Missing: Politicians who take clear stand on tech

Net neutrality became one the hottest political flashpoints in the last year. But in what might seem to be an odd omission, both Republicans and Democrats studiously ignored it this week when touting their technology agendas for 2007.

Also absent from the list of congressional priorities were controversial topics like social-network restrictions, Internet surveillance, data retention, spyware, and laws aimed at regulating Google and its competitors when doing business in China.

Net neutrality alone might seem to deserve a prominent mention. eBay Chief Executive Meg Whitman e-mailed the company's users for the first time to rally their support last year, Web luminary Tim Berners-Lee embraced the idea, and it prompted Google co-founder Sergey Brin to trek to Washington to lobby politicos. It even led to street protests around the country.

But neither Net neutrality nor any of those other key topics make an appearance on either the Democrats' or Republicans' so-called high-tech agendas. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, and Sen. Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, separately trumpeted the agendas within 24 hours of each other this week.

Parties on tech issues CNET News.com checked whether the two major political parties agree with advice from TechNet and the Information Technology Association of America. Here's a list of planks and whether they appear in the Democratic or Republican tech agendas:
TechNet request	On Democratic agenda?	On Republican agenda?
Better math and science education	Y	Y
Fix Sarbanes-Oxley Act	N	Y
Support Net neutrality	N	N
Reform patent system	Y	Y
Embrace green technologies	Y	Y
Support free trade	N	Y
Protect stock options	N	N
Increase number of H-1B visas	N	Y
ITAA request	On Democratic agenda?	On Republican agenda?
Better math and science education	Y	Y
Fix Sarbanes-Oxley Act	N	Y
Give R&D tax credit	Y	Y
Increase number of H-1B visas	N	Y
Make national data breach law	N	Y*
Reform patent system	Y	Y
Don't regulate social networks	N	N
Avoid redundant spyware laws	N	N
Limit Internet taxation	N	Y
Support free trade	N	Y
* = The Republican agenda talks about supporting "effective data security legislation that both deters cybercrime and maximizes the protection of privacy without imposing unnecessary burdens on industry." Source: CNET News.com research

The Democratic pronunciamento is called The Innovation Agenda (PDF), and it pledges to re-create the kind of "unprecedented technological advances" that put a man on the moon. The Republican counterpart is The Policy Agenda (PDF), and it promises that technology will strengthen America's economy and "improve quality of life."

Pelosi's press release on Tuesday, which announced that votes would be held on some related bills this week, predicted her plan will "create a sustained financial and intellectual investment in innovation." Smith's press release a day later said that the Republicans' ideas would expand the "economy by eliminating barriers to trade and innovation."

Both documents are relatively brief and overflow with references to the technology equivalent of Mom, baseball and apple pie: innocuous statements touting the benefits of broadband (who knew?) and improving science and math education (who wouldn't?). Also making the bipartisan cut are calls to reform the patent system, which is about as controversial in tech circles as stating that Google enjoyed a successful IPO.

"The tech agenda is driven by corporate interests and lobbying, and I'm speaking of Republicans and Democrats alike," said Jim Harper, a former congressional aide who's now a policy director at the free-market Cato Institute. "It's not driven by the interests of individual Internet users."

Harper said an overall laissez-faire approach would be more beneficial. "More often than not, congressional involvement in technology policy leads to harmful outcomes rather than good ones," he said.

Because the dueling agendas are intended to demonstrate politicians' tech-savviness, creative omissions are necessary. It probably doesn't help that Sen. Ted Stevens, best known for his "series of tubes" metaphor, is a member of the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force. Or that Pelosi received an "F" on a 2006 technology voter guide.

That means it's important to ignore bipartisan enthusiasm for bills like the Deleting Online Predators Act, which cleared the House in a remarkable 410-15 vote last summer. The bill, which would restrict access to a wide swath of sites from MySpace.com to Amazon.com, was bitterly opposed by technology companies and eventually died in the Senate.

It's also useful to forget the recent support for mandatory labeling for risque Web sites, complete with criminal penalties for errant Webmasters, which a Senate committee approved last year. (The bill died for unrelated reasons.) Another proposal supported by companies like Sun Microsystems would have amended the Digital Millennium Copyright Act but it, too, encountered a bipartisan wall of opposition.

Technology lobbyists, who regularly downplay partisan differences, dismissed the vagueness of the policy proposals from the two major parties in interviews this week.

"Overall, the level of detail that's on the piece of paper they sent out is probably less important to us than the overall commitment to addressing these issues," said Kara Calvert, director of government relations for the Information Technology Industry Council. "So what they write in their bullet points probably is less important."

Calvert added: "They've all said we have a commitment to things like broadband and immigration and R&D."

Jim Hock, a spokesman for Technet, said: "These issues are overwhelmingly bipartisan, we've been working with members on both sides, and we're excited with the progress thus far."

[the1kingarthur]

It's time for the public to wake up

Net neutrality, and security are issues that should never be ignored. And in some ways the People can no longer blame the politicians. Apathy and illiteracy has grown to epidemic proportions.

Downloading, blogging, and gamming have become more important than issues of net neutrality, national security and Constitutional Rights.

Too many Americans have developed the lifestyle and belief that our elected officials will protect us, and do what is right. These Americans feel there is no need to do any thing because it's already being done.

Added to this is the tragedy that hand writing and mailing a letter via the US Postal service is becoming a lost art. Granted that users of the Internet has grown tremendously, but the largest percentage of the US population is not online and depend on their daily newspaper, and /or local television news,

I have one question for the readers here. Do you know your neighbors first name?

[Michael K.]

Net neutrality ruined this article

Net neutrality is entirely different from all of the other things in this article which tend to be based on good economic principles. Net neutrality, on the other hand, is interest group politics. It is no surprise that CNET News.com supports it, because that's their best interest. Unfortunately, it makes them an incredibly biased source. Companies should be able to price as they desire, not based on government regulation.

[declan00]

Not at all

CNET News.com has never taken a position on Net neutrality. We were neutral, so to speak, in our scorecard last year:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/Technology+voter+guide+2006+-+Grading+Congress+on+high-tech+cred/2009-1040_3-6131719.html" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/Technology+voter+guide+2006+-+Grading+Congress+on+high-tech+cred/2009-1040_3-6131719.html</a>

But contrary to what you surmise, even *opponents* of Net neutrality would like to see politicians take a stand on it one way or another.

Put another way, specifics benefit both opponents and supporters of a certain piece of legislation. What they don't benefit are politicians, who like to preserve their wiggle room, which is why we don't see it in their political manifestos this week.

[ghostofitpast]

The wisdom of Wittgenstein

No one would accuse Ludwig Wittgenstein of being a political theorist. However, in this case he hit the nail right on the head: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man scheigen." ("What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.") Most politicians do not know much about technology, but most of them seem to have learned the dangers of speaking about it from a point of ignorance!

[Phillep_H]

Heh

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

So far as I can see, the devil is in the details, re net neutrality. Too much "neutrality" means monopolies, as does too little.