January 27, 2009
Technology in Perspective

Great summary piece on the tech troubles being encountered by Obama staffers in the White House:

But the strangest adjustment for the Obama team is having to return to a time before Facebook. Legal restrictions, based on an interpretation of 1978's Presidential Records Act, forbid staffers from using outside e-mail, IM or any of the social networking tools the campaign thrived on. Suddenly, they have to relearn how to communicate, because the law has not caught up with the way people live. They are being forced to return to older technologies (or they will once those technologies start working properly), and abandon or become more guarded in their use of newer technologies.

Yes, welcome to the federal government, friends. Here's the more important takeaway:

Expect the Obama administration to try to change some of the rules. When the president himself pushes aides to find a way to let him keep his BlackBerry, chances are good that White House counsel Greg Craig will soon take a look at whether legal opinions from the days before anyone had heard of the Web still make sense. (There were apparently concerns about both security and the Presidential Records Act, but the issues seem to have been resolved.) "What people tend to forget is just how much the Internet has changed in the past two years, let alone the past eight," [former Bush Internet Director David] Almacy said. [emphasis added]

That's the lesson. Technology and its use as a force multiplier in politics is changing rapidly. The people I run into on and offline who think that being tech savvy merely constitutes having a cool looking website and a great email list missed the memo. Technology as a multi-faceted and convenient way to reach and organize supporters is moving quickly. Winners in the post-2008 world of politics need to be prepared to harness it.

Posted by Eric Earling at January 27, 2009 09:31 PM | Email This
Comments
1. All politics aside, one thing that I AM happy with - I'm a management consultant, specializing in software development, that's why I say this - is that President Obama is more 'hip' to technology.

The fact that lawmakers think that the "internets" are a "series of tubes" or other gems like that just makes me want to put my face in the palm of my hand, shake my head in frustration, and then smack them in the face. I don't mind if they don't know about something like that, but these are the people who also want to regulate technology, which is where my problem lies.

Hopefully we can get less regulation on technology, or at least less regulation that is stupid, since it's doubtful we'll escape it altogether.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 27, 2009 09:55 PM
2. There's a reason these services are restricted not just in the White House, but anywhere that sensitive government information is on computer networks.

If Obama & co. manage to subvert these rules, I predict that the results will be very embarrassing. The Internet has not drastically changed in the past 2 years, or 8, that is a load of nonsense. What's changed is how reliant political campaigns are on it.

The primary function of the White House is not to conduct political campaigns. Otherwise I'd agree with Obama.

Posted by: jvon on January 28, 2009 01:03 AM
3. Frankly, I don't want newer technology in the hands of non-tech savvy personnel such as government entities. This is how I end up getting a communication from the VA and my banking institution telling me that a vast amount of my personal information may have been compromised by an employee that had property stolen from them when they took it home (against policy) with them in which the data had not been encrypted. Oh, but I'll be compensated by them providing credit alerts for one whole year free of charge. What a deal! I guess I won't need that shredder at home afterall.

inre: Andrew Brown@ 1. Yes, that was quite the proclamation by Ted Stevens. Fortunately, you don't have to worry about him anymore. Instead, worry about the ones still there that have the same basic grasp of technology that Uncle Ted did but are in a position in government to have a say in how it's regulated.

Posted by: Rick D. on January 28, 2009 06:26 AM
4. I'm sure they'll 'get it rolling' soon. After all, why have all that sophisticated tech around a White House that cowboy Bush wouldn't have the faintest clue as to how to use. I mean get real...I think the Bush administration was likely still using the pony express as courier. :)
Gotta love him tho, right? This will be a far more tech savvy WH in upcoming years...bet on it.

Posted by: Duffman on January 28, 2009 06:38 AM
5. Duffie.
They said the same thing about Clinton and we saw how well that worked.

Buy a clue.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 28, 2009 06:49 AM
6. Eric,
Good job on continuing to post on this issue. Being one who works in IT, and who has worked for the government in the past, I feel it is an important issue and also a great equalizer politically. Others may not see it, but to me, I welcome the new administration pushing the rules that have been stagnant too long. If we, the people, want a government that is more open and transparent, then these changes need to occur.

Let's all hope that this administration is successful in moving the government forward with technology. It could save a lot of money and also open it up so the more will no what is going on, instead of just the insiders and lobbyists.

Posted by: tc on January 28, 2009 07:12 AM
7. Now, come on M/V...did you ever hear of the Clinton administration having a problem with pizza delivery? ;)

Posted by: Duffman on January 28, 2009 07:14 AM
8. Commenters here so far have missed what I think is the biggest point. Why does every conversation and e-mail have to labelled, sorted and catalogued for some Presidential Records Act.

My word, why in the heck did Nixon make that stupid recording for?

I personally would be happy with a little secrecy.

Now that the Democrats have complete control, can you just imagine a little fishing expedition Conyers or Waxman will go on? I am sure they will find little things that they will blow up into big things. And, at the same time, ignore the big things Clinton did with our missle technology in the mid90s.

I mean, can someone not tell me that our system ain't broke? At least with a straight face?

MEET THE NEW BOSS: SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.

Posted by: swatter on January 28, 2009 07:28 AM
9. It infuriates me that this whole issue is being sold to the public as "your government is inefficient and in the dark ages", when the truth is that the issue is about limiting disclosure of Whitehouse staff's communications.

Posted by: Smoley on January 28, 2009 08:22 AM
10. I'll never understand people that want their government to be more secretive and less open... but to each their own, swatter.

Rick @ 3, Yeah, I didn't mean to harp on Ted Stevens - I also referenced Bush's debates with Kerry - and I agree with you about keeping an eye on the people who ARE still there and working to regulate it. I only meant to imply that I'm glad we have someone in office that actually uses today's technology and thus has a little bit better idea how it works.

Hopefully we can avoid more DMCAs and such.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 28, 2009 08:23 AM
11. Get this..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's a funny one. Here's a taxpayer funded special interest group advertising a job applicant to fight anti-growth anti-government forces. It's too much to believe but here is the info and the link.
http://www.fiscalaccountability.org/index.php?content=was-county

According to an employment advertisement posted on the popular website www.craigslist.org, the taxpayer-funded National Association of Counties (NACO) is currently seeking an applicant among whose duties will be to "combating anti-government/anti-tax efforts." And I am pretty sure we know what "reestablishing a partnership between the federal government and America's counties" means.

The ad seeks applicants to fill the position of "Public Affairs Special Projects Coordinator". The URL and text of the ad are as follows:

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/npo/1002884345.html
Public Affairs Special Projects Coordinator (Washington, DC)
Reply to: resumes@naco.org [?]
Date: 2009-01-22, 9:53AM EST

A national association representing county governments is seeking a Public Affairs Special Projects Coordinator to work on two projects. One project seeks to reestablish a partnership between the federal government and America's counties. The second will focus on developing a national strategy for combating anti-government/anti-tax efforts. The ideal candidate should have knowledge of county, state and federal governmental structure and interrelationships; experience at the federal or congressional level; experience running issue or public service campaigns; and excellent oral and written communication skills.
Send cover letter, resume and salary history to resumes@naco.org.
PostingID: 1002884345


Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 28, 2009 11:06 AM
12. Sorry Andrew, but I kind of get grossed out by the idea of microphones in the men's room listening to every gory detail. Enough is enough. Can't anyone have a conversation with another without idealists like you pretending all must be disclosed?

Posted by: swatter on January 28, 2009 12:38 PM
13. Not if you work for me and use that opportunity to plot nefariously to pass unconstitutional laws, cost me money, and waste said money.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 28, 2009 02:13 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?