Politicians Have Poor Grasp of Technology? 349
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."
giving grasp a bad name. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?).
A bit misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
They're not supposed to. Sometimes they do anyway. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Politicians Have Poor Grasp of Technology? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the fine senators from the US state of Utah, one Orrin Hatch, attempted to pass legislation that would allow organizations such as the RIAA to illegally infiltrate and destroy software and information on personal computers of the citizens whom he supposedly represented. It seems the corporations he actually represents find the legal process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty by your peers in a court of law to be too cumbersome for them to deal with.
The same senator recently had an article on his website where he supported the "technology" behind the CP80 (clean port 80) effort. Unfortunately the CP80 effort is not technology but rather is another legal effort to throw people in jail who refuse to adhere to the mores of a specific segment of society and block undesireable internet content from other countries, pretty much what China does to their citizens, perhaps the CP actually stands for China Protocol. No technology was developed for CP80 its just an effort to create laws based on the mores of a minority.
The irony is that this senator started his political carreer by pushing out an incumbent with the following critical stance in his election effort "Hatch criticized Moss's 18-year tenure in the Senate, saying that many Senators, including Moss, had lost touch with their constituents". This was the beginning of Hatch's political career which started in 1976!
burnin
Re:A bit misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem, as I see it, is it seems they take the advice from the experts and throw it out anyway. I find it difficult to believe anyone could be against net neutrality if they heard it explained rationally and clearly (well, as long as they side with their constituants and not their backers).
I see this as a tech support rep. People *think* they know what's wrong with their system despite not having a clue and they take offense when you try to explain otherwise. They can't fathom that there might be topics they have to defer to the experts on.
What about Al Gore? (Score:2, Interesting)