Why the U.S. Needs a Department of Technology
The U.S. once had an agency named the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was closed in 1995 because it was viewed as unnecessary by the Reagan administration. At the time, Republican representative Amo Houghton expressed his concerns:
“We are cutting off one of the most important arms of Congress when we cut off unbiased knowledge about science and technology.”
In the 25 years since, that bias has become increasingly apparent in the wake of numerous technological incidents involving Americans’ data rights, governmental agencies, and companies that have little to no oversight.
Most Americans, myself included, had no idea this agency ever existed, but we are painfully aware of the technological incompetence of our politicians. In 2020, Andrew Yang ran on a platform including the creation of a new Department of Technology, which would provide guidance to our political leaders on various tech issues. That was the first I’d ever heard of the idea, but it’s an idea which is exponentially more important today than it was in 1995 and should be given serious consideration by everyone in our modern era.
Cambridge Analytica
I recently watched a documentary on Netflix called The Great Hack which shines a light on Cambridge Analytica; In it, we see how Cambridge Analytica exploited a surprising feature in Facebook’s developer API which let apps gather data about a person’s friends, without the friend’s explicit permission. Using millions of data points, personality profiles on Americans were created to help Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. They were able to target states, cities, communities, and even individuals with fine-tuned ads to influence certain personalities to vote for Trump. The campaign was filled with traditional political methods (lies, fear mongering, divisive language, etc.) combined with big data and machine learning built on top of this intrusive data collection.
After details of these methods were brought to light, there was quite a bit of public outrage. Mark Zuckerberg was grilled for hours in front of Senate committees and more people are starting to look at how large companies handle user data. But sadly, the damage is done. Some might say the election would have turned out the same, but given the close margins, it’s not so far fetched to say these methods directly tipped the scales; changing our world forever, for better or for worse. The reality is, if we continue to let companies do as they wish and only hold them accountable after major issues occur, then it’ll continue to happen over and over and over again. This sort of reactionary policy will hurt far too many people in the coming years before anything is put in place to help.
Now imagine if the U.S. had a Department of Technology over the past few decades that specialized in reviewing APIs and Terms of Services of major tech companies which have great influence over the population. For simplicity, we can say any company that has millions of users would apply. The Department could have legal and tech experts who could effectively read though complicated Terms of Services to protect the public’s privacy rights. They could also review APIs for any features or loop holes that could target private data without permission. The particular feature in Facebook’s API was widely known for years beforehand; it wasn’t a bug or a hidden exploit and was used by numerous developers and apps. However, the government either didn’t know or refused to act because it’s not explicitly their responsibility. So those in power will say it’s the consumer’s responsibility to be vigilant and alert.
But the onus of uncovering bad practices in tech shouldn’t fall to individual citizens. You shouldn’t need to have a Law degree to read through dozens of pages of legal jargon when you sign up for a social media app. You shouldn’t need a Computer Science degree to feel safe and protected online. Government exists because we delegate certain responsibilities to a government. Just like with defense, criminal justice, or health, if we as a population decide to delegate some responsibility regarding data rights to trusted experts, then it can and will happen.
JEDI and Mail-In Ballots
In 2018, the Department of Defense began taking bids for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) initiative, which would move 80% of the DoD’s data to a cloud provider. It was widely assumed by industry experts that Amazon (AWS) would win the contract, because their platform was best suited from a competency and security point of view to house the Pentagon’s data. But the contract was eventually given to Microsoft. Amazon took the Pentagon to court over allegations of misconduct in the selection process and many assumed Donald Trump’s rivalry with Jeff Bezos played a part in the Pentagon’s decision. Courts have not found any evidence of foul play, but the very fact that many experts think the DoD made the wrong choice or that Presidential/political interference could have been possible is deeply concerning.
This brings to question how many other decisions by the military or other governmental agencies are made with political bias. It’s common knowledge that large companies lobby politicians to get laws passed in their favor. There could be hundreds, if not thousands, of cases where decisions are made, not for the public’s best interest, but for those in power. And this continues to breed a sense of distrust in institutions that were created to supposedly protect us.
This distrust is becoming even more apparent because of the pandemic this year, as many states are turning to mail-in ballots for the presidential election to prevent avoid citizens gathering in small spaces. But certain leaders have painted postal voting as a source of serious fraud, even though there’s no evidence to back up the claim. When political leaders say one thing, but experts and media say another, it’s increasingly difficult for the public to know what to believe. The affects of such confusion can and will be devastating.
A Department of Technology could greatly help in these areas of conflict by acting as a trusted, unbiased intermediary focused solely on data and facts. A large part of its roles could be gathering data and analyzing it to help inform citizens and drive policy decisions in purely scientific way. If we had such a department which we could turn to for valid data and analysis regarding cloud providers or mail-in ballot fraud, those cases probably wouldn’t be embroiled in as much controversy.
George Floyd
There’s a lot we can say about George Floyd’s murder, in hindsight. It’s clear racism was a large part of it. But there were many other unfortunate, contributing aspects of our society and law enforcement that could have easily been changed in the past if we used technology correctly. If policy was guided by a department that specialized in protecting citizens with technology.
Imagine if over the past 25 years, we had a Department of Technology that played an integral role in law enforcement. Then the way we view police and the way they themselves view their responsibilities would be completely different.
Today, we have no national database of police misconduct. Everyone has seen scenes in TV or Movies where the backrooms of police stations are filled with cardboard boxes, full of paper documents from cases. While there are some advances to law enforcement technology being made, albeit slowly, most police stations around the country are stuck in the past, with mountains of paperwork. So when a complaint is made against a police officer or when one is reprimanded, a document is created, and maybe recorded on a local database, but it’s in no way tracked on a national scale. That officer could go to a new county or state and that new station would have to call up past employers for information. But I mean really, who actually calls people in 2020? And more seriously, why should we rely on manual processes for such vital aspects of public safety?
If a Department of Technology created or enforced the creation of a national database, then the federal government could use data gathered from this database to pinpoint certain cities or police forces that have numerous reports of misconduct. Federal money and specialized training could be provided to any policing group that needs it. The public would also have an idea of the sort of disciplinary measures being enforced (or not being enforced). This kind of transparency, from both a federal and public point of view, is critical for any change to occur.
A Department of Technology could provide guidance on updating local police systems, ensuring digital evidence is kept safe and untampered, and even requiring body cams for every officer in America and ways to ensure camera footage is always present and trusted in court.
In the case of George Floyd, if the officers involved continuously had a cloud of responsibility over them their entire careers, a sense that all their actions while on duty were being tracked, and that they’d be held accountable for those actions which are permanently recorded in a national database, then their actions might have been different. Maybe that police department could have been identified by the Department of Technology as one that needed more training. And maybe the surrounding officers could have remembered something from a mandated sensitivity training course they took recently, and stepped in. Just maybe, tens of thousands of people around the country won’t be unjustly targeted and could feel safer because the government understands technology enough to use it to protect its citizens.
Now is the time
These are only a few recent cases, but there are countless more around the country, both known and unknown, where our government understanding technology better could have prevented direct harm to our society.
Today, it’s obvious the government holds extremely little power in the technology realm, because most politicians know little about it. Whenever any governmental agency needs to utilize technology, they invariably turn to large tech companies for guidance. When Congress needs answers to scandals or breaches, they turn to external experts. And that’s exactly how lobbyists want it, since they can easily influence policy. Letting corporate America roam free and drive a misconstrued sense of capitalism has been the way of the land, because while politicians can keep their pockets fully funded by lobbyist dollars and our economy, which is completely detached from the lives of average citizens, is seen as ‘healthy’, then the appetite for change among those in power remains low. This would explain why creating a Department of Technology hasn’t been part of public discourse, but recent events show how important it really is. It’s becoming painfully apparent it’s harming far more Americans than it helps.
We would benefit greatly if we had an independent body that guided policy in a transparent way and whose experts were known to only make decisions regarding technology for America’s best interests. If Congressional committees could turn to a well established department for data-driven advice concerning issues like military spending on tech, economic uncertainty, high drug prices, pandemic tracking and safety, or user privacy online, then it would increase the public’s trust in decisions made by the government and would ultimately lead to a safer, more just society.
Reactionary policy exists now because there’s no mechanism in place for anything else. The US government physically can’t utilize technology to protect its citizens effectively because it doesn’t have the appropriate expertise in place. Just think, if we can spend hundred of billions on departments to mitigate military threats around the world before they affect Americans, and departments that plan for health, education, and infrastructure needs for the future, then why can’t we also invest in a department that focuses on technology in a forward looking, non-reactionary way?
In the long run, the biggest threat to our society is our unwillingness to adapt.
