The Government’s Failure to Understand Technology
America may have no hope for the technological future that it’s been dreaming of, much less the world: those in power at all levels of government simply do not understand modern technology, even as they continue to legislate and regulate. How is this sensible?
Within the last week, there have been some startling technophobic revelations: a Senator who’s never used an ATM and yet seems to think his voice on issues related to them is valuable, Supreme Court Justices not only aren’t familiar with modern Internet social services but fail to understand the basics of email, and, most worryingly of all, far too many members of Congress are chastising the FCC for attempting to regulate ISPs, using jobs as a predictable scare tactic. These, citizens of America, are the people governing a country that’s deeply in love, and dependent upon, technology.
Never having used an ATM can be forgivable, as can a grandfather’s ignorance of email, but only in situations where their lack of knowledge doesn’t affect sweeping change. When members of Congress or the Supreme Court have no personal knowledge, however shallow, of technological issues relevant to their current efforts, they rely upon their staff and ethically questionable lobbyists for information, inevitably leading to confusion, misunderstanding, and garbled outcomes – the DMCA is a prime example, as are most decisions related to copyright and technology within the last decade.
In terms of Net Neutrality, however, the stakes are larger than the cost of using a competitor’s financial product – regulating ISPs, or the failure to do so, is essential to the future viability of America, not to mention technological stability. Contrary to claims from both Republicans and the corporations who would be marked by regulation, the FCC has the full Constitutional ability to regulate the behavior of ISPs through the use of some legal trickery that doesn’t involve Congressional approval for new powers, and yet this talking point refuses to die.
Most importantly, however, Net Neutrality is not about jobs: jobs will not be lost by increasing competition among corporations, allowing for lower costs-of-service, treating all customers in a fair and nonjudgmental manner, and furthering the development of technology. How can such claims be made by those in charge of the country? The simple fact, sadly, is that those who are not bought-and-paid by companies like AT&T and Comcast are so far removed from society, let alone the bleeding edge of technology, that they don’t understand both the issue and what’s at stake.
At best, such nonsense is going to slow the process already in-progress by Genachowski at the FCC, and at worst it’s going to derail it. Not only does America need to meet the technological capability of countries like South Korea or Japan, who far outpace the United States’, but it needs to set a precedent of unfiltered, unfettered, unmitigated access to information in the digital age, and this requires regulation of those who provide such access. If Congress prevents or hinders this nonnegotiable necessity from becoming reality due to short-term political goals, they should be ashamed of themselves and of what they have done to the American people.
Net Neutrality is nothing less than one of the last civil rights issues in modern society, and it deserves truthful legal attention couched in reality.
Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The best thing to happen is that we talk about it, so a big thanks. For years I actually felt superior, and even lucky that I was not a computer person, dealing with life has me playing catch-up now.
There is nothing wrong with people not wanting to embrace technology. However, I think that our leaders should have a handle on it. Mc Cain didn’t know how to e-mail on his last run. I’ll stop there. I think that is just laziness for a person of that stature to not even be able to e mail.
Open talk is the key to understanding. I think it may have taken guts for you to write this, I am glad you did.
While I would argue that there is something inherently wrong in being technophobic in today’s world, it’s entirely unacceptable for people who make policy surrounding technology to be so.
If members of Congress don’t want to use email or understand what a cellphone is, that’s fine, but then they need to not tell people smarter than them (Julius Genachowski, myself, etc.) what to do with said technology – especially not how it’s inherently evil.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank U please write more to this very important concern
Makes one wonder what the relevance of politics actually is. Why is this so hard? Can we simply not have a reasoned, conversation with the evidence as it presents?
Spotlight the world monetary crisis: By conciously, delegating decisions to algorithmic constructs the banking community has a real evolutionary advantage. In purposing ideas to a database the banksters can out maneuver the governmental homo sapien at each and every, decision making interval. They create simple minded, complexities just for the hell of it.
The precedent of unfiltered, unfettered, unmitigated access to information in the digital age, cannot be regulated in a monetary economic system. The parasite blocks our ability to innovate on every level.
We have the capability to store everything we see, read, and hear in our lifetime.[Juan Enriquez]
Do we have the resources; what is the carrying capacity? Emerging technology solves such queries. A cybernated system would already have a project like AT3 Maglev up and rolling based on sound reasoning. Dependancy on oil and a parasitic monetary system are cruel jokes we play on ourselves. A world economic collapse would force the hand – a powerful social network of dedicated volunteers to spread the word of pure possibility. Tick Tock
I couldn’t agree more.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »