Slashdot Mirror
How Will Governments Keep Up With Technology?
Andy Updegrove writes "Governments are beginning to realize that perhaps the Internet really has changed everything, at least for them, and that they are going to have to deal with new responsibilities in this area. How will they deal with financial and medical data breaches? What can they do to ensure that first responders will be able to communicate the next time that terrorists strike in the Homeland, and how will the refugees of the next Katrina be able to access their electronic medical records? And what must governments do to ensure that public records will be available in fifty years, if they no longer maintain paper archives? Whether government should incline towards leading, following or simply getting out of the way is a matter upon which there are likely to be strongly held differences of opinion. It's also likely, though, that government will not have the luxury of opting for the third choice in some of the areas just mentioned. How well government chooses among those roles, and how well it executes when it chooses to lead, will likely have a profound impact on our lives in the years ahead."
This is the government, right? They can just ask Jesus.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
That's it...
sig.
Amateur radio is a great backup system when all else fails in the arena of communication.
Big Brother.
Along with this explosion of information, I wonder how governments will be able to maintain their collective grips on society as a whole. Never before has access to anti-government information been so readily available. Maybe they will have to rely on ever more draconian measures to maintain the status quo - but I hope not.
You have to be current to keep up. Last I checked, we weren't current.
A funny addendum; our military is - from a technology standpoint - the best in the world...and that technology mostly ranges from the early 70s until about 2002. The recently retired F-15, which was developed in the 70s and 80s, hardly had a match in the world and I believe was never shot down (at least by enemy aircraft)...and would still punch everything else out of the sky except other American aircraft and maybe a modern MIG with a really good pilot.
Technology requires new levels of accountability from government. The words that every politician dreads to hear... Open Government.
It's no longer acceptable or possible to hide inconvenient facts and delete damning emails. And the same Big Brother surveillance machine that governments are so enthusiastically creating is going to be watching them too. We will know when they meet in smokey backroom dealings, when they visit their prostitutes, who *exactly* issued an order that resulted in the deaths of innocents.
Hopefully the burden of responsibility it puts on the shoulders of elected representatives will be so high that it weeds out those who are mere power hungry psychopaths.
Its what governments do with things they don't like, such as free (ie 'hate') speech, competitors against their favorite lobbyists (eg marijuana) to name but a few.
Expect huge bans on 'dangerous' technologies such as reading and writing or drawing pictures; these can all be used for 'hate' (or other emotive) speech or depictions of 'child abuse'.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
A large dollop of FUD and an iron fist.
Well in the US, it would be helpful to have legislators at least somewhat familiar with the underlying technology of the things they are legislating. That may not happen until some younger blood gets elected. Old men in suits may have plenty of gravitas, but have their assistants print off their e-mails every day. It's another example of what gets you elected is often at odds with what is required to govern.
1. Regulate
2. Tax
3. Sell licenses to our corporate masters.
How Will Governments Keep Up With Technology?
...Right up until they figure out how to exploit it to either spy
on us or extract tax dollars from us, at which point it becomes
compulsory.
The same way they always have - They'll ban it.
What a silly question!
Government can hardly deliver my mail intact (USPS), competently educate my children (public schools), take care of my grandparent's health (Medicare), or ensure my retirement (the ridiculous failure that is Social Security).
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
You are only giving them more reason to raise taxes :)
Perhaps they could do an opt-in. Those that want it, pay for it and accept the risk that a data breach may occur.
Government is always behind with technology (with one exception, below). When government catches up with technology that everyone else is using, they do it badly and it costs far too much.
The one exception is that sometimes, governments will try a new technological approach before anyone else has tried it. In those cases, the approach being tried is always a bad idea.
There's no solution, although strict regulations on government use of technology might be a good idea. I'd suggest taxes, but that doesn't make any sense...
fatduck@gmail.com
and my consultancy fee is quite competitive
techies are like lawyers, basic advice is free but consultancy cost$
Please, PLEASE stop using the word "Homeland" - I'm not a Nazi or a Stalinist, and I can't stand members of Government or just fellow citizens talking like same - with the Mother/Father/Home-land bullshit.
'Domestic' is a perfectly adequate adjective for describing things within the national boundaries of the United States. We're a young republic comprised of successive waves of immigrants - jingoistic vocab attached to the dirt, of all things, has no place here . . .
-Nate
The government is worried about new responsibilities? Bah. Hahaha. What a load of bull. Anyone with a little knowledge of history knows that the government is always looking for more responsibilities to claim so that they can control more lives and take more money. Worried? More like anxious with anticipation and glee.
For the governments this Internet thing is nothing out of ordinary, just another level of complete misunderstanding and incompetence, just another level of bureaucracy to feed from. More meaningless and costly rules and regulations will be established, more red-tape will be created, the only difference is that in this case some governments may start working together, since the Internet knows no borders, which means the rules will have to be equalized for all countries (mostly,) to allow for equal punishment for going around the red tape.
You can't handle the truth.
Yes, I once worked in Government. I watched politically connected people get promoted (no race discrimination here!), black people get promoted to token positions, competent folks (of all races) get screwed over because the "law" doesn't say they can give good customer service. That's right,ask for some rational, good, humane treatment form government, and there's some legislation that says they can't give it!
Government only works as quickly as it can legislate ie not very and don't forget they've got to find the time to fit in a debate about their greater-than-inflation pay increses. Part of the rationale for Governments and their associated parliaments (where they existed) was the time it would take to consult the key people was too great, much better to have the key people (or their representatives) gathered together. Well, now they can consult readily with the help of modern comms. However the downside is that it's not just key people who have access to such comms, is scum like me too. So then, that's the challenge for Governments - use modern technology but in a way that only responsible, sensible people get to have a say. Don't go yet Tony!
I know the truth and I know what you're thinking
MMmm vast topic.
...).
...).
In the '90 governements were heavily involved in IT standardization though national comitees like ISO and so on. A big chunk of this disapeared although some standard comitees made significant contributions (ATM Forum, GSM by ETSI,
I agree with the author : we do need technical standards. But my own experience tend to make that standard making should be left to these tech commitees and I believe that a good government cannot lead but should keep looking into these matter with a certain conservatism, sane skepticism and an high level view and stick to the general guidelines like:
- are the various systems compatible with each other
- is the privacy properly protected
- are the performances and market price acceptables in regards with the service offered
- is the information accessible and storable.
and also:
- look at format issue only if it is in General public interest
- look at network protocol only for lower level layers
Then only when a stabdard is pretty stable, proven and sufficiently implemented can a goverment endorse it.
To me, the interoperability issue is really key and any governement should take action to make sure the industry take the necessary action to avoid standard fragmentation when the market is mature enough (not in the early stage). Namely bitching MS because its technology is not open enough is ridiculous. It would be far more interesting to force MS to support existing stable standards (MPEG4, HTML/CSS, ODF,
Properly meaning that those format and protocol should be used as easily as their proprieatary counterparts.
-
FTC Blocks Google from DoubleClick
e .records.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/04/29/googl
"Governments are beginning to realize that perhaps the Internet really has changed everything, at least for them, and that they are going to have to deal with new responsibilities in this area. "
Well it's changed slashdot too. The comments are more insightful and interesting. The discussions go into greater depth with greater accuracy and more links to original sources. The spelling and grammer is top-notch, and the math adds up. If the internet can work this kind of miracle with us, just think of what it will do to the government?
Governments catching up with technology? Seriously, there's a lot of people who believe technology only originates or is engineered in someones garage, in the openness of acadamia, universities and research labs of major corporations.
First, Research and Development is akin to flushing money down the toilet; because it's not like an assembly line where you can accurately project shipped product at the end of the day. With Research and Development, you can go for decades and still have NOTHING. Keep this in mind, because the reality is, even Microsoft can't even afford a sustained and honest Research and Development lab. The ONLY people that have the TECHNOLOGY, AUTHORITY and WEALTH to handle such research is the GOVERNMENT. IF a company, university or individual presents something from research, 99.9% of the time that person was heavily funded by a GOVERNMENT entity; via contract or most commonly a federal grant.
Governments DO have all the technology. Without fueling the conspiracy theorist, yes, governments tend to have applied technology or even awareness of algorithms, methods, theories even before acadamia has such benefit; tons of cryptography, physics and organic chemistry for example.
MOST if not ALL technology is developed with ONE interest in mind. Military, and if it can give us an advantage. Ironically, this always boils down to a more efficient way of killing another man. We don't like this part of life, but military often does have fun with technology long before anyone else.
I'm sorry if I'm getting a little over-zealous. It just kills me knowing that there are many people who think the government is the bane of technology while corporations are were it all comes from. Minus federal funding or incentive, corporations ever since the East Indian Trading Company probably can soley account to ONE invention... and we can probably think real hard for that and probably debate this invention... stocks. That's IT! A socio-path CEO to some Company didn't voluntarily give his entire fortune for the sake of good-will and to fund research in making adhesives, anethetics, plastic, space travel, computers, guns, aspirin, paper, jet engines... or even a damn fiber glass fishing pole!
Companies wait for the government to de-classify technology, and shift through it looking for something that they feel they can market to the general public. Who do you think was behind developing the optical mouse... or, more specifically, who do you think has been behind 100% of all LASER research and application?
When all else fails, amateur radio still works. Yeah, it's slow when running data (like Winlink e-mail). But power requirements are low. And there's no infrastructure to rely on - unless the attacking aliens ionize the atmosphere to such a degree that even radio won't work!
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
While it is very easy to take cheap shots at what the government can and can't do, the National Archives and Records Administration (http://www.archives.gov/) is taking a very proactive approach towards dealing with the long-term electronic records problem. NARA employs some of the most dedicated and highly trained archivists in the country, and this is one area where the government will probably lead.
When I clicked the link I thought it said "Wii Government". I got excited and thought Nintendo bought a country... :-/
Praise His Noodliness. RAmen.
Why do people keep referring to the residents of New Orleans "Refugees"? These people lost their home because of a combination natural disaster and engineering mishaps. They were NOT escaping political persecution or political oppression.
Please get this right. They are Americans in need of disaster response assistance, NOT refuge.
Boy are you ever wrong. Military systems are often decades behind commercial products. The complexity of getting anything from government labs to fielded systems is so poor that its a wonder you ever see any output. The reason you see new concepts moving from government labs to commercial exploitation is because that's easier than military exploitation.
The funding of short term research by commercial interests is many times that of the military domain. What used to be better was long term research, but that has essentially been killed off to fund the wars we've been having. Don't hold your breath for much of the long term nature coming out of government funding in future.
I say internet regulation is not governments job.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Government can hardly deliver my mail intact (USPS), competently educate my children (public schools), take care of my grandparent's health (Medicare), ensure my retirement (the ridiculous failure that is Social Security).
I'm as down as the next guy about the state of health care coverage in the U.S., the problems both public and private pension systems are facing, and I probably have a better understanding than most about the problems of education having actually been in the classroom as a teacher. Every one of these institutions could use significant improvement.
But first off -- c'mon, USPS? How often *does* the gubmint lose or mangle your mail? I've had more negative encounters on that front with the private shippers (UPS and FedEx, I'm looking at you), and the number of things I've sent or received by US Mail is orders of magnitude larger.
And second of all, I think the standard "Government Can't Do Nothin' Right" rant is actually one of the most dangerous ideas floating around our society today. It is, plain and simple, completely corrosive to the ability to build effective public institutions. Somehow, we the people have gotten to the point where we *accept* the argument that it's OK for the Feds to turn in a D- performance when it comes to disaster relief -- because hey, government's never effective, so it's never their job. And we readily elect people who loudly vocalize the idea that there's no such thing as an effective public solution.
Why are we surprised that we don't have them? We're hiring vegetarian butchers to package and deliver the meat, folks.
You don't have to accept the idea that public institutions are the answer to everything. Markets are great tools, if you understand them rather than treating them as a panacea. Private non-profits can do a significant amount of good. Churches do too. And in general, healthy social communities just make everything better.
But everything in its place. Sometimes the right tool for the job is, in fact, a public institution. Sometimes, if you actually want to stablish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, what you're looking for is a government.
We need to stop assuming government can't do anything. We need to start asking how it can do better -- what can make public institutions run effectively.
Tweet, tweet.
If govt's are now, in 2007, just beginning to realize that they should try to keep up with technology, they're about twenty years too late. I say that's a good thing.
Governments have always had their caches of data, dossiers on various people, classified documents. They've had systems (whether they be electronic or not) to manage that data. The citizenry, historically, has not had the ability to collect, distribute, or parse data on the scale that governments have.
Yes, governments can control populations with brute force, but it's much more effective to control populations with information - through misrepresentation, repetition, omission, incorrect weighting, and selective release. Populations have not been able to organize well against these kinds of propaganda strategies. Until now.
The world-girdling information network is maturing to the point where regular people have access to information that they would otherwise not have. Sources are becoming known as being more or less trustworthy. Some individuals are finding a space on the national and world stage, even if that space is in their niche area.
I pray that governments continue to stay behind the technology curve. Take away my Second Amendment rights all you want; you'll have to pry the internet from my cold dead hands.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
They'll do it like this.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
...just don't FORCE me to pay for your pet research projects upon threat of imprisonment (IRS).
> The world-girdling information network is maturing to the point where regular people have access to information that they would otherwise not have. Sources are becoming known as being more or less trustworthy.
In your dreams! There's more information than ever on the internet. Anything can be looked up in a few seconds. And in this time we have:
- Fox News channel
- truckloads of myths circulating
- Americans supporting a war completely because of false information despite virtually the whole world saying so
- people mostly searching for pron
- people believing and repeating complete nonsense about contraception and condoms
- pages like MySpace as most popular sites
- net full of strong opinions based on information that can be refuted in 1 minute
- people never changing their opinion even if they are dead wrong
The fact that we can easily access all the information we ever need doesn't mean that people do read and understand it.
Stated simply, government will never keep up with technology, since they are not involved in its innovation. At best, we can hope that the gap between "current" technology and that in the hands of government shrinks to the point where government is no longer living in the land of fossils.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
My guess is never, seeing as how the gov't still hasn't repealed the second amendment.
[puts on flame retardent suit]
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
They hire IT people.
...the bill is OUTRAGEOUS.
And there's the point.
See if you can find "Financial Report of the United States Government" (PDF), get back with me on how much of that crap is really productive...
"Acadamia"?
As in nuts?
With the exception of the military and possibly NASA, it'll be lagging behind the front-runners and get the technology a few years after it's tested and more polished than when it first comes out. It'll also probably experience fewer problems than companies that jump from one new technology to the next as soon as they're introduced. Governments have been keeping up with technology for the past few thousands of years. Sure, it wasn't always electronics, but you think that they had the technology to build medieval castles back in 500 A.D.?
There are many government agencies working around the world that are dealing with the problems of preserving national records that are born digital. In America one of the biggest players in the world of preservation of electronic records is the Library of Congress: ahref=http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/index.htm lrel=url2html-18187http://www.digitalpreservation. gov/index.html>.
Additionally there are many groups dedicated to creating standards for the preservation of digital records as well as a framework for setting up digital repositories (read: OAIS Reference Model for Digital Repositories, which just underwent its 5 year review). Although this idea is still in its infancy it is far from being neglected, and pretty much every national archive around the world has either implemented or is currently researching a way to preserve digital records for many years to come.
The Refined Geek - Technology, Finance, Space and everything in between
Boy are you ever wrong.
Both of you, really. Or, at least, you are talking about different things, and your comments about each other's topics are incorrect because you are not talking about the same things.
Military systems are often decades behind commercial products.
There is a reason for this. Logistics. Supply. Lifecycle support. The military buys systems and uses them for 20, 30, or more years. The US Air Force is flying B-52 bombers built in the 1950s, and plans to keep flying them into the 2030s. Well, the airframes, at least. Most of the guts, plus engines, will be replaced several times over that time frame, but the point is still valid.
The F-22 that the Air Force is starting to have delivery of, started its R&D cycle in the mid 1980s. It is now the most advanced military aircraft in the world. (And the most expensive.) The US Air Force will probably still be flying the F-22 in the 2040s.
The military buys for the long term. You don't go from the lab straight to 30-year-useful-life product.
The reason you see new concepts moving from government labs to commercial exploitation is because that's easier than military exploitation.
That's not the job of government. The government is not supposed to compete with the private sector in making and selling products. The government funds/performs basic research, until it gets to the development stage. Then it transfers that development effort to the private sector, and possibly partially funds the development effort. (A lot of drug research works this way. Basic research by the government, product development by Big Pharma.) This is actually good (much as I complain about Big Pharma), because in general the government is not efficient or responsive at making products.
funding of short term research
Oxymoron. Short term research is not research, it is development. More specifically, it is called product development. Research is basic and long term. See my above paragraph.
by commercial interests is many times that of the military domain
which is as it is supposed to be. The military funds product development of products directly of interest to the military. That is a small subset of the economy, and so is a small subset of total product development efforts and funding.
What used to be better was long term research
Agreed, government funding of basic research as a percentage of total government budget used to be higher, but it isn't gone, and it really isn't shrinking that fast. The major problem is that politicians are becoming a lot more like CEOs, and want to see something come out of the research efforts. Now. (Or, more specifically, during their term in office.) Not 30 years from now. They are trying to run research projects like they are development efforts, and are frustrating a lot of scientists and screwing up a lot of research efforts.
to fund the wars we've been having
Off topic rant.
The war in Afghanistan took a few months, and cost $25 billion dollars. It was a military victory. The war in Iraq took 3 weeks and cost less than $60 billion dollars. It was a military victory. (Warning, both dollar values pulled out of my a$$.) Past the first few months in Afghanistan, and the first month in Iraq, we've had police actions. Stupid. Costly. Unwinnable. Install a puppet dictator, and get the hell out. Dammit, I used to be a good Republican.
But even so, they haven't cost that much in terms of the entire government budget. All of DOD including the fake "emergency" funding is less that is spent on entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc). Though it is getting close to crossing that line. Scary. (After 4 years there, it is not an emergency any more. It is planned spending.)
Wow, I'm getting cynical lately.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Historically, governments whose populations develop technology at the fastest rate have been the first benficiaries of this technology. This occurs for several reasons, although mainly because the governments have the most access to the technology and can tax and legislate it.
You know what I'm beginning to think that all those sci-fi stuff where corporations get to rule over populations instead of a government may not be too far off.
We could alternatively ask how can we use voluntarily means to provide these services, rather than services where funding comes from the threat of violence (tax.)
They spend hundreds of billions on stuff to blow stuff up. There could be another massive number of amazingly talented people creating things that consumers want. It's completely absurd to say that bureaucrats spend other peoples money better than individuals. Yea sure the military make lots of important stuff like lasers but you are not looking at what we don't see---money taken out of the private sector and spent by other people, it is going to go down inefficient paths, lowering everyones wealth.
How Will Governments Keep Up With Technology?.....By stifling it..Duh