Technology is the idiot savant of the policy world, that’s the only explanation for why anything policy related gets done in the tech world.

The entire tech portfolio of issues--privacy, civil rights, free speech, Internet governance, copyright, security and freedom, among others--is perpetually an afterthought among policy wonks.  Yet, tech policy always seems to "take care of itself," for good or for ill, and too often it is the latter. 

And perhaps those with their hands on the levers are partly to blame for the technology void that continues to infect Washington.  Early in the political awakening of the tech community, two major themes took root:  "hands off, we don't need you," and "if you get in our way, we'll ignore you."  In 1992, David Clark, in a talk to the Internet Engineering Task Force, uncorked this credo:  "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code."  Not exactly what you'd call a "big tent" platform.

In late 1993 or early 1994, the exact date is a matter of some dispute, Internet digerati and Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Gilmore uttered his iconic line:  "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."  Someone later bastardized the quote, substituting "Congress" for "censorship."  Although a good deal of suspicion still clings to the tech community's view of policy makers, the head-in-the-sand stance seems to have gone the way of the floppy disc. 

I wish I could say the same about the policy makers.  There are, perhaps, a dozen lawmakers at any one time that "get it" with regard to technology issues.  My organization spends much of its time testifying before Congress in an effort to help legislators craft a solid technical and legal framework that policy proposals can be judged against, rather than the concern of the day.  It's an uphill fight, and sometimes the culprit is simply technological apathy, born of a culture of benign ignorance; a philosophical crevasse into which the execution of technological principle falls without a whimper.

A good example of this apathy shows up in a report that CDT recently released that highlights a critical gap in the accessibility of vital, public government information.  The E-Government Act of 2002 created a mandate promoting easier access to government information and services.  However, as our report shows, federal agencies are falling woefully short of complying with the E-Gov requirements.  The report notes that government information appears "invisible" to millions of Americans combing the Internet and looking for answers via the most popular search engines.   The information can't be found using a search engine because it hasn't been indexed properly; and the information hasn't been indexed properly because government agencies are failing to install a simple standardized protocol on their web pages.

The fix is an easy, low-cost solution; that such deficiencies are found in the United States in today's globalized Internet age is appalling.  Gone are the days when a politician can blow off a Luddite mindset with the cutesy line, "Why, I can't even program the clock on my VCR," yet we appear quite content to let most of the current crop of presidential hopefuls continue to campaign, blissfully unaware of technology issues.

When was the last time you heard any of the candidates answer a question about tech policy?  And why have we allowed such a gapping hole in the public debate to open in the first place?  Can you imagine not asking candidates about Social Security, or terrorism or immigration?  Of course not, so why is it acceptable that none of the candidates have been asked what their stance is when it comes to protecting speech on the Internet?  To protecting U.S. citizens' online information from overreaching government and commercial access? To ensure that the Internet remains a neutral, open and innovative platform? To make sure our broadband capabilities keep up with the rest of the world?

If you, and you, and you and we, don't starting asking these questions of the candidates at every turn, in public forums of any kind, electronic or not, we will have to bear some of the blame for why these crucial technology issues fall the margins of presidential politics.  We can't leave it to the media to press the issue; even during the ground breaking CNN/YouTube debate not a single question regarding technology was uttered; the closest anyone came was a query about electronic voting.

Each campaign headquarters, in every state, on every social network, needs to be hammered, pestered, annoyed, or goaded into coughing up a coherent platform that address technology.  If 50,000 Facebook users can organize within the space of a week and force the company to drastically alter its privacy policy surrounding a poorly implemented marketing scheme, then surely we in the tech community can muster enough muscle to at least make ourselves, and our issues, heard among the warp and woof of public debate during this presidential election cycle.