Pierre's Web

Expanding Secrecy in the Bush Administration

From the Washington Post:

Also last week, it emerged that the government ... has removed from the U.S. Agency for International Development Web site remarks by an administration official that had badly understated the cost of Iraqi reconstruction.

There are reasons why governments, including ours, should keep secrets. Obviously, clear interests of national security is a good reason. But the removal of previously public statements that turn out to be politically inconvenient doesn't sound like it's based on a good reason.

Our democracy depends on openness and equal access to information. If an official makes a mistake in a public statement, he should correct that mistake in a later statement. Going back and erasing the erroneous statement is absolutely the wrong thing to do. It reminds me of a scene from George Orwell's 1984 -- the government proclaiming, "Good news, the chocolate ration has increased this week," while in fact it had decreased -- but all record of the prior ration amount had been expunged.

It certainly doesn't enhance the credibility and trust that our government agencies need in order to operate effectively as our representatives.

The right thing to do in this case is for the agency to issue a statement explaining their action -- it could have been an innocent mistake. In that case, the agency should clarify its commitment to handling public statements in an appropriate, open manner.

Secrecy versus Our Democracy

This report from US News and World Report is worrisome. What do automotive tire safety ratings have to do with national security? Apparently someone thinks that they are related, since the tire safety data is now no longer available to the public. Neither is some public drinking water-quality data.

I haven't read the whole article yet, available here, but I will. Here's an excerpt from the summary:

New administrative initiatives have effectively placed off limits critical health and safety information potentially affecting millions of Americans. The information includes data on quality and vulnerability of drinking-water supplies, potential chemical hazards in communities, and safety of airline travel and others forms of transportation.

and...

New administration policies have thwarted the ability of Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to monitor the executive branch and, in some cases, even to obtain basic information about its actions.

If true, this is what I would generally call "Not a Good Thing."

Notifications

I just realized that I haven't been sending notifications of my new blog entries, even though people have been signing up for them. Oops. What do people usually do these days? Send a notification with every entry, or just once in a while? Or never? And in MoveableType, how can someone remove themselves if they no longer want to get notifications?

UPDATE: I'm taking the e-mail notifications box off the page, and won't use this feature.

Grrr... I'm having an issue with LinkedIn

Pierre, I entered your name into my contacts list at LinkedIn, and it turns out you're already a member! Imagine that! Since I went to the trouble to type your name into Outlook a long time ago, let's connect so you can help me with referrals! You don't know me, but I know you (or at least your e-mail address)! If we connect, it'll be like we've always known each other! --Ralph

I've been getting too many of these e-mails. Since I haven't used this new 'feature' of LinkedIn, I don't know if these messages are automated or manually triggered. They all have the same text, so they seem automatic. I've decided I'm going to decline or ignore these unless I get a personal note. Roughly 1 out of 3 comes from someone whose name I recognize. But people I know well don't send me these -- they send me direct invitations.

Their system doesn't automatically scan your imported contacts and send these invitations out, does it? That would be dreadfully annoying.

Sorry, I'm feeling grumpy.

Nevada First State to Require Voter Receipts in 2004

Well, either my timing was pretty good, or someone was reading my blog pretty closely and cared about what I had to say. (Ok, it's the former.) Nevada announced a few days ago that they would require that a paper receipt be printed for each vote, and that the receipt could be verified by the voter before the vote was cast.

Nevada has used electronic voting machines made by Sequoia for years in some counties, and they will attach a printer to their units before the 2004 election. This is two years earlier than mandated by the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002, and makes Nevada the first state to require paper receives that voters can directly verify.

The most unusual part of this decision is how the Nevada Gaming Control Board was asked to evaluate the security of Diebold and Sequoia machines. The announcement quotes from the full report by the Electronic Services Division of the Gaming Control Board:

I believe the Diebold electronic voting machine, operating on the software analyzed in a John Hopkins report and the SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) Risk Assessment Report, represents a legitimate threat to the integrity of the election process.

I'm pretty sure the Gaming Control Board has a unique perspective and competency to assure the integrity of electronic systems. Among other things, these are the people who make sure casinos aren't cheating gamblers who use slot machines -- and that cheaters can't take advantage of the machines, either. Maybe Nevada should extend the GCB's jurisdiction to the assurance of electronic voting machines. Kind of an out-of-the-box idea, I'd say. Elections are kind of a crap-shoot, after all.

Nevertheless, as a resident of Nevada, I'm happy to see our state administration doing the right thing, and setting the example for the rest of the country.

Read on for a brief description of how the receipt printer works...

Verified Voting

I just endorsed the resolution on electronic voting at verifiedvoting.org. I also looked at my home state of Nevada's statements on electronic voting machines. They don't make it clear that the voter should have a chance to manually verify a permanent, auditable record of their vote.

I've sent an e-mail to the State Elections Division to ask them to clarify this matter. Since the e-mail address was on the state's web site, I'm not hopeful of getting a timely answer. We'll see.

(As a side note on my endorsement -- I endorsed the statement as an individual, not as a representative of eBay or the Omidyar Foundation. I made that clear in the comments field, and used a personal e-mail address. Should directors and officers of public companies be allowed to make public statements on issues of public policy without implicating their organizations?)

Wesley Clark's Service Plan

General Wesley Clark, who is running for the Democratic nomination to oppose President George W. Bush next November, understands public service. He retired from military service as a four-star general after a 34-year career. But more importantly, he understands that our American democracy depends on the active participation of each of us.

In another entry, I quoted historian Edward Gibbon on the decline of Athenian democracy. America is not Athens, but his words are as relevant for our time as they were for Athens:

They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort and freedom...
When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them...
When the freedom they wished for most -- was freedom from responsibility...
Then, Athens ceased to be free.

There are two distinct themes relevant to our times in that quote: first, our emphasis on our own lives and concerns to the exclusion of those around us leads to a loss of what we value most. This is as relevant in a small town as it is in an international community.

Second, forgetting our responsibility as citizens leads us to gradually lose our democracy, and maybe even our freedom.

Civilian Reserve

That's why I am applauding General Clark's plan to create a "Civilian Reserve." Here's what I like about it.

Clark proposes to create a national volunteer registry of citizens who want to make themselves available to be called up in the case of an emergency. You register with (presumably) a web site, and list your skills. For the next five years, you can be activated by the President or an act of Congress in case of need. When you're activated, you have the opportunity to decline service, or to accept. If you accept, you could serve for up to six months, and be guaranteed to be able to return to your job, the same way the Reserves and National Guard works today.

This is pretty obviously a good idea, since it creates an organization in advance of a crisis, rather than after the fact. People with needed skills would be more easily located and activated during a crisis than they are today.

But more than that, I think there is an important secondary benefit. The mechanism Clark proposes creates a two-step voluntary commitment process. This is brilliant. The first step is a very low-risk commitment, since there is no mandatory service requirement. You're not enlisting in the Army Reserves here -- there is no training, no one-weekend-a-month, etc. You just sign up, and you may not be called up at all in the next five years.

Not only does this make it more likely to appeal to more people -- I would sign up myself -- but importantly, it creates a sense of commitment and responsibility from day one. Some people may sign up cynically, but I doubt that. Most would sign up with a genuine will to serve, and would feel a sense of pride of being willing to make a sacrifice for their fellow citizens and country. Even if never called, this action may activate the volunteer, and make them more likely to take an interest in the community around them: its social issues, political debates, and maybe even national dialogue.

In other words, to fully participate as a citizen.

I haven't heard of anything else like this existing or proposed, though Senator John Kerry has also proposed a new service program. We have very successful programs like AmeriCorps, but budgetary commitment to those programs, especially recently, has wavered; and a significant commitment is necessary to serve.

I applaud General Clark for understanding that to ask us to serve is half the battle, whether we serve or not. Reminding us that we have a responsibility as citizens, and that the state of our democracy declines when we avoid that responsibility, is brave, and very welcome. We all aspire to be better people, and collectively, a better nation. Taking responsibility for our role in making both of those things happen is always the first step.

I'd like to close with a quote from the speech in which he announced this plan:

The terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon thought they could rock the foundation of our economy, and strike a blow to the symbol of our strength.

They didn't understand that the foundation isn't concrete and steel - it's people like you.

They didn't understand that the measure of America's strength does not rest in our military arsenal.

They didn't understand that the real measure of America's strength is our people.

They didn't understand that freedom and democracy - and our commitment to each other - makes us stronger.

We know that our strength rests in our families and communities.

We know that our strength lies in our commitment to freedom and equality.

We know that our strength lies in a vibrant national debate - an open, honest discussion of the issues, where everyone has right to disagree.

And above all, we know that our diversity is our greatest strength.

Our diversity, and our commitment to one another, is what makes this country great. They are our unique strengths. If we forget them, we may lose what we value most. And we may never live up to our aspirations as a nation.