Federal Technology Czar Proposed 106
Alien54 writes: "The E-Government Act, which Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) introduced Tuesday, is designed to make it easier for citizens to access federal information and services online. As reported in Internet Week, the bill [S.803]will create a federal chief information officer and allot $225 million annually to improve government services over the Internet. The Bill text has yet to be posted to the web, but should be up in a week or so."
It only makes sense . . . (Score:1)
~~~
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:1)
Sorry, Pinky and I have dibs on the job. . . (Score:1)
Sorry.
Yours
The Brain
p.s. Pinky says "Narf!"
Federal Technology Guidelines (Score:3)
To make the list as short as possible, a subset of vendors will be chosen based on product cost, stability, market share, ease of use, and standardization (i.e., market share).
This will be in the summary from a 2000 page report on the infotech industry, comparing best practices, software development methodologies, license structures, IP property issues, etc.
The report will be written with the assistance of industry (read Microsoft) and most of the lawyers who co-authored the DMCA and UCITA. It will strongly support IP protection at the expense of fair use. It will not permit the use of GPL software except on a case by case basis and after a complete security and risk audit (read a 1500 page report and 1 year). It will demonstrate that the TCO of Word is cheaper than that of Open Office, especially since Word was free with the last computer you purchased. It will demonstrate that .NET saves you money and reduces risk as it consolidates all your data on secure servers.
The bottom line:
Alternate product list (with special approval):
Banned product list:
*I'd* much rather.. (Score:1)
For $250M... (Score:2)
...you could build one heck of a Google-like site as the portal. Since you are the Feds, I'm sure you see the advantages of setting this network of servers up over a wide geographically dispersed area. And building it using proprietary should be grounds for immediate dismissal. And what's with ``www.firstgov.gov''? A leading candidate for one of the dumbest sites names I've ever heard.
Oh, and ``Hey TechWeb! Your link's broken! The protocol is ` http ', not ` htto '.'' (OK, I can cut spme slack; I spmetimes hit the wrpng keys, tpp.)
--
Re:My question..... (Score:2)
Who was it (Dick Cavett?) that made a comment once that went something like: ``We've had comedy on television for decades and it hasn't resulted in an increase in people's sense of humor.'' Is there, indeed, reliable evidence that violence on the tube has lead to recent Columbine-like incidents? Has anyone ever shown conclusively that watching violence on television was why some people brought their personal arsenals to the office and wiped out their former co-workers? Didn't think so.
OK. That's enough topic drift for today, thank you.
--
Re:Real Democrats (Score:2)
Man, he sure is that. I moved out of Ohio when Howard Metzenbaum was a senator from there. No, he's not why I moved (heh heh) but he embarassed me every time he opened his mouth (at least I didn't vote for him). Now, Traficant is the kind of guy you gotta love. Even if he does come off as severely paranoid at times.
--
*ding!* You've got mail! (Score:4)
MAKE MONEY FAST!
You're not going to believe this!!
If I start getting magic Tweetie birds and Neiman-Marcus cookie recipies from my senators and representatives because they got $225 million to start reading their e-mail I'm going to get upset.
--
Re:A few points. . . (Score:1)
I thought POSIX was specifically developed to be the government "standard" for computing. Isn't that good enough for you? :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:Keep your britches on..... (Score:1)
I'm just nervous about having one centralized decision maker. My company did that and now we're stuck with slow Exchange email and Outlook viruses galore. Such is the cost of progress and standardization, I guess.
On second thought, maybe just havin a centralized bad decision maker was the real problem...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
/., thy name is irony (Score:3)
Presumably this is exactly why we need a technology czar. The senators are probably preparing the bill electronically anyway, so why does it take so long to post it?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Give me the NOAA data! (Score:1)
Re:Give me the NOAA data! (Score:1)
Should be ELECTIVE office!!! (Score:1)
It was bad enough when the "Drug Czar" was an acknowledged nicotine addict and alleged alcohol abuser. Now we're going to make the commissar of the nation's electronic information an appointed official?
Ooh, like that won't be abused for short-term political goals.
We should get to elect the poor sucker who gets this job. National elections every four years just like the vice president.
And y'know, it'd probably be the only fedgov election that'd make me consider voting for Al Gore.
--Charlie
Login (Score:4)
"Click here to continue to EULA. By clicking this link you fully agree to all terms currently included in the EULA on the next page."
CLICK!
CLICK!
"Please enter your Active Directory name and password for the following Object: Lieberman_Carnivore."
Clickety-click
CLICK!
"Pay no attention to the man outside your window. Or the one on your roof. The beeping which will accompany all your phone calls from now on means nothing. Enjoy your documents."
--
Re:A few points. . . (Score:1)
If there's a Fed CIO, he/she can make policy and require everyone to follow.....
I know, but I can hope. . . . (Score:1)
I know it was naive, but I look at the potential... not the likely outcome, but the best outcome...
Color me "Byers". . .
Re:A few points. . . (Score:1)
You know. . . the 12-week night-school-and-Transcender specials. . .
Old Government Computers. . . (Score:2)
I picked up a couple of P-120's and P-133's several months ago: ~$35/cpu only, or ~120 for CPU/Monitor/keyboard/mouse. All had either 64 or 128MB of RAM, and were circa 1994 vintage.
Of course, the trick is knowing when and where to buy them, and beating the professional buyers who grab everything in sight. (it's a real feeding frenzy. . .).
Can't tell you for everywhere, but in the Washington DC area, details are here [gsa.gov].
Not in the DC area ?? Try here [gsa.gov]
A few points. . . (Score:3)
Like, say, a "standard" server. I've seen everything from mega-Sun boxen, to 486's as servers, running everything from Novell 3 and NT 3.5 to RedHat, BSD, and Solaris boxes. . .in some cases, mixes of NT and Unix, with no SAMBA, and zero configuration managment (i.e. Mail is one department, Users a second, Fileservers a third, and all run independentely. . .). We're talking some real nightmare networks, from an admin standpoint. . .
Now imagine a caveat, from the top down: a standard Federal Webserver (Apache), a standard Federal Mailserver (Sendmail) , on 2-3 standard platforms (say, Solaris, OpenBSD, and [insert your favorite distro here]. Desktops are Mandrake with StarOffice or OpenOffice.
Yes, Uncle Sam would need a lot of new admins. But imagine the savings in software costs. Consider a central Federal security site: "Here are today's patches for Config X...". Imagine the chagrin of BillGatus of Borg. . .
Damn, talk about your vulture capital (Score:2)
Re:Easy... (Score:1)
I don't get it. Other than for very specialized programs (like launching ICBM's), why should the government be in the business of software development at all? Most of the programs the government uses are available without charge (things like word processors, spreadsheets, email, etc.).
Even if the government purchases these programs off the shelf (i.e. paying for closed source software development) they still have to have people on staff to install and maintain them.
In any case, a quarter billion dollars is a lot of friggin money just for software. Even if you argue that the government should be paying for closed source software development, that's too much.
Again, I feel the money would be better spent training the next generation on engineers and scientists who will contribute to our GNP directly and indirectly.
Re:You misunderstand me... (Score:1)
Either way, you pay. You pay someone to develop it as closed source software (i.e. you buy the package) and every department, agency, whatever who uses it has to pay and pay again. Or you can pay someone to customize an open source application (or in the rare instance, write an application from scratch) and then you make it open source so that any other agency or department can make use of it if they need. It should be easy to see which approach has the greater public benefit.
Not that government should be about public benefit or anything. I wouldn't want them to start bucking a trend now.
What need? (Score:2)
Another thing that steams me, and this fuels the fire, is that our government seems to think that we own, control, and rule the internet. Yeah, right....after all Al Gore invented it so it's ours to do with as we please.
I suppose it would be too much to ask that the quarter billion be used to fund the education of more engineers and scientists. It seems to me that is a greater need and would actually do more good for our country.
But then what the hell do I know. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people I am just one of the people.
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:1)
Eh? You mean like the awesome efficiency of the Postal Service, which just announced they lost over $100 million last year? Or maybe you mean the IRS, known for customer service so poor that citizens had to go begging to Congress for a customer's bill of rights? Thanks, but I'll take the contractors any day.
Re:Will this Czar have to... (Score:2)
No, no, Al Gore's the guy on call for networking problems. He's Mr. Infrastructure.
Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:4)
In fact, I can't think of a single interaction I've had with state or federal governments in the last year that I haven't been able to do entirely online. I'm not quite sure where that $225 million is going, but I don't like it. Instead of making more services accessible, they should give Senators and Representatives e-training classes to make them more aware of current issues and get them to check their friggin' e-mails. Start there, before throwing more money at the problem.
What is this fascination with czars? (Score:3)
What the hell is the difference?
a "czar" in a "free" country? (Score:1)
Now, nobody seems bothered by yet-another 'czar,' but didn't the Russians even get rid of their czars (not saying they installed anything different/better, just making a point because this crap still bothers me).
JMR
technology & government (Score:1)
Re:IT Czar (Score:2)
It apparently isn't working for the war on drugs, so I suspect the open source movement will continue right on through like a locomotive without an engineer.
Yes, GPL junkies will be strung out in the streets, whino's will be hitting you up for some blank cdr and pretty soon your little brother will be spending late nights trying to get his fix by installing the latest distro.
Once RedHat moves to Columbia (prefered base of operations) we can start seeing some real thrill rides as smugglers attempt to get 1000's of CD's across the border in a mad dash of excitement.
The United States and participants of the private industry (ie Microsoft) will be spending millions of dollars to stop something that they cannot possibly fathom.
Re:Old Government Computers. . . (Score:1)
They show the same URL twice but change the capitalization (though in fact the second link go to an entirely different URL than the one listed, of course the only thing on that page is a link to gsaauctions.gov).
we can demand a competent civil service and get it (Score:3)
The high tech 'down turn' may help a little, or we may be able to pick up some older tech workers that are ready to kick back some and work 40 hour weeks so they can start to raise families, however, these workers still have to pay exhorbitant housing prices to live in the area, and that makes it hard to live off a government salary. At least for a few more years the government will be dependent on contractors.
One solution that is starting to pay off, is to decentralize the IT function by setting up data and call centers in various location all over the country. This may work, but unfortunately it is being done while we are still dependent on contractors and so many of these new data centers are being run by contractors instead of feds.
Biggest Mistake (Score:1)
I'd much rather.. (Score:3)
That's 7,500 Teachers making $30,000 a year to educate students.
That's 450,000 $500 computers for kids to learn computers.
That's 9,000,000 $25 desks for more/better places to sit.
That's 56,250,000 $4 paperback books for students to read.
I have a feeling the internet will be fine without a "Federal Technology Czar."
Drug Tzar (Score:1)
Drug Tzar and cost a lot less in lives and money.
I have a hard time imagining this headline
"Missionary family blocked from net access. News at 11." Causing that much uproar.
Another $250 Million down the frelling toliet.
great! (Score:4)
Ooh! Me! ME! ME! (Score:2)
Er, I hope the guys taking the applications don't read slashdot...
Easy... (Score:2)
Leastwise, that's what I'd do with that position.
You misunderstand me... (Score:2)
Re:A few points. . . (Score:4)
No way! Your new Federal Standard will be MS Windows for the OS, MS IIS for the web server, MS SQL Server for the database, MS Visual C++ as the main development language, MS Office for productivity apps, and so on and on and on....
This is not just your standard anti-MS rant, because I have been-there-done-that with Gov't "standards" efforts, including representing the US Navy on IEEE POSIX committees, only to watch it all go to waste in the last 7 years of Microsoft's ascendancy.
The movement to an all-Microsoft world in US Gov't IT has been going on for some time now, at least in the Dept. of Defense, all in the name of supposed cost savings from using COTS (Consumer Off-The-Shelf) products. And don't even say that you can buy Linux off the shelf. In the minds of 99% of management types, off-the-shelf means Microsoft, and gov't management is the same as corporate management, only more so in all the bad ways.
And if there is any significant IT standardization across much of the US Federal Gov't, watch out. The US gov't is the single largest procurer (both dollars and volume) of software in the entire world. Overall US Federal Gov't procurement in products and services makes the largest multi-national corporations' all look like piddling chump change. You're dreaming if you think that any Federal CIO would pick a free or open source product for any significant Federal IT standard.
Re:Biggest Mistake (Score:1)
If I had a nickel for every anarchist who
I've heard make similar predictions more than five years ago, I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. But, I don't, and I am. =)
The Wisdom of Shalom Aleichim (Score:2)
"A blessing for Tsar? Of course! May God bless and keep the Tsar... Far away from us!
Fiddler on the Roof
California's Example (Score:1)
California [ca.gov] has already begun this process. All Website portals must have the same look and feel (and before you start complaining, no, they are NOT all on IIS, most are in fact on Solaris). They are passing bills down the street [ca.gov] at the Capitol [ca.gov] to require posting of certain information to the Web (chiefest among them decisions by the Public Utilities Commission [ca.gov], those electricity whores, and enforcement actions against insurance agents by the Department of Insurance [ca.gov]).
The drive for the digitalised government here in sunny CA is actually kind of working. While it's true that there IS a digital divide, more people have access to the Internet than don't, at least in this state (libraries are required to provide access over government-sponsored pipes), and they don't want to alienate the ones who DO use computers for everything, who are, after all, the rich and famous and BOFH :)
The U.S. Government will take a lot longer to move online, but it will eventually happen... and those in government jobs (and those who apply during downturns because "the government doesn't shrink") will be forced to sit there and do noth... oh wait, never mind.
Zaphod B /bin/cp
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
Zaphod B
My question..... (Score:2)
With his logic, such a system would be another part of the "cultural pollution" he likes to refer to when hinting at future censorship.
(Hey, "cultural pollution"...where have I heard terms like THOSE before?)
They should spend the $ on security (Score:2)
-core
Re:Bad Idea (Score:1)
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
Re:a "czar" in a "free" country? (Score:1)
Date: 1555
1 : EMPEROR; specifically : the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution
2 : one having great power or authority (a banking czar)
I believe it's being used in the 2nd sence of the word, someone with great power.
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Re:How about... (Score:3)
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Re:A few points. . . (Score:1)
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:2)
Yes, there are many competent people, but the management structure strongly favors the stereotype. A big part of this is pay - they can't possibly keep young'uns when the young'uns see people with decades of experience making maybe 60K. The young'uns just hang around long enough to get something hot on their resume (without necessarily doing much), and their MBA, then off to 130K jobs BS'ing dotcoms, I mean b2b presales, or whatever. So you are left with single parents, the physically infirm and golden handcuffed burnout cases. Another big part of it is the management culture itself, but that is something that could be changed top-down. Although more likely the top would spew platitudes and the rest will be business as usual.
The other side of this is, they get dependent on contractors (and probably resent the pay differential). So I bitch, moan and whine all the way to the bank in my big BMW.
All that aside, I think the gummints job should be to tax and spend, including spending for "free" fiber access to every home in the county. Go ahead and laugh and make fun of me, then go read a damn history book about those electrical wires going into your house.
Well... (Score:2)
Enough with the "Czars" already (Score:3)
URL (Score:3)
Here's the URL for the bill:
http://cio.gov/egov/s803/050101_press-bill%2520tex t.pdf [cio.gov]
Re:Please help us non-USians (Score:1)
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:1)
Having worked PT at this [ezgov.com] e-gov company, I can tell you that there are lots of local, state, and national agencies that do not have electronic services for their transactions. It sounds like you have had a good experience in Texas, but there are a ton of other local and state governments that have nothing in place for online transactions.
Plus, there are federal agencies exluding the IRS (such as the INS or passport acquisition or renewal) that aren't online, IIRC.
This could go either way (Score:2)
Visions of a Novell evangelist who talks the good talk on the hill occupying this position makes me ill at ease. We (as in "The Open Source Community") could stand to benefit greatly from a knowledgeable person occupying this position, especially with the big software (M$) corps lobbying in Washington.
The other side of the cookie would present us with a truly political appointee. Anyone who's worked for a "political" rather than "technical" CIO/CTO knows that this is rarely a Good Thing, but hey, it's Washington. They'll do the right thing.
(maybe they'll appoint John Dvorak, that would be interesting, if nothing else: "Government Mandates that PCs Suck, story at 11"
-JPJ
IT Czar (Score:3)
"Shut up! Be Happy! Your government has taken care of this for you"
there are plenty of countries (Score:1)
Our (USA / govenment / country ) was not founded by people who expected *someone* to help. This is something we can *choose* to do, either on an indivitual, or group basis.
Life has always be unfair
Re:$225 MILLION???? (Score:2)
There's a big difference between putting up web sites and co-ordinating Federal / State / Local government services / access for the internet.
this comes to about $4.5M / state, chickenfeed
Re:Well... (Score:1)
LOL.
There are not even close to the current Socialist platform. Perhaps in another ten years... If you don't believe me check this out [broody.org].
$225 MILLION???? (Score:1)
My suspicion is that this is yet another exciting and politically 'relevant' way for the government to justify itself. You see, if the government can't figure out how to spend the ridiculous amounts of money it collects in taxes, it has a problem. Ergo they create bogus programs noone needs and basically find ways to pork barrel our hard-earned dollars.
I worked for a startup, and with about one tenth of that money (about 25 million) this company was able to put up a full-featured e-commerce site, hire dozens of people, and stay in operations for two years. I expect that for 225 million dollars, the government ought to be able to completely do away with any and all of it's myriad physical offices and do everything online. However, will that happen? NO! Will you see any kind of change or benefit after the government is done spending your money on useless internet functionality? NO! What you may see, down the line (and especially if we get another Democrat in office), is possible tax hikes. After all, all this great stuff the government is doing for YOU isn't free, right? I mean.. since this $225 million dollars will have changed the face of the internet and life on earth as we know it, you owe it to good 'ole Uncle Sam to fork over even more of your already anemic paycheck for the benefit of humanity!
A lot of the slashdot readers are still in school and aren't as aware of how bad the tax situation is. However, you guys will soon join the workforce and end up seeing how, after all is said and done, between the bankers and the rapine the government commits on your paychecks, you end up keeping less than half your money. (After you figure in sales tax and interest and all that.)
Re:Great - More Government Waste (Score:1)
The government is finding more ways to justify its existance. Who the hell needs them to be involved in the Internet? The internet is doing just fine without this stupid $225 million dollar program. Will YOU see any benefit from this? Will ANYBODY (except for the people in the government)?? I doubt it! wake up and smell the bullshit, cause Uncle Sam lays it on thick every time!!
The military being involved in the internet is one thing (they DID help build the arpanet), but the Legislature should stop thinking of ways to waste money on useless programs. They should just make laws and be humble about it. Who the hell made them the f'ing solver of all the nation's problems which noone knew it had until they came along anyway?
Re:$225 MILLION???? (Score:1)
Re:I nominate... (Score:1)
--
Re:I'd much rather.. (Score:1)
That's 7,500 Teachers making $30,000 a year to educate students.
That's 450,000 $500 computers for kids to learn computers.
That's 9,000,000 $25 desks for more/better places to sit.
That's 56,250,000 $4 paperback books for students to read.
I have a feeling the internet will be fine without a "Federal Technology Czar."
They're going to pay this guy/gal $225M?!?! Holy shit I need to go work for the government! They've up'd the pay grades!!!
Carnivore@home? (Score:2)
It's about time the gov't invested a little into actually using the internet, instead of ruling it. At least now we will be able to keep better track of how fast we loose our rights.
Keep your britches on..... (Score:2)
In most cases regarding government actions such as this, I tend to be 75% conspiracy theorist. But this bill doesn't trigger that response. They're just proposing to put someone in charge of the IT departments of all the government agencies so that there is a single point of focus and standardization in this online effort.
If I were to nominate anybody, I'd nominate the person in charge of making e-filing of our taxes possible. That process worked well for me in the past couple of years.
Will this Czar have to... (Score:2)
wear a beeper in case a citizen had networking problems with the government database? Imagine the overtime this poor person would rack up...
I think this is a bad idea... (Score:2)
Blah, fine, it was a bad historian joke, but it had to be said.
Surest Sign we need a Federal CIO (Score:2)
Back when I was still an SGA Officer at UAH [uah.edu], I usually kept Senate's stuff updated all the time. But it kept me from doing other things [biggest complaint was that the University wouldn't let me even run basic CGI, so I was forced to build static HTML pages...ugh].
But if the Feds can't have a group that rushes stuff up on the Web quickly enough, isn't that a sure sign that we need it?
--
Re:*ding!* You've got mail! (Score:1)
>
>MAKE MONEY FAST!
>
>You're not going to believe this!!
>
I'd bet the congress critters will be spamming each other to sell their pork-barrel projects
TAKE MONEY FAST!!!
And of course they already have a pyramid scheme - they call it Social Security
Please help us non-USians (Score:1)
Re:a "czar" in a "free" country? (Score:1)
To me, anyway, "czar" connotes the corrupt, autocratic leadership of an inbred ruling house. To me, "czar" suggests Nicholas II. But that's just me.
hyacinthus.
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:1)
I won't make fun of you. You're talking Rural Electrification, I assume?
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:2)
While I understand your concerns about an inept civil service, we as citizenry don't have to take it as a given--we can demand a competent civil service, and get it. And they're not all incompetent and lazy. And, no, if you're wondering, I'm not a civil servant :).
And the Postal Service may have lost some money, but where would we be without one? If it weren't for the USPS, if you lived in the boonies, you'd have no mail delivery, because it'd only be done where it's profitable, probably in the cities.
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:5)
While it's certainly cool that you can file your FAFSA on line, the PIN number they use is only a digital signature in the legal sense--it's not a public key based digital signature, but, rather, a shared secret. (The government is working on public key certificates, q.v. the Federal PKI group [nist.gov].) The IRS does it the same way, with pins.
I think if you look closely, you'll find that the guts of these operations are outsourced to contractors in both the Departments of Education and Treasury. Particularly egregious is the symbiotic relationship between Treasury and electronic tax filing services--Treasury has basically agreed not to compete with them, so there will never be a way to file electronically without paying a fee, save for the sop thrown to very low income people filing very simple forms. I believe the taxpayers have already paid once for the IRS infrastructure, and should not have to pay either a private vendor or the government an additional fee to file electronically.
Perhaps a technology czar would create the expertise in the civil service to bring those services in house, where they can be maintained without the danger of future problems often associated with the extensive use of contracting.
Re:How about... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:2)
Actualy, I'd be willing to let them allocate a totaly unreasonable amount of money just to get their email addresses posted in a reasonably logical fassion. My representive is Robert Goodlatte of Virginia [house.gov]. Now if you follow the provided link you'll find a cutsy little page that his staff has set up. But if you try to e-mail [house.gov] him you get thrown into a little web-craplet which will allow you to email him. Why oh why don't they just give me his flippin address so I can email him myself????
I'm sorry, for someone with his list of credientials [house.gov] I'm really shocked he's not more attuned to those of us who actualy have our own email accounts and harbor a deep and personal hatred of webmail.
I belive it was Plato that said "If the people are given the right to choose their rulers they will elect fools and naives."
This has been another useless post from....
Re:There's a certain ambiguity in that post (Score:1)
There's a certain ambiguity in that post (Score:2)
Wasn't the Czar a corrupt and ineffective hereditary dictator? Maybe they should look just a little higher -- the Presidency is coming pretty damn close to fitting that, on all counts...
Re:This could go either way (Score:1)
I also believe that this position is very important because it will lighten the halls of ignorance (at a cost of many millions). I will say that, the person that is elected should be someone that has fought against M$. At least that person should have a chance of providing us with better laws.
Will the open source community benefit, maybe but I don?t see how. What they (government) may request of the open source community is their input. I would like to see some basic standards that are followed by the OSC be in general practice. Could you imagine if we could get a re-write of the contract between the seller and purchaser (renter, lease holder, whatever) of software. Maybe some basic government help manual on securing your system. How about some government web site design basics ever try to find something that has been buried so deep that you get lost on those gov. sites. I truly hope that the elected person is well educated in the processes of the internet.
ONEPOINT
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:1)
Re:the digital divide (Score:1)
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:2)
Putting a good database with legislation to the web. It should also contain information on the legislation that is in preparation and other activities of the government agencies. Bills can be influenced much more when they are in preparation.
This would give the citizens a view about what the government is up to do. It could make the bureaucracy more transparent. The government could not wipe their big mistakes under the carpet. And this is the reason for the government not to do it.
they should give Senators and Representatives e-training classes to make them more aware of current issues
I agree with you that the Senators and Representatives should have more clue on modern technology and science. However, I think e-classes wont solve that problem. It is lack of interest that makes them ignorant, not lack of information. They have chosen to give www-related matters a low priority. Maybe we should vote only people with clue.
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:3)
Putting a good database with legislation to the web. It should also contain information on the legislation that is in preparation and other activities of the government agencies. Bills can be influenced much more when they are in preparation.
This would give the citizens a view about what the government is up to do. It could make the bureaucracy more transparent. The government could not wipe their big mistakes under the carpet. And this is the reason for the government not to do it.
they should give Senators and Representatives e-training classes to make them more aware of current issues
I agree with you that the Senators and Representatives should have more clue on modern technology and science. However, I think e-classes wont solve that problem. It is lack of interest that makes them ignorant, not lack of information. They have chosen to give www-related matters a low priority. Maybe we should vote only people with clue.
Re:the digital divide (Score:3)
Good point, but couldn't this be done by just giving the still functioning but 'old' computers that are scrapped today to the poor instead.
One of my frieds is working a sysadmin in a company that is dumping dozens of functional computers every week. The only reason this is done is that the computers can not be used with the latest versions of Windows and Office. Now, the "Czar" should step in and add a Linux Installation CD.
I think this would be a better way of bridging the digital divide
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:1)
2. I'm not quite sure where that $225 million is going, but I don't like it.
Perhaps the money will hasten and improve the process of posting government data online. Maybe one day bill texts will be online instantly. Also, in the far furture, we may be so advanced that we no longer require a representative legislature. People might vote on bills from their homes, or public buildings like libraries. Then again, the thought of million-man fillibusters is daunting, as is the fear of hacker attacks.
Possible outcomes and reasoning.. (Score:1)
1)
Lieberman proposed this to gain the votes of the exponentially growing technology-aware crowd. He is running for President the next term, and this could surely give him some points. Meanwhile, the republicans realize this and don't want it to be construed as a democrat "innovation," so they throw someone at the mix hoping to gain some recognition -- but alas, that person will be forgotten. He doesn't have the 'mindshare' of Lieberman, nor he is a major candidate for the next presidential race.
2)
In the real world, IMHO, this is a bad thing -- we don't need *more* government on the Internet, we need *less*. Government regulation has, to a degree, stunted our growth in regions of technology, infrastructure, and mindset. They jump in to regulate things, they jump into the bubble (they even try to take credit for it!); and when things go awry, they offer to make a committee to 'fix' things and bring 'innovation.'
Unfortunately this is nonsense.
Government, do you want to help your country, its people, and the Internet?
You [government] need to change your mindset, to begin with.
Please use that money to furnish those unable to access computers/the Internet/necessary education with such.
5-10 years from now, when the 10% of the people you've helped have become reasonably capable, allow them the chance to provide a service to the government and the people of the country. Education and competition have driven us very far.
It seems we have forgotten about capitalism. If the government really wants to offer new 'services,' it simply needs to become *ITSELF* more open to ideas presented by the capitalist society.
If I'm a company and I can foreseeably provide the government with a service to allow them to take speeding ticket payments through a web site, take an ICANN approach to it and let me make X amount per ticket, or a %, and provide you with the service while providing the people you've spent money training with a job.
Jason Fisher
feroxtech.com
TECH-COMMUNITY: SOMEBODY SET UP US THE COMMUNISM
GOVERNMENT: MAKE YOUR TIME
(Sorry for that.
Paging Mr Orwell... (Score:1)
--
Rob White,
Cv - Cv = 0 Therefore there is an absolute frame of reference.
the other divides (Score:3)
*sigh*
The government is NOT there to hand out things. The point of any government in a free society is to protect its citizens in their pursuits of live, liberty and property... not to provide any of those. We are free to choose how we want to spend our lives... but we are not free to demand that any folks, rich or not, MUST give us their money for computers.
If you want to give your money to a computer charity, fine, just don't force me to. If you have the government use my tax money to give stuff to people, i have no control over it. I either pay my taxes just the same or get arrested.
Re:Aren't they already net-enabled enough? (Score:1)
34 cents for a postage stamp.
Re:Carnivore@home? (Score:1)
And President Bush has gone further, and just won't be using email at all.
Re:A few points. . . (Score:1)
Those two sentences contradict each other. Hence it makes absolutely no sense.
Re:A few points. . . (Score:1)
Re:What is this fascination with czars? (Score:1)
I suspect that even the sheeple who don't know much history would have reacted badly to a "drug fuhrer"...
~ If you like the War On Drugs, you're gonna just love the War On Guns...
First this, then..... (Score:1)
worse even, what if this department will be give powers like the FCC has, but instead of regulating communications mediums, they regulate internet activity, this would be 10 times worse then the ILA since they will have almost unlimited power to regulate.
the digital divide (Score:3)
i am rich (moderately so relative to the average american and certainly the rest of the world), i am white, and i am male. if someone did an analysis of
this is not good.
if anything, the computer/ pc/ web revolution promised to be egalitarian, and i'm sorry, i just don't see it!
government usually does very little while at the same time rapidly spending a lot of our money. if the government allocated some money to the digital divide problem under such a technoczar i'm sure 99% of it would get chewed up by talking heads and some offices shuffling papers around and no real world effect, but i still hope terribly that something really can be done to empower the poor if such a czar is set up.
such a czar should have the government buy pcs and handhelds for the poor, that's what i say. even if 90% are resold/ used to play games/ view porn/ insert your own waste of time, it's the 10% that are used to turn minds that are otherwise wasted on the street into genius that makes all the difference.
do any of us technophiles really want to see the majority of americans view tech as just another toy of the rich? something to not empower lives, but just something rich people have and use, and therefore just another symbol of a classist society? is tech something that helps keep the poor poorer and the rich richer? tech can elevate anyone up the economic food chain... let's see government realize what kind of social ills can be solved with that truth.
i'm sorry, but compared to the digital divide, who cares if i can get my electronic refund from the irs faster...