I vented my frustration earlier today with the FCC’s failure to make comments it receives easily accessible to the public—which means, more than anything, making them full-text searchable. This may seem like Inside Baseball to many, but it’s not. It’s a failure of the democratic process, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and a testimony to the general incompetence of bureaucracies, regardless of who’s running them. It denies the public an easy way to follow what goes on inside Washington, while essentially subsidizing law firms who get to bill clients for having paralegals or junior associates do things that existing web technology makes completely unnecessary—like reading through every comment in a document (at the rate of hundreds of dollars per hour) instead of just looking for keywords in a full-text search.

Later in the day the FCC announced:

1. RSS feeds for all news from the agency  (1 general feed + 48 issue-specific feeds);
2. “FCC Connect” a page for Social Media Sites—so you can follow the FCC on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook; and
3. A “crowdsourcing platform” to discuss the administration’s plan to transfer nearly $8 billion from taxpayers to broadband providers.

I’m thrilled about the RSS feeds, which go a long way in letting all Americans know what the FCC does, supposedly in the “public interest.” Still, I can’t help but note that the FCC waited until after a huge discussion about whether RSS is dead to finally start using RSS in a serious way—fully a decade after the birth of the RSS standard. Better late than never, I suppose.

FCC Connect is also good news: once you have an RSS feed, there’s really no reason not to pipe that feed into as many platforms as possible—which is precisely why RSS isn’t dead, even if most people will never use an RSS reader.

But I’m less thrilled about the crowdsourcing platform. It’s not that it’s not a good idea; it is: The site allows users to submit suggestions, comment on suggestions,  and vote them up or down—allowing the best ideas to rise to the top (at least in theory). This sort of functionality really could make the process of commenting to regulatory agencies much more interactive and democratic. But I don’t understand why the FCC invested time, effort and taxpayer dollars into developing a separate forum for just one of the many important issues currently before the FCC when the 10,000+ comments filed in the official docket on that issue (and many thousands more comments in many other dockets) are still unsearchable and essentially inaccessible to the public .

As I emphasized this morning, the FCC doesn’t need to build a fancy new search engine to open up access to these comments (although that might be nice). All the agency has to do is edit their robots.txt file to allow search engines like Google and Big to “crawl” the contents of the agency’s Electronic Filing Comment System (ECFS) database—which would be completely free and should take less than a minute. The FCC has already allowed crawling on some subdomains, such as the International Bureau’s filing system, which is mainly used for satellite licensing (for example). So… what’s the hold up, guys?

This matters a great deal because, like all federal agencies, the FCC is required by the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 to give “consideration” to public comments on the agency’s regulatory proposals. Essentially, the comment process is one big “town hall,” and intended to give every citizen their right to be heard by the regulator. Fundamentally, this implements the “due process” guaranteed by the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if the FCC were required to give “consideration” to the comments filed on the crowdsourcing platform, that wouldn’t diminish the need for transparency into the comments filed in the “Big Boys” area—ECFS. In short, Crowdsourcing may be a great way to engage the general public, but it’s no substitute for opening up the comments that matter most.

So what’s going on here? I certainly don’t think the FCC is intentionally creating a sideshow of Web 2.0 interactivity to divert from the inaccessibility of official dockets (although I fear that is the practical consequence). Instead, I can only assume this mis-prioritization of resources has to do with two factors:

1. The agency feels pressure to do something about the National Broadband Plan issue because that particular subject has reached a critical mass of public attention—but doesn’t care enough about fixing these problems across the board; and
2. The agency has caught a case of “Shiny Object Syndrome,” (SOS) the irresistible desire to try out some new Web 2.0 gadget that seems really cool, even if the time spent on that could be used to address issues of far higher priority.

Two final notes:

• The crowdsourcing platform built by the FCC has some serious problems: anonymous posting and commenting may sound great to the tin-foil hat privacy brigade, but as the top suggestion (currently with 27 votes) points out: “Anonymous, cookie-based voting is so easily game-able and therefore unreliable. User accounts are a better way to prevent multiple voting.” Since the FCC currently requires anyone submitting comments to provide their name and basic contact information, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask users to associate a name and e-mail address with suggestions, comments or votes they submit on the crowdsourcing platform. Of course, there’s nothing to stop anyone from using a pseudonym, but… that’s how just about every blog comment area on the web works!
• The FCC needs a modern Content Management System. The announcement of today’s news isn’t available in HTML on the FCC website.  Instead, users have to go FCC.gov > updates > recent releases to find a list of releases, each with a link to the document in .doc, .pdf and .txt.  Here‘s the .txt of release announcing the FCC’s foray into social media—which looks as though it was sent by telegraph back when the Federal Communications Act was written back in 1934.

Again, we need to realize that government will always be behind the times. So why trust them to get it right when it comes to regulating the Digital Revolution?

Read Part II here

In February, Congress passed the Obama Administration’s “(Five Year) National Broadband Plan,” part of the so-called “Stimulus.” (As economist Russ Roberts put it, government “stimulus” is “like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end.”) The Plan transfers $7.2 billion from taxpayers to broadband providers in subsides to promote broadband build-out. More than 10,000 comments have been filed on the plan. Once you get past the constitutional nicety of whether Congress has the power to subsidize “internal improvements” like broadband (it doesn’t), you might wonder just how well your money will be spent by all these techno-supplicants for the latest craze in corporate welfare.

The good news is that these comments are available online. Hurray for transparency! The bad news is that… they’re available online—specifically on the FCC’s Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS). Anyone who’s used the web more recently than 1998 will cringe the first time they try to use ECFS to find anything, as Jerry has noted. Apart from the cumbersome, highly unintuitive interface, the problem is that there’s no way to search the text of comments ! You can only search pre-defined fields like like “law firm,” and if you don’t enter a value in precisely the right way, you get nada.

Bill Cline, the Chief of the Reference Information Center for the FCC’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau tries hard to put the best face on this farce of e-government, explaining:

A docket number is key to using ECFS, and this link takes you to the ECFS retrieval form with the docket number for the National Broadband Plan, 09-51, already filled in.  Just hit “Retrieve Document List” to get a list of all filings.  Yes, there are lots of them, and you need to click on each individual filing to read it.  But there are many ways you can focus your search, which include:

• Entering the name of a specific individual whose comments you want to see in Field 4 (Filed on Behalf of)
• Narrowing your search to people in your community by using the “City,” “State,” or “Zip Code” fields
• Entering “FCC” in Field 5 – (Law Firm) – to see FCC filings.
• Clicking on the box in field 15 (Eliminate Brief Text Comments) to narrow the search considerably by retrieving only longer comments
• Finding comments for a specific public notice by using a date range on either side of the comment due dates

Keep in mind that this the Federal Communications Commission we’re talking about here.  Yet this antiquated system hasn’t been updated in nearly six years! You might think the problem was just funding: after all, someone would have to pay for a new database system, right?  Yes, but we don’t need a new system: All the FCC has to do is set its robots.txt file to stop blocking search crawlers, so that FCC comments would be included in Google search results, as Jerry has noted.

The real absurdity here is that we naively expect these same regulatory agencies—that can’t even make their own data available through free search engines or stream their own meetings properly—to keep pace with the rapid pace of innovation on the Internet. If only the comedic geniuses at Saturday Night Live had chosen to pick on bureaucrats instead of lawyers, we’d have “Unfrozen Caveman Regulator” instead of  “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.” Maybe that would have made it clear to Americans how silly it is to give the least technologically competent among us control over technology, innovation and creativity—or, even better, that no one central authority is smart enough to manage it, even one led by a guy as seemingly Twitterific as Barack Obama.

Obama’s picked some good people to pull government into the Web 2.0 era, but they’ll always be fighting against the tide of institutional inertia inherent in bureaucracy. In short, we may well see a significant upgrade in e-government in the next few years, but it won’t change the basic fact that government just can’t keep pace with technological change. One need not be a libertarian to accept that this basic fact makes the Internet “different.” Thus can even a non-libertarian be a cyber-libertarian of the Internet Exceptionalist variety.

Libertarian folk-hero Rep. Ron Paul has apparently convinced (WSJ) House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank to implement his proposal (HR 1207) for an audit of the Federal Reserve by the end of 2010. Paul’s Bill would expand existing audits considerably because, under current law, the Government Accountability Office,

can’t review most of the Fed’s monetary policy actions or decisions, including discount window lending (direct loans to financial institutions), open-market operations and any other transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee. It also can’t look into the Fed’s transactions with foreign governments, foreign central banks and other international financing organizations… While the bill only seeks a one-time audit, [Paul] said he wants the Fed to be audited at least annually with the report — and details of its transactions — disclosed publicly.

I’d like to up the ante: Let’s make sure that any data disclosures are made in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), as Mark Cuban and our own Jim Harper have previously suggested. Such machine-readable disclosures would be much more useful, because the data could be analyzed or “mashed-up” with other data sets to answer questions we might not even be able to formulate today.

I’ve been catching up on Radio Berkman, the podcast produced by our friends at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and a great companion to the TLF’s own Tech Policy Weekly Podcast.  There’s been a lot of talk about government transparency on the TLF lately, including TPW 40: Obama, e-Government & Transparency.  But that conversation has been mainly focused on how to make “public” records accessible.

The most recent Radio Berkman episode, “Can you Keep a Secret?” explores the thorny questions about what should be deemed public in the first place, and what should be classified:

The government keeps secrets. We take that for granted. But should we? Some speculate that intelligence agencies and elected officials are a little bit trigger happy with the “Top Secret” stamp, and that society would benefit from greater openness. With the government classifying millions of pages of documents per year – in a recent year the U.S. classified about five times the number of pages added to the Library of Congress – a great deal of useful human knowledge gets put under lock and key. But some argue that secrecy is still crucial to our national security. Radio Berkman pokes its head into a recent talkback with the directors of the film  Secrecy, Harvard University professors Peter Galison and Robb Moss. They are joined by Harvard Law School professors Jonathan Zittrain, Martha Minow, and Jack Goldsmith.

I look forward to seeing the film (when it comes out on Netflix).  

What I found most interesting was the discussion of the essential trade-off in the relationship between the media and the state has always been between the media’s “independence” and its “responsibility” (~33:30 in).  Even the staunchest critics of the national security state would probably accept that there are some stories in the media shouldn’t publish because they’d jeopardize the safety of Americans.  But we all want the media to blow the whistle on the bad stuff that goes on behind a veil of secrecy.  Drawing that line is a terribly difficult task.  But it becomes even more complicated with the decline of traditional professional investigative journalism and the rise of blog/amateur journalism.  

I’m generally not very sympathetic to the chicken-littleism of those who bemoan the fact that journalism is being forced to evolve and innovate by technological change, but on this point, it does indeed seem more likely that the increasingly diffuse media will act less “responsibly” by running stories that really shouldn’t be run.  As one of the panelists points out, the problem is not so much that journalists (of whatever kind) don’t want to be responsible; it’s that they can’t possibly know enough about the context of their story to appreciate why publishing the story might be damaging in surprising ways (such as exposing the capability of U.S. spy satellites by publishing a photo of a Soviet tank).  In the “good” old days of media scarcity, the small number journalists whose beat touched on national security had the luxury of being able to think through their stories and having personal relationships with someone inside the government who could be relied on to tell them whether the story really shouldn’t be run or, even more importantly, which particular aspect of a story truly deserved secrecy.  

The panelists also touched on a separate danger:  the “independence” of media will suffer from economic dependence on the government.  Would a newspaper sucking at the teet of government bail-outs really have run photos of American soldiers torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, for example?  Herein lies a secondary danger of the rise of Internet journalism—that traditional media will become less effective watchdogs as their bottom line suffers and government starts to supplement income once provided by advertising revenue.  Were classified ads the very thing that kept newspapers independent?  What will happen if newspapers cannot shed their physical distribution costs, or find new sources of revenue in the form of smarter advertising, subscriptions, micro-payments or donations?  Adam Thierer has discussed these tough questions and others.

Other interesting points:

• Protective orders no longer offer an effective safety valve by which certain parties can gain access to classified materials because the ease of Internet publishing means that such orders too often lead to disclosure.
• 80% of leaks of classified documents are made by persons inside the Executive branch for political purposes (usually in order to advance a pet policy).  If that’s true, then maybe the “problem” (to the extent that leaks really are a problem, as some leaks certainly are) is more on the “supply” side (at the leaks’ source) and less on the “demand” side (investigative journalism).  If so, perhaps the ethics of journalistic responsibility matter less than we might think. 

On this week’s show, we discuss government transparency—a topic a number of us here at the TLF have written about lately.  Among other things, we discuss:

• Why transparency is important
http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js
• What data the government should provide and how
• Good and bad examples of transparency
• President Obama’s promise to have the most accountable administration in history
• Obama’s plans to appoint a Chief Technology Officer

My guests for this show are:

• TLFer Jerry Brito of the Mercatus Institute, who’s written extensively about transparency and has recently launched an e-Government project called StimulusWatch
• TLFer Jim Harper of the Cato Institute and WashingtonWatch.com, another very successful e-Government project, who’s asked some tough questions about the Administration’s implementation of e-Government thus far and led a great Cato policy forum on this issue (featuring Jerry, among others)
• John Wonderlich of the Sunlight Foundation, the leading e-Government non-profit whose “non-partisan mission [is to use] the revolutionary power of the Internet to make information about Congress and the federal government more meaningfully accessible to citizens”

You can subscribe to our podcast here or through iTunes here.  Or, you can play or download this podcast using the online player below.

[display_podcast]

I can’t believe we’re actually asking whether Obama—the candidate who promised to bring the Federal government (and perhaps everyone else) into the Web 2.0 era whether they like it or not—will have a “personal computer.”

The “webiness” of Obama’s predecessors is just embarrassing:   

Clinton famously sent only two e-mails while he was president, one to test whether he could push the “send” button and one to John Glenn, sent while the former Ohio senator was aboard the space shuttle… During his presidency, George W. Bush didn’t have a personal log-in to the White House Internet server, nor did he have a personal whitehouse.gov e-mail address. (He gave up his private e-mail account, G94B@aol.com, just before his first inauguration.) When he did go online, there were some things he couldn’t access. During Bush’s tenure, the White House’s IT department blocked sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and most of MySpace. The ability to comment on blogs was blocked, as was certain content that was deemed offensive. According to David Almacy, who served as Bush’s director for Internet and e-communications from 2005-07, only two people had access to the iTunes store during that period: Almacy, who had to upload speeches to the site, and the president’s personal aide, so that he could download songs for Bush’s iPod.

Pipes and tubes, pipes and tubes, my friends…  

If Obama decides not to implement whatever legal or technical changes would be required for him to do something so simple as having a computer on his desk, I suppose we’ll know that he’s not really all that interested—at least on a personal level—in all his rhetoric about the power of the Internet to make government more transparent and accountable.  Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

In early December, Jerry Brito asked whether Obama’s proposal to create the post of  Chief Technology Officer (CTO) should be feared or welcomed:

I think the question turns on whether this person will be CTO of the United States or CTO of the U.S. Federal Government. While I personally believe the former should be feared, the latter should be welcomed.

I agree completely—and it now seems that this is in fact where the incoming Administration is heading.  BusinessWeek reports that the Obama Administration has narrowed its choices down to two Indian-American CTOs:

• Vivek Kundra, D.C.’s CTO
• Padmasree Warrior, Cisco’s CTO

Judging by BusinessWeek’s short descriptions, both candidates sound terrifically well-qualified to lead implementation of Obama’s oft-repeated promises to bring the United States government into the Web 2.0 era.  More importantly, the fact that the two likely candidates are CTOs—rather than, say, advocates of any particular technology policy agenda—strongly suggests that the Obama administration isn’t contemplating giving the CTO authority to set technology policy outside the Federal government.  

Whomever Obama chooses in the end will have his or her work cut out for them.  While free marketeers may indeed have much to fear from Obama’s technology policy agenda in terms of over-regulation, increased government control and market-distorting subsidies, e-government is one area where we ought to be able to cheer the new President on:   The Federal government could be made much more transparent and democratically accountable if Federal agencies simply adopted some of the tools users take for granted on private websites-such as RSS feeds and standardized data. 

Let’s just hope that Obama makes it very clear in creating the CTO post that its responsibilities are indeed strictly limited directing adoption of information technology inside the Federal government, so that the position doesn’t mushroom into the more powerful “Technology Czar” some rightly fear.