Do We Need a National CTO?
from the maybe-not dept
The 463 blog points us to an interview with Mitch Kapor of Lotus and EFF fame, in which he makes the case for a national Chief Technology Officer. The idea seems to be that technology policy in the United States is currently fragmented among a bunch of different positions, and having a designated top technologist in the government would help to bring coherence to the nation's technology policy. It sounds like a reasonable idea at first blush, but on closer examination it might create more problems than it solves.
To start with, it's important to distinguish between two jobs that are really quite different. One job is to coordinate the government's own IT infrastructure. Currently, IT decisions are made by the various federal agencies and departments within the federal government. A national CTO could conceivably set guidelines or policies related to IT infrastructure that would apply across the executive branch. The other job is to advise the president on substantive tech policy issues like network neutrality, patents, copyrights, etc. The two jobs are very different, and it's not at all clear it would make sense to have the same guy doing both. But let's consider each position in turn.
It's not clear how significant the potential savings or efficiency gains would be from having a single guy in charge of all government IT deployments. Up to a certain point, there are efficiency gains to be had from greater IT integration, but the federal government is probably so large that those economies of scale have already been exhausted. That's especially true when we consider that the different parts of the government have widely different requirements. Some parts, such as the FBI and NASA, have offices all over the country, while others are located almost entirely in Washington. Federal agencies do different kinds of work and need a wide variety of software packages. The current arrangement, in which each agency manages its own IT infrastructure, seems likely to give each agency more flexibility to choose technologies that meet its specific needs.
The idea of a designated tech policy advisor is more promising, but that also has potential downsides. A good choice could help bring coherence and vigor to a president's tech agenda, but, given enough power, a bad choice could cause just as much mischief. Therefore, if the next president does create a CTO position, he ought to limit its function to advising the president, rather than pursuing an independent policy agenda. A good model for this is the president's Council of Economic Advisors, which advises the president on economic policy and produces an annual report on the state of the economy but doesn't wield any significant authority in its own right.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: national cto, politics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
JM for CTO
Waits for ensuing hilarity.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OTA
http://www.access.gpo.gov/ota/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Market Anarchism
Instead, they should abolish government monopolies on the court, police, national defense, and all other services that the government offer. Then, they should compete in the free market like the rest of society instead of stealing from society via taxation.
While they're on becoming a legitimitive firm, they should abolish all government granted monopolies such as copyright and patent as well any kind other monopolies. This will mean that the telcommmunication industry will go back to earning a living and that mean that copyright holders can't speak evil of filesharing, which is a public's right.
Of course, it will also be a boon for hardware manufacturers since it will increase demand for fatter and faster computers. It will also a boon for the majority of copyright holders as well now that the barrier of copyright is destroyed. That mean they get more chance for their work to be known and that mean more demand for whatever scarcity that they can provide.
This will hopefully open the way for free market anarchist society. It will create a society of entrepreneurs, instead of a society of thugs who hide behind the law to disguise their immorality.
Even if a true anarchist society is not possible, it is still important for us to oppose bullies whoever they are. Be it the RIAA, unions, the state, invaders, school bully, thieves, evil copyright holders, and other bullies. Let oppose them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market Anarchism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market Anarchism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market Anarchism
kiba wrote:
The trouble is, free markets left to themselves do not remain free. They end up getting infested with anticompetitive practices like price-fixing, collusion, predatory pricing, deceptive advertising and just plain fraud. Not to mention the inevitable boom-bust cycles that just go faster the more efficiently the information flows.
This is why free markets need ongoing regulation in order to remain free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market Anarchism
abolish police? courts? national defense? how about the water infrastructure? electrical systems? roads? hospitals? fire departments?
yeah. good luck with that.
Truth is, we need the government because it provides for the common needs in a way that satisfies the freeloader problem.
you think corruption is bad now? look at the post-communist russian states. Anarchy? you have no idea.
How would you like to be price gouged by the firefighters while your house burned down? or have ambulances refuse to take you until you agree to sign a contract [after all, we ARE saving your life, so i figure 50% of all income in perpetuity isn't too much to ask...]?
Is OUR government well formed and efficient? heck no. Abolish it? that would just make everything you are griping about even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being real about what a CTO could actually do
The CTO should be a person comfortable in persuasion - a staff type personality that speaks to overall technology policies and lobbies actively for his/her position. Larry Lessig is the best name mentioned so far that fits the bill from my perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Obama's tech policy talks about a CTO position being created should he be elected. Kinda like a Super-IT guy, and most definitely not a tech policy position.
2. Congress, as part of "Pro-IP Bill", is considering what some term an IP Czar who would be tasked with negotiating international treaties/compacts/etc. stiffening foreign recognition and protection of IP (in this bill ip=copyright). This is not a tech policy position.
In short, there is nothing on the table or over the horizon to create something akin to a tech policy advisory position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope that Sen Stevens is not on the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Options
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While you're at it ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely Not! SHRINK the government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you need beyond this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everything can be directed from the top down
This analogy leads me to think that a "CTO" will probably cause more harm than good, and especially if the decision is made by Washington and in the image of Washington.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not just IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CTO - Yes; Policy Czar - No
Fundamentally, the Fedgov could use an internal leader to help standardize the use of technology in the bureaucracy and push Federal departments to adopt the cutting edge technologies developed by the private sector.
I agree with Vint Cerf as quoted by Ed Cone at CIO Insight: the last thing we need is a "technology czar" or someone trying to set technology policy for the nation. In my opinion, the private sector, in general, is doing a decent job with developing and pushing the envelopes of technology. We definitely need regulation - and we have plenty of that with the FCC, DARPA, FTC, DHS etc. - all of which could be improved in a new administration.
I'd suggest finding someone as National CTO to get the Fedgov bureaucracy to standardize and use cutting edge technology effectively.
-bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDirt for...
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]