There are two views of the CTO position and Larry laid out both views in his interview and explained why he didn’t want the job (which, personally, is the best reason to want him in the position).
View #1 is a person who could help shape our nation’s tech policies. This person would need to be a great speaker, because he or she would need to go to places like the World Economic Forum and communicate what our tech policy should be. She or he would also need to be up to date on law, since they would be talking with congress about what could or couldn’t be done and would help shape policies and laws. She or he would also need to be both trusted and accessible to the tech industry, too.
That sounds like Lessig would be a perfect candidate.
But he laid out the other view of what a national CTO should do and explained why he wouldn’t be a good choice. That view is: be a traditional CTO and get more of our government to use technology to be more efficient and transparent. Lessig is much more interested in seeing a CTO take on that role and says for that role you’d need a geek who understands the technology.
This is needed, but petty fiefdoms would fight stuff like this tooth and nail if they lost any power from this, which to be useful would be required. Otherwise you get a "Czar" position that has no power and little responsibility. Washington business as usual. Whoever had this position would have to have real power to make changes and that stands little chance of happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment