note the war in Iraq is dragging on and there is no vested interest by mercenaries in peace. See also the 40 years war, a conflict in which the mercenary princes fueled the conflict to continue the wars.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
"We already have that. Such schools are called public schools"
If any school is (by your definition) a "public school" just because it admits everyone, then none of these vouchers would go to private schools due to my "clause" that would require all private schools on vouchers to take everyone. Hey, they'd all go to public schools!
"Vaucher solution makes about as much sense as saying "Graduate students are smarter, so let's admit everybody to graduate school" or "Olympic runners are thin, let's send all the fat kids to run in the Olympics"
Only if you think that a good education is the right of only a tiny handful of elite achievers.
Where were you when the voynix came?