It would be easy for me to start this off by going down the corruption angle and write 1000 words on how politicians are all corrupt. That’s a cheap shot, and, while no doubt true, doesn’t really address the nuances of technological debate.

For me, the clearest indication a politician is struggling with technology policy is when they get the more subtle details about technology wrong; equating “feasibility” with “low cost”, high performance with faster than 20 year old technology, and reliable with newer.

This is not something limited to one side of politics, I’ve seen it happen repeatedly to all three major parties, and it drives me up the wall.

Obfuscation

I started writing on the NBN a few years ago and in that time have seen some fairly sensible ideas used in an outlandish way. One of the biggest is a mantra of cost-saving in technology projects:

Try to reuse existing infrastructure where viable.

On the face of it this statement seems sensible enough, and it is, providing you understand what is meant by viable. If using existing infrastructure will end up costing money in the long run, that’s not viable. If the existing infrastructure is degraded beyond usability, that is not viable.

If anything, when applying this to a telecommunications network, the most “viable” part of the network is not the deteriorating copper, but the fibre optics that run between exchanges, cabinets, and commercial premises. Seeing a politician argue otherwise makes little sense.

If that’s not enough, there’s always the good old “outdated” arguments said in one breath while, “we can’t predict the future” in the next. The only thing outdated are these arguing techniques, and I can predict the future; you’re not in it pollie.

And that, I suppose, is the unfortunate reality: these politicians really don’t care about technology. They will be dead by the time the problems arise from their obfuscation, they won’t have to worry.

Details

Then there’s the actual technology. This is where the most facepalm-worthy moments happen, when politicians attempt to be some sort of tech guru. I don’t think tech gurus get into politics, and for good reason, they get paid way too much to be, guess what, tech gurus!

I don’t begrudge politicians trying, what I do begrudge is politicians failing, then blaming people from ICT (Information/Communication Technology) fields for calling you out. We all know who’s notorious for this, and from outbursts like this, we have to wonder ‘how much does he really know about technology?’.

One of the big problems is that politicians like to rely on circular reasoning and logical fallacies to argue points, when these (poor) methods of argument meet something with such rigid rules as technology something has to break.

And boy it does.

Watching a politician brain fart out an argument for or against a technology or policy is embarrassing for the politician, and for the party.

It’s not that I think all politicians are morons, although there are some that would come close, it’s that they think the best way to win a technology debate is with rhetoric and platitudes. We can see this doesn’t work with the overwhelming support for a Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) NBN among voters, even though the party that was to deliver said NBN was voted out.

You may win the war, but that battle will rage on. Something that another politician is finding out with his copyright legislation.

Digital Rights

This is where politicians think they have us. Digital rights are just abstract ideas right? They have no real impact on our lives, because the internet is for porn & movies!

Well, not quite. One of the quickest groups to react to rights changes is definitely the internet, as US lawmakers have found out repeatedly. Protest movements spring up within minutes, parts of the internet go dark in said protests, and it all just makes any politician involved look like an unethical bastard.

I’ve never understood this obsession with curbing internet freedom by any party that screams “freedom” from the rooftops, although it does sort of fall into line. Yes, it’s easy to say these policies are evidence of corporations corrupting politicians, but in the end, a politician makes up their own mind.

They choose whether or not they will attempt what has been impossible since the internet started. There is no middle ground with internet censorship/copyright laws, it has to be China or nothing.

Any middle-ground will just be exploited to bypass filters, and giving incentive to exploit law abiding citizens’ connections to avoid prosecution.

Sound Bytes

Sometimes I think politicians assume people involved in technology are stupid. The 5 second sound bytes play like an out of tune street organ. Sometimes they make no sense at all, like the following:

Some people have said that our approach means the NBN is not a national broadband network. Let me be quite clear: People who say that just show how absolutely ignorant they are about how the Internet works

Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding, but the sound-bite is a direct attack on engineers, technicians, designers, administrators, the list goes on. This is not uncommon among politicians, but it is uncommon in ICT.

You can’t just make statements like this without some serious evidence to back it up, but that’s what the sound-bites are; unreferenced garbage to confuse voters, or slander opponents.

That these lines have no effect is again evidenced by the overwhelming support for a FTTP National Broadband Network, don’t forget, it’s been more than three years of the same sound-bite said 100 different ways.

Believe in us, not the experts

Conclusions

And that’s what the arguments all boil down to: belief. I’m not a big fan of belief, it tends to be used to control the weak and demonise the different. I don’t know many people in technology fields that rely on belief over hard evidence, and these are the people voters turn to when politicians make insane statements.

Believe me, I know.

Essentially there’s a few politicians out there who understand a phrase I was always told as a kid and hated with a passion, but on the balance, most have never even heard this one:

You don’t know what you don’t know

At 14 it pissed me off, at 34 it’s a mantra I live by. I’ve been surprised almost every day of my 18 years in ICT, so it’s hard not to live by it.