Do We Need a National CTO?

from the maybe-not dept

The 463 blog points us to an interview with Mitch Kapor of Lotus and EFF fame, in which he makes the case for a national Chief Technology Officer. The idea seems to be that technology policy in the United States is currently fragmented among a bunch of different positions, and having a designated top technologist in the government would help to bring coherence to the nation’s technology policy. It sounds like a reasonable idea at first blush, but on closer examination it might create more problems than it solves.

To start with, it’s important to distinguish between two jobs that are really quite different. One job is to coordinate the government’s own IT infrastructure. Currently, IT decisions are made by the various federal agencies and departments within the federal government. A national CTO could conceivably set guidelines or policies related to IT infrastructure that would apply across the executive branch. The other job is to advise the president on substantive tech policy issues like network neutrality, patents, copyrights, etc. The two jobs are very different, and it’s not at all clear it would make sense to have the same guy doing both. But let’s consider each position in turn.

It’s not clear how significant the potential savings or efficiency gains would be from having a single guy in charge of all government IT deployments. Up to a certain point, there are efficiency gains to be had from greater IT integration, but the federal government is probably so large that those economies of scale have already been exhausted. That’s especially true when we consider that the different parts of the government have widely different requirements. Some parts, such as the FBI and NASA, have offices all over the country, while others are located almost entirely in Washington. Federal agencies do different kinds of work and need a wide variety of software packages. The current arrangement, in which each agency manages its own IT infrastructure, seems likely to give each agency more flexibility to choose technologies that meet its specific needs.

The idea of a designated tech policy advisor is more promising, but that also has potential downsides. A good choice could help bring coherence and vigor to a president’s tech agenda, but, given enough power, a bad choice could cause just as much mischief. Therefore, if the next president does create a CTO position, he ought to limit its function to advising the president, rather than pursuing an independent policy agenda. A good model for this is the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, which advises the president on economic policy and produces an annual report on the state of the economy but doesn’t wield any significant authority in its own right.

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Do We Need a National CTO?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
kiba (user link) says:

Free Market Anarchism

Government should not be in the business of economic regulation, period. Their economic regulation is quite disastrous, really. For example, I heard that they’re going to bail all the banks out and leave us a trillion dollar debts.

Instead, they should abolish government monopolies on the court, police, national defense, and all other services that the government offer. Then, they should compete in the free market like the rest of society instead of stealing from society via taxation.

While they’re on becoming a legitimitive firm, they should abolish all government granted monopolies such as copyright and patent as well any kind other monopolies. This will mean that the telcommmunication industry will go back to earning a living and that mean that copyright holders can’t speak evil of filesharing, which is a public’s right.

Of course, it will also be a boon for hardware manufacturers since it will increase demand for fatter and faster computers. It will also a boon for the majority of copyright holders as well now that the barrier of copyright is destroyed. That mean they get more chance for their work to be known and that mean more demand for whatever scarcity that they can provide.

This will hopefully open the way for free market anarchist society. It will create a society of entrepreneurs, instead of a society of thugs who hide behind the law to disguise their immorality.

Even if a true anarchist society is not possible, it is still important for us to oppose bullies whoever they are. Be it the RIAA, unions, the state, invaders, school bully, thieves, evil copyright holders, and other bullies. Let oppose them all.

Urza says:

Re: Free Market Anarchism

What you propose is known as ‘Anarcho-capitalism’ I believe, and isn’t really Anarchy at all. All you’re doing is shifting the role of government over to private corporations. Personally, I think that’d end with some pretty bad results. As bad as our government is, at least they have to _pretend_ to be responsive to the will of the people. Well, usually.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro says:

Re: Free Market Anarchism

kiba wrote:

Government should not be in the business of economic regulation, period. Their economic regulation is quite disastrous, really.

The trouble is, free markets left to themselves do not remain free. They end up getting infested with anticompetitive practices like price-fixing, collusion, predatory pricing, deceptive advertising and just plain fraud. Not to mention the inevitable boom-bust cycles that just go faster the more efficiently the information flows.

This is why free markets need ongoing regulation in order to remain free.

Isaac K (profile) says:

Re: Free Market Anarchism

Sorry, but your post smacks of a lack of understanding of the value of central governance.
abolish police? courts? national defense? how about the water infrastructure? electrical systems? roads? hospitals? fire departments?
yeah. good luck with that.
Truth is, we need the government because it provides for the common needs in a way that satisfies the freeloader problem.
you think corruption is bad now? look at the post-communist russian states. Anarchy? you have no idea.

How would you like to be price gouged by the firefighters while your house burned down? or have ambulances refuse to take you until you agree to sign a contract [after all, we ARE saving your life, so i figure 50% of all income in perpetuity isn’t too much to ask…]?

Is OUR government well formed and efficient? heck no. Abolish it? that would just make everything you are griping about even worse.

DC tech exec says:

Being real about what a CTO could actually do

This idea of a CTO with line management responsibility for technology is so out of touch with the realities of how fund accounting, department decision making, and other DC constraints that it is laughable. If you want to have someone blow their brains out, put a Type A tech leader in charge – they will make it 6 months before they have a brain aneurysm.

The CTO should be a person comfortable in persuasion – a staff type personality that speaks to overall technology policies and lobbies actively for his/her position. Larry Lessig is the best name mentioned so far that fits the bill from my perspective.

Anonymous Coward says:

Two “things” are floating around:

1. Obama’s tech policy talks about a CTO position being created should he be elected. Kinda like a Super-IT guy, and most definitely not a tech policy position.

2. Congress, as part of “Pro-IP Bill”, is considering what some term an IP Czar who would be tasked with negotiating international treaties/compacts/etc. stiffening foreign recognition and protection of IP (in this bill ip=copyright). This is not a tech policy position.

In short, there is nothing on the table or over the horizon to create something akin to a tech policy advisory position.

Bunny says:

Not everything can be directed from the top down

A marching band has no problem with following a baton twirler, but technology isn’t like that. Technology tends to develop in unforeseen directions. That’s like the individual band members wanting to go march in their own direction instead of in lockstep with everyone else.

This analogy leads me to think that a “CTO” will probably cause more harm than good, and especially if the decision is made by Washington and in the image of Washington.

JA says:

not just IT

I think there needs to be consideration of both an IT perspective and an IM (Information Management) perspective. I have seen how very infrequently the IT folks are able to think about policy issues relating to information management. These are two distinct roles and two distinct skill sets – good luck finding anyone who excels at both!

Bill Schrier (user link) says:

CTO - Yes; Policy Czar - No

As CTO for the City of Seattle, I have some thoughts on this issue, and have blogged about them here:
Fundamentally, the Fedgov could use an internal leader to help standardize the use of technology in the bureaucracy and push Federal departments to adopt the cutting edge technologies developed by the private sector.
I agree with Vint Cerf as quoted by Ed Cone at CIO Insight: the last thing we need is a “technology czar” or someone trying to set technology policy for the nation. In my opinion, the private sector, in general, is doing a decent job with developing and pushing the envelopes of technology. We definitely need regulation – and we have plenty of that with the FCC, DARPA, FTC, DHS etc. – all of which could be improved in a new administration.
I’d suggest finding someone as National CTO to get the Fedgov bureaucracy to standardize and use cutting edge technology effectively.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...