The order authorizes sanctions and visa bans against people using information technology who commit or facilitate grave human-rights abuses related to “Syrian and Iranian regime brutality,” the White House said. The order would also allow the U.S. to target companies that enable human-rights abuses with technology.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

A great deal of this campaigning takes place in the traditional media forums: TV, radio, local newspapers, and voters occasionally get to meet the candidates in person.

But even more of this takes place on the Web. Practically every political ad that runs on a television screen anywhere in the country is also placed on YouTube and promoted on Twitter and Facebook. So are speeches and debates. This is good for voters who don’t watch a lot of TV, so they can go back and evaluate what candidates says and make a judgement about them on their own time.

That is, if you can get to them. For most Americans, access to a solid broadband Internet connection is as readily available as an electrical connection, and only a phone call away. But for roughly a third of the country, it’s not so easy. That means that about a third of the nation’s population is less able to participate in the democratic process the way the rest of us do.

That, to me, is a troubling thought, when I consider the nation’s broadband-adoption problem. It basically comes down to this: Lower-populated rural areas and some inner-city areas don’t have the same access to the Internet that most Americans take almost for granted. Cable and phone companies often opt not to build the infrastructure needed in certain lightly populated areas, because they can’t justify the investment.

When he came into office in 2009, one cornerstone of President Obama’s technology policy concerned correcting this via grants included in the economic stimulus package. In 2010, Obama delivered the National Broadband Plan. And last year, the president talked to Congress about his hopes to bring broadband to 98 percent of the country, and using wireless technology to do it.

Little has worked. A new study, out today from TechNet, a tech-industry lobbying group, says that broadband adoption at the national level has plateaued at 68 percent of the population, only slight higher than the 65 percent it was when Obama became president.

What happened? Lots of people and organizations with great ideas emerged to try and tackle the problem, the report finds. But they all suffer from a severe lack of coordination, and wildly different visions of what the outcome should be. “Stakeholders are flying blind when it comes to understanding best practices to improve broadband adoption …” the report reads. It goes on to say, “To the extent that poor policy coordination hampers efforts to increase broadband adoption, we run the risk of having a less inclusive society, a smaller domestic market for tech goods and services, and a less innovative economy.”

One problem is simple demographics: A 2011 survey by the government’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration found that only 43 percent of households earning $25,000 or less had broadband at home, and that only 46 percent of those with less than a high school diploma have it.

Then there’s the economy. A Pew survey found that 9 percent of people who at one time had broadband had cut their service off during the previous 12 months because of economic concerns. And that figure rose to more than 16 percent of people earning $30,000 a year or less.

There are apparently historical precedents for this sort of thing. During the Great Depression, telephone adoption dropped from 42 percent in 1929 to 31 percent in 1934. Electrical service leveled off at 67 percent during the Depression, and didn’t resume climbing until later.

A lot of people think that this same demographic just uses smartphones instead, but the data in the report shows that’s not the case generally, and if you added “smartphone-only” users to broadband users, you still end up with only a 73 percent adoption rate.

And this cost of “digital exclusion,” TechNet finds, is more than just participation in the election process. Employers increasingly require that applications for jobs be filed online. Healthcare is increasingly tracked online. Even just taking advantage of good deals on Groupon or LivingSocial more or less implies broadband access.

What to do? Get everyone on the same page, for one thing. The report suggests getting the numerous federal and state efforts pulling in one direction on such aspects of the problem as collecting reliable data, and setting an agreed-upon set of best practices.

There’s also the option of leaving well enough alone. Demographics have a way of shifting over time. Old people who don’t bother with broadband will die, and younger people who can’t imagine living without it will either demand it where they live or move to places where they can get it. As I learned in 2008 when I wrote this story for Businessweek, sometimes that can be as easy as moving to the other side of a street. Sometimes it’s just a matter of waiting for the cable company to offer service in your area.

My guess is that this is a problem that’s not going to easily solve itself with a market-based approach, but so far the government-based options aren’t looking so good, either.

The reversal is being announced as part of the White House’s call for Congress to pass a “privacy bill of rights,” that will give people greater control over the personal data collected about them.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Here is a deeply silly video of NBC late-night show host Jimmy Fallon and First Lady Michelle Obama competing in a potato-sack race.

You read that right. Also a push-up battle, a hula-hoop hip-off and a tug-of-war in the White House, all part of Obama’s “Let’s Move” exercise initiatives aimed at improving children’s health.

It’s got a goofy charm, and the kids will love it (mine did):

Quora set up a special page to live-stream video of Obama’s address at 6 pm PT on Tuesday. It’s asking users to submit and follow questions about economic and domestic policies.

Quora exec Marc Bodnick told users they must submit questions by Wednesday at 5 pm PT. He said an unspecified number of questions will be answered by the White House “in the coming days.”

Barack Obama has made a practice of engaging with Web communities on YouTube/Google+, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Quora is a relatively small site to get such attention; it has less than half a million monthly U.S. visitors according to public measures like Compete and Quantcast.

Founded by early Facebook employees, Quora started as a Q&A service, but recently has branched into Web curation.

U.S. CTO Aneesh Chopra had previously used Quora to ask users questions about open government and emerging technologies.

The attendees included veteran Washington policymakers and cyberdefense experts. But one person — an engineer named Dan Kaminsky who specializes in an arcane set of rules governing how people connect to the Internet — stood out.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Today it became clear that SOPA, at least in its current form, will never get that far. Word came from the White House today that the administration, while sympathetic to the cause of curbing online piracy, will support neither the SOPA bill nor its companion bill — known as PIPA — in the Senate.

Responding to a petition, the White House announced in a blog post today that Obama will not “support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

Basically, what it comes down to is this: Piracy is bad, but approaches like SOPA are bad solutions that would potentially hurt the free-flowing, vibrant Internet we’ve all come to rely on for so many things. As the statement reads: “Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.”

That aligns pretty closely with a statement that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made in a recent speech in The Hague, in which she said that governments must fight the theft of intellectual property, “without compromising the global network, its dynamism or our principles.”

On top of that, some of the technical proposals in the bill — meant to remedy the piracy problem — go too far in tinkering, and might perhaps mess up the basic plumbing of the Internet itself. Doing so would probably create unforseen Internet security problems, the White House argues.

Any bill that does aim to clamp down on piracy should be “narrowly targeted,” and cover only “activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws.” That’s also a pretty clear statement that the Administration sees SOPA, as currently written, to be vastly over-broad in its legislative intent.

Additionally, there are also reports that Eric Cantor — the Virginia Republican who everyone knows is the real power broker in the House of Representatives — says the SOPA bill won’t come to the House floor for a vote anytime soon, unless there are some significant changes to it.

Somehow, I find it encouraging that opposing SOPA — or at least calling for changes to it — was the issue on which Obama and Cantor, who can’t seem to agree on anything, found they had some room for common ground. Could this signify a badly needed thaw in bipartisan relations in Washington?

Unless there’s a really big shift in sentiment among members of Congress on both sides of the ideological aisle, some version of the Stop Online Piracy Act is going to be passed by Congress sometime in 2012.

That means the legislation is going to wind up on President Barack Obama’s desk, requiring his signature, which would make it law; or his veto, which would effectively kill it. That makes it pretty much the first significant bit of technology policy he will face in the new year.

What’s not entirely clear is which way Obama is likely to decide. So far, the administration hasn’t sent any signals, one way or the other, on either SOPA or its companion bill in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

But there are some key clues.

SOPA and PIPA are proposed laws that would, among other things, give media companies significant new tools to police pirated online content that appears on Web sites hosted outside of U.S. borders. It would also require U.S. companies that link or do business with them in the normal course of operations — sites such as Google, Yahoo and eBay’s PayPal — to cease doing so.

For instance, Google might be forced by the courts or U.S. law enforcement agencies to stop providing search links to BitTorrent sites that host pirated copies of major motion pictures and television shows. It could go even further than that, by stopping U.S.-based Internet-service companies from allowing users to access any overseas site carrying pirated content.

Critics of the legislation charge that the two bills have gone overboard to protect content. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has said it would “criminalize intermediaries.” Other companies, including Yahoo and Facebook, have claimed it could stifle innovation.

The problem the White House will face is that both bills appear to have a broad base of support in Congress. And proponents, such as the House Judiciary Chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, are pushing the bill as a means of protecting American jobs by ensuring that profits from U.S.-produced intellectual property flows to the companies that created it.

But there are a few tea leaves indicating where the president might come down on this issue. For one thing, the administration has been pretty clear from the beginning that it supports an open Internet; not vetoing the bill now would be a major policy shift.

And, during 2011, the power of the Internet as a force for social change has been demonstrated throughout the Middle East: Dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are gone, and others are under threat by movements that have been largely organized and coordinated on Facebook and Twitter.

Just last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at a conference on Internet freedom in The Hague, made an interesting comment that perhaps captures the nuance of the Obama administration’s position.

As the Hill noted, while sympathetic to the problem countries and companies face in combating the theft of intellectual property, Clinton said that governments can do so “without compromising the global network, its dynamism or our principles.”

The SOPA bill, in particular, would also criminalize contributing to or distributing technology that is meant to circumvent actions that block access to such content. That would put the government at odds with a project it has funded, the Onion Router (a.k.a. TOR), created by U.S. Naval Researchers and a nonprofit organization.

Under SOPA, the problem might be that people in more repressive countries, like China, can use TOR to anonymize traffic and thus bypass technical measures that prevent the free flow of information. The language in the bill is vague enough that TOR could be made illegal.

Then there’s also Obama’s promise to support a free and open Internet generally, which has been a major bedrock of his technology and Internet policy agenda. Early last month, Obama promised to veto a Congressional resolution that would overturn net neutrality rules that the Federal Communications Commission put in place earlier this year, and which was to take effect on Nov. 20. (The Senate saved him the trouble by voting against the resolution.)

Therefore, Obama’s stance on the issue perhaps hints at an aversion to any significant changes in the status quo of the Internet, which suggests he would likely veto any version of SOPA or PIPA that reaches his desk.

Since leaving the White House, McLaughlin served as executive director at Civic Commons — a nonprofit dedicated to apps for local government — and taught a class at Stanford Law School.

McLaughlin was a key voice in Google’s internal debates about its operations in China five years ago, which is a huge issue for social media companies.

You can find McLaughlin’s Tumblr, where he posts a few photos a month, here.

New York-based Tumblr runs 36.5 million blogs and has a staff of about 60.

Military families serve our nation too. Let’s all show our appreciation by #JoiningForces with them. Get involved: http://t.co/YryjAhl5 –mo

October 19, 2011 4:32 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@JoiningForces

Joining Forces

Obama tweeted not from a personal account but rather from @JoiningForces, which is an initiative to support military veterans and their families. Then she gave herself some sign-language applause.

Michelle and I are saddened to learn of the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was among the greatest of American innovators – brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it.
By building one of the planet’s most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity. By making computers personal and putting the internet in our pockets, he made the information revolution not only accessible, but intuitive and fun. And by turning his talents to storytelling, he has brought joy to millions of children and grownups alike. Steve was fond of saying that he lived every day like it was his last. Because he did, he transformed our lives, redefined entire industries, and achieved one of the rarest feats in human history: he changed the way each of us sees the world.
The world has lost a visionary. And there may be no greater tribute to Steve’s success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented. Michelle and I send our thoughts and prayers to Steve’s wife Laurene, his family, and all those who loved him.

Image courtesy of Obama Pacman

RELATED POSTS:

• Samsung, Google Cancel Launch Event Out of Respect for Steve Jobs
• Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Say Goodbye to Steve Jobs
• An Accountant’s Soul Presides Over the P&L at Apple
• New York Times Crossword Honors Steve Jobs With Puzzle Written by Quora Engineer
• For Steve (Comic)
• Walt Mossberg Reflects on Life and Career of Steve Jobs for Fox Business (Video)
• Apple Shares Rise
• Steve Jobs Biography Arrives in October, a Month Early
• Now What? The Post-Jobs Era in Tech.
• Thoughts on the First Day of Apple’s Post-Jobs Era
• How Will Apple Shares Fare Today?
• Tributes to Steve Jobs, in Pictures
• The Three Irreplaceable Qualities of Steve Jobs
• Walt Mossberg: The Steve Jobs I Knew
• Remembering the Life of Steve Jobs
• Steve Jobs in His Own Words
• Barack Obama On Steve Jobs
• Tech and Media Titans Pay Tribute to Steve Jobs
• Steve Jobs’s Appearances at D, the Full Video Sessions
• Bill Gates: “I Will Miss Steve Immensely”
• Steve Jobs Through the Years: Highlights and Clips From the D Conference
• Steve Jobs Has Died

Steve Jobs Full Coverage »

Arriving at Silicon Valley’s Computer History Museum, in the heart of the tech industry, with the leader of the free world talking jobs and digital, you might expect fantastic wireless access.

You might, but not so much if you are a “local” reporter and can’t jack into the extra-secret-special wireless link the national White House press corps apparently has reserved for itself. (They also get a lovely noshing buffet, whilst we tech reporters have been instructed not to touch the pineapple and scones or else!)

Famished for coffee and carbs, we’re left with glomming onto the museum’s slowish wireless service — there are lotsa geeks here today jamming up the lines — and every now and then getting some juice from Google. The search giant blankets the Mountain View, Calif. area near its HQ with free Wi-Fi, but it fades in and out.

I am now reconsidering the antitrust investigations that the Obama administration is conducting against Google, as long as its signal is good enough to check Twitter.

So this liveblog of President Barack Obama’s LinkedIn Town Hall — which will center on jobs and is titled, “Putting America Back to Work” — could be glacial with not much news, much like what I am expecting from the event itself.

I’d certainly like to work, as long as the wireless does! (Plus, limited power outlets in the room, so it’s every reporter for herself!)

But bygones, while we await the Prez!

10:18 am: One thing that made me flee Washington, D.C., when I worked for the Washington Post, was all the rigmarole that surrounded the appearance of and access to politicians.

I get it, the security and all, and am all for it on a general safety level. But, no matter how you slice it, it hinders any kind of movement or genuine interaction, like being stuck at a really dull opera. All the world’s a stage and we are all merely waiting in traffic.

In contrast, and one of the joys of Silicon Valley, is that anyone can get up right up into the grill of the various billionaire potentates littering the landscape, engage in a debate and get a possibly real answer.

Thus, I am hoping for a lot here from LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner, who is going to moderate the hour-long session with the President.

By the way, while he is busy running the business-focused social networking site, Weiner is looking good in a fancy suit, almost as if he could be Secretary of the Internet. I’d vote for him.

10:28 am: Some painless but hip music is playing now, as we wait, wait, wait for Obama, who is set to begin in 30 minutes.

I wonder if the President is ever early. Wouldn’t that freak the peeps out?

(Obviously, I am bored, so I shall now go monitor Twitter to catch up on the latest in the new bad-marriage-or-not cat fight between Brad Pitt and his ex, Jennifer Aniston — as if we need him to tell us Angelina Jolie is more interesting. Frankly, Angie’s midday snack is more interesting than Jen.)

There is now what appears to be a Secret Service dude next to me, giving me a hairy eyeball. If I am jailed over my wireless protest, please give generously to my defense fund.

Free the Internet! Free the Internet!

10:35 am: Finally, the production guy is up giving out the rules. Turn off the cellphones, no making noise.

The head Secret Service guy then takes the stage. No getting out of your seat. No sudden movements. And no crossing the blue line in the front row.

“All joking aside,” he says, he will take you down. He also notes that if the President moves toward you to shake your hand, “do not move toward him.”

I love Secret Service agents — especially when played by Clint Eastwood — and wish I had one to give a few people in tech a little smackadoo on my behalf. And not only if they moved toward me!

10:47 am: This little frisson of excitement is followed by more waiting, as the final seats are filled up in the room, which is an unusually (and welcome) multi-racial and gender-balanced crowd for Silicon Valley.

Various White House aides skitter back and forth like nervous ground squirrels — I would imagine their life is one big effort to avoid any gaffe — so the Prez must be near.

I am actually looking forward to seeing him, as I never have in person and am looking forward to seeing the famous Obama charm and techie cred.

Indeed, he is probably the most fast-forward tech president there has ever been. That said, buffeted by more serious issues facing the nation, his administration has delivered on few — by which I mean none — of its promises around the digitization of the U.S.

Our high-speed broadband, for example, is still woefully slow, inordinately expensive and not easily available nationwide.

And I will not even go into the need for increased focus on math and science education or the importance of our broken visa policies.

But the topic today is jobs, which is an arena where Silicon Valley and tech shines in the U.S., even as manufacturing of it has mostly moved overseas. How tech can help improve in the creation of jobs will be issue No. 1 here.

10:55 am: Total silence with five minutes to go. I need the President around to quiet my kids.

Now, LinkedIn Chairman and VC Reid Hoffman comes in, so the event is probably about to begin.

And, indeed, Weiner emerges to cheers, to give a little speech on “changing the way we work … and connecting talent to opportunity.”

11:01 am: Then, the session starts right on time with President Obama.

He begins with a rote speech on jobs, which is nonetheless the most important issue he faces going into next year’s election.

11:14 am: Ah, wireless glitch! Back!

President Obama is inexplicably in the middle of a Medicare question, which gives him an opportunity to talk about the need for the rich to pay more taxes.

And pass his American Jobs Act, of course.

11:17 am: More on proposing legislation for retraining workers, such as the questioner’s mom.

Now to a group of email questions. The first is about when small businesses are going to get a break from onerous regulations and taxes.

President Obama says since he has been in office, he has cut taxes 16 times for those who create a business.

But he is not going to apologize for some regulations, such as those for the financial industry over the mortgage crisis.

“There are some regulations that have outlived their usefulness,” he says, but others not so much.

11:24 am: The next question is from a Chicago IT employee. Except she is not employed.

She is asking a question about keeping her skills up and what programs are needed.

“The best thing we can do for you is that the unemployment rate goes down,” said President Obama, but also adds that making it easy to go to school while waiting on a job is also important.

“Just looking at you, I can tell you are going to do great,” he tells her in an awkward effort at reassurance.

Thanks, Barack, but she needs a job!

11:28 am: A veteran is asking a question about transitioning out of the military.

Obama launches into a story of a medical technician who faced all kinds of experiences, but had to start over again with new classes when out of the military. He suggests some level of credentialing based on experience.

11:33 am: Obama gets to pick out someone from the crowd and manages to pick out a dude who is a former Googler — although he only says that he works down the street — and is out of work by choice.

He asks: “Will you please raise my taxes?

A plant? I wish!

President Obama asks the name of the start-up. “A search engine,” says the ex-Googler-in-disguise, who is Doug Edwards, an early marketing exec there who actually wrote a book on being an ex-Googler.

“That worked out well for you,” kids President Obama.

Everyone likes a rich-guy joke!

He is soon onto the idea that we’re all dang lucky and declares he does not want it to turn the debate over taxes into a rich-poor war.

Bottom line, he notes that we have to raise taxes on the very wealthy. Frankly, if we raised taxes on a bunch of folks in this room, it would help a lot.

11:42 am: A teach-training question, especially math and science teachers.

President Obama is all for it.

He is meaning well here, but all he seems to offer is a lot of bromides about the importance of education and errant related anecdotes.

Like one from IBM, where the company hires the kids in the program at the end.

President Obama wants students to see a direct connection between learning and jobs.

Then, he kind of says it again. Gosh, he can talk. How does the well-fed and wirelessly connected White House press corp take it? Lotsa donuts, I would imagine.

President Obama also wants us to turn off the electronics and video games for kids, too, thereby instantly losing the votes of my two sons!

Another laid-off guy is up at the mic. He had 22 years in IT management and is disheartened.

He wants a statement of encouragement from the CEO of America.

President Obama assures him that his track record of success gives him a leg up, but that the problem is the economy and the global meltdown, too.

It’s systemic, apparently.

“The problem is not you, the problem is the economy as a whole,” says President Obama.

That was the last question. Weiner, who has been sitting quietly (I know it was hard, Jeff, but good job), thanks the President and tells him that this is a big issue.

President does his thanks, too, for being able to speak, although not really that much was actually said.

And then a genuine moment, finally, of clarity.

“Look, we’re going through a very tough time, but we have gone through tougher times before,” he says. “But the trajectory we are going on is one that is more open, more linked …”

He talks about the need for being ready to take advantage of that opportunity.

“Things have gotten so ideologically driven, putting party above country,” he adds, that nothing is getting done. That’s why the people, the voters, have to demand leadership from their elected officials.

Or, presumably, fire them and let them try to find another job, too.

It might turn out to be the best idea yet, if these pols don’t agree on something and quick.

President Obama made the appeal in a prime time address to the nation from the White House last night, and it appears that the American people listened. The Washington Post reports that the telephone switchboard at the Capitol is being flooded with calls. And there are reports that the Web servers for certain members of Congress have crashed under a surge in traffic.

Among the sites that went down: That of Speaker of the House John Boehner, the Ohio Republican who addressed the nation after the president. Others down as of 8:30 am Pacific time were those of Elliot Engel, Democratic representative from New York; Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina; and Rep. Michelle Bachmann, the Republican from Minnesota now running for president. (Bachmann’s appears to be variously up and down, but slow to respond.) The Wall Street Journal has more.

Meanwhile, the president’s Web site is operating normally.

But when you consider that the federal government collectively buys more information technology than any other organization on the planet, technology companies that hope to win some of that business sit up and take notice.

This year, the government will spend $80 billion on IT, at agencies as varied as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, and on non-classified sections of the US Department of Defense. As slices of government spending go, this is not huge, amounting to about 2 percent of the federal budget, but not trivial either. As has usually been the case, the government spends more (about $3.8 trillion in 2011) than it brings in via tax revenue (about $2.2 trillion in 2011). With Congress and the President wrestling over extending the debt ceiling, every dollar spent becomes a politically-charged particle of a wider debate over the appropriate role of government in our society.

The one thing that pretty much anyone–whether they’re a politician, a member of the Washington bureaucracy, or a humble taxpayer–can agree on is that when a dollar is spent, it should be done effectively and productively. Kundra’s job is to whip government agencies into shape around IT spending, and make them think more like private companies in planning that spending.

A keystone of his plan is to push federal agencies to embrace, where possible and appropriate, the cost-savings and efficiency that come from cloud computing. Today he’s released exclusively to AllThingsD a list of 78 different government projects and services that have been identified for a shift to the cloud. Requests for proposals–RFPs, the documents through which government agencies seek bids from the private sector–are either already written or soon to be released. The list is embedded below.

In it you can see the breadth of the federal commitment to the cloud. For example: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would like to move 25,000 email and calendar accounts to a cloud service. The Department of Homeland Security would like to move 100,000 email accounts and 90,000 collaboration accounts to a secure private cloud-based system. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wants to move 7,500 users based in 260 offices to a cloud-based system.

For a glance at the inner-workings of government, the list is enlightening reading, because the needs are so workaday. We often hear about the costs of multi-billion-dollar weapons systems that the Department of Defense wants for fighting wars both underway and imagined in the future. But even generals have to watch their travel budgets. What does the DOD want from the cloud? Among other things, a Web-based trip-cost estimator.

Kundra says the 78 items identified amount to the first batch of what, when combined with many more systems to be identified later, amount to a combined $20 billion worth of IT spending now. At minimum, he expects that the agencies involved will save a minimum of $5 billion in the next year by making these changes, but he really hopes they’ll save a lot more. And you might think that $5 billion saved is $5 billion that no longer has to be spent. It’s actually more complicated than that. Dollars saved from unproductive projects can be moved toward more productive ones. The demand for IT in government, as in every other aspect in life, is not going down anytime soon. We talked about this yesterday.

AllThingsD: So a lot of people don’t know that the U.S. has a CIO. What does the CIO of the United States do?

Kundra: One of the things President Obama did right after the election was set up a transition team that focused on technology information and government reform. He created the first CIO role which I’m honored to serve in. And I’m basically managing four big areas. One, I make sure we’re effectively managing the $80 billion we spend on IT every year, and that we’re going after wasteful spending. We were able to save $3 billion by terminating poorly performing projects and turning around those that weren’t working. Second is to run the operation efficiently. Here’s an interesting data point. The number of data centers the federal government runs grew from 432 in 1999 to 2,094 this year. I just announced two weeks ago that we’re shutting down 137 of them this year, and we’ll shut down 800 data centers by 2015, cutting the number by 40 percent. That’s going to fundamentally change how we deploy technology as we shift services to the cloud. My third big area is cybersecurity. I’m very focused on making sure we’re protecting federal systems, and in the context of a world with nation states that target federal systems and organized crime going after critical infrastructure that we have in place policies built around actively protecting our systems. Fourth, I’m focused on creating an open and transparent and participatory government.

So tell me about your goals and expectations by moving government IT projects to the cloud?

First let me give you a little context. On my first day on the job, I convened a CIO Council made up of the CIOs from all the federal agencies, from the Department of Defense to Health and Human Services to the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security. I stated as an administration priority to move away from an IT model based on owning the assets to a model that is focused on service provisioning. Later, in September of 2009, I flew out to the NASA Ames Research Center in California, and I challenged the private sector, by saying that we are looking to lower the cost of government operations and are interested in innovative technologies in cloud computing. I was trying to answer a simple question: I was seeing all these innovations in consumer technology and how low-cost it was compared to what was happening in the federal government, where for years we had been spending billions of dollars and had little to show in terms of productivity gains. The great thing about competitive markets was that companies like Google, Microsoft and IBM all came forth with .gov cloud products. And companies that had never competed for federal business before like Amazon and Salesforce.com all started coming in and disrupting the traditional IT model.

That must be ruffling feathers. I think pretty much everyone assumes that the federal government IT establishment is this big lumbering inefficient giant that’s slow to embrace change and innovation.

Absolutely, and unfortunately it has led to billions of dollars in wasteful and duplicative spending. And we haven’t benefited from the innovation that is taking place in the private sector, especially in the consumer space. Just to give you a data point, on something as simple as email: The General Services Administration, which is in the process of moving to Google Apps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture which is in the process of moving to Microsoft Azure, just by moving email to those cloud services we were able to save $40 million. Imagine what we can do if we start moving billions of dollars worth of spending on other things like our financial systems. Imagine what we might save if we fundamentally re-think how we deploy IT across the federal government.

So you’ve selected some agencies that are moving various aspects of their operation to the cloud?

Yes. I required every department to pick three systems that they could move to the cloud within the next year. So what you’re seeing in this document is the list of 78 systems that these agencies are going to be moving. (Document below.) You can see the diversity of the projects, whether it’s capital planning software, to geospatial solutions to collaboration to human resource management solutions. This is a very exciting time in the public sector. We’re unleashing the cloud revolution and we’re backed by billions of dollars to do it.

So how much do you think you can save?

We’ve identified up to $20 billion worth of IT spending that can move to the cloud. That’s out of the total federal IT budget of about $80 billion. So out of that we’ve identified about $20 billion worth of spending that can move to the cloud. And we won’t know how much we’ll save until the procurements are done because you have to go through the competitive bidding process, but we think that out of that $20 billion we could easily save $5 billion or more. So that’s the minimum in savings we’re looking for.

Now I say this as the son of a retired career federal employee: Government projects, especially around IT, never quite go as planned. They always seem to be late, they always seem to go over budget. Is that a likely scenario here?

There’s lots of examples like that. There’s the Department of Defense’s enterprise human resources system that took 12 years and a billion dollars to build and it never worked. What we’re doing here is moving to a new model that adopts consumer technologies. If you go back to the 1960s, the government was the center of gravity when it came to innovation and technology. You would come to the federal government to get access to the most groundbreaking and innovative technologies. In the 1980s that leadership role moved to the private sector, where enterprises had the best technologies. In 2005 you started to see all the megatrends around storage and software converge in the consumer space, whether it was around mobile communications or search technology or financial systems. Part of what we’re trying to do is make sure the federal government isn’t frozen in time.

So in an age where everyone in government is concerned about cutting budgets right and left, you’ve got a big $80 billion piece of the federal budget in your portfolio. Where would you like that number to be ideally?

Here’s the biggest challenge. We spend $80 billion right now, and part of it is that we’re spending it in the wrong place. It’s not that we’re spending too much. If you look at the American people, how they interact with the federal government, it isn’t as convenient as buying a book on Amazon or booking a restaurant on Opentable or making a flight reservation on Expedia. And that’s because everyone is spending all these dollars from the departmental perspective on redundant and duplicative infrastructure. Part of what we’re doing is moving away from that and moving toward high value work. Second, if you look at the next five years, the federal governement and society in general is going to create more digital content and information than it has since the dawn of human history. So the demand for IT is growing exponentially. The demand is going up.

So how do you measure progress? The White House has always portrayed this administration as being very data-driven, and intent on pursuing work that shows productive results. What determines success?

There’s the $3 billion saved from terminated projects that we talked about, and then the $5 billion or more from cloud projects. Then more savings from shutting down and consolidating our data centers. And we’re going to sell off the assets and real estate that we’re not using. We’ve also committed that we’re going to either turn around or terminate one third of the IT portfolio that is under-performing. These are projects that are millions of dollars over budget or years behind schedule. There’s no time to continue projects that aren’t yielding dividends that the American people have a right to expect.

IT Reform Agency Cloud Migrations

One new twist to the proceedings: The White House, which normally plays along with the event even though the chief occupant gets ribbed, has gone all in. Immediately after showing this video–a parody trailer based on the “The King’s Speech”–at the event, they released it on YouTube (via Twitter, of course).

The bit isn’t LOL-worthy, IMHO. But it does contain jokes, and I think it’s noteworthy that they’re putting this out there for public consumption, at a time when much of the electorate seems particularly… susceptible to jokes. Even more so if they’re easily accessible via Google.

Also, as The Atlantic.com’s Gabe Snyder points out, the clip contains a Wu Tang Clan sample. Which is sure to upset someone (and please lots of us, too).

(Correction: The song — “Shimmy Shimmy Ya“–is actually from (now-deceased) Wu Tang Clan member Ol’ Dirty Bastard, notes MediaMemo reader “quietstorms“. Even better/worse!)

Meanwhile, you can see all 17 minutes of Obama’s presentation here (much sharper, I think–good Fox News dig), via the Washington Post:

Here lies the challenge of Research In Motion (RIM), maker of BlackBerry smartphones and now, the PlayBook tablet: To conquer the enterprise–which has historically been RIM’s stronghold because of its White House-level security and lack of competition–it needs to sell tablets to consumers.

This isn’t impossible. Apple has had remarkable success selling the iPad to consumers and businesses. In a Forrester survey of U.S. consumers conducted in January 2011, 34 percent of iPad owners reported using their device at work. With enhanced security and dedicated support (“business specialists” at Apple Stores), we’ll see more companies join Mercedes-Benz and GE in buying iPads directly for their employees. But Apple’s success has come precisely because it puts consumers first. A typical statement we hear from executives at firms considering buying tablets is, “We’d really like a tablet that integrates better with our back-end systems, but we’re going with iPads because we want employees to like them.” Businesses care about how workers feel about technology.

Contrary to popular belief, RIM is pretty successful selling its devices to consumers, too. BlackBerry smartphone shipments, subscribers, and revenues continue to rise quarter after quarter, even in mature North American markets. Most important, BlackBerry consumer customers (“BlackBerry Internet Service,” or BIS) now outnumber BlackBerry enterprise customers (“BlackBerry Enterprise Service,” or BES).

But the PlayBook is a complicated product to sell to consumers. For starters, the “BlackBerry Bridge” feature, which displays email and BlackBerry messenger content only when in Bluetooth-range of a BlackBerry smartphone, has security appeal for CIOs but is potentially confusing to consumers. Yes, you can still get Web-based email like Gmail on the device, but there’s no native email application like there is on the iPad—and email is the No. 1 activity consumers do on tablets today. Second, compared with the iPad the PlayBook has relatively few native apps designed for the platform; it supports Android apps but only those designed for Gingerbread, not Honeycomb (not that there are many of those, either). Apps don’t matter to all tablet shoppers, but they do matter to some: 23 percent of consumers considering buying a tablet rank “Number of available apps” in their top-three criteria; 19 percent say the same about Flash support, which the PlayBook browser will have.

Whereas Apple owns its own channel–the Apple Store–to educate and sell the iPad to consumers, RIM will be relying on the Blue Shirts at Best Buy to sell its device, as well as its carrier partners and other local retailers (20,000 stores worldwide). It’s going to be a tough sell. While the PlayBook has dazzling performance and multitasking—for example, the ability to switch apps and keep a video or game running in the background—and solid hardware design, consumers will be comparing a first-generation PlayBook with a second-generation iPad. iPad will dominate tablet sales in 2011. But this is a marathon, not a sprint, and we see a path for RIM to gain market share in 2012. An improved version-two PlayBook must have native email, built-in security and more native apps for QNX, the RIM’s recently-acquired operating system for the PlayBook. To get there, RIM will need to port QNX to its smartphones to expand the platform’s reach and make it more appealing for developers.

Even so, the PlayBook’s appeal is likely limited to BlackBerry smartphone customers, and to win them over, RIM’s marketing execution needs to be flawless. With the recent departure of CMO Keith Pardy, RIM’s new leadership needs to step up and define and execute a vision for this product that puts consumers on par if not ahead of CIOs. Without that vision, RIM will have an expensive product failure on its hands.

Ted Schadler is a vice president and principal analyst and Sarah Rotman Epps is a senior analyst at Forrester Research.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

Earlier in the day Intel CEO Paul Otellini agreed to join the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which is chaired by General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt. Otellini announced some more good news: Plans to build a new $5 billion-plus chip factory in Arizona and hire 4,000 workers there. (Yay, America…meanwhile Oregon still gets D1X) The text of Otellini’s prepared remarks is below the video.

What a difference a year makes. At this time last year, Intel was preparing to defend itself against an antitrust lawsuit brought by Obama’s Federal Trade Commission. A settlement last August brought an end to that. Now Obama and Intel totally heart each other, as you can see in the video below, shot by The Oregonian.

The visit followed last night’s dinner at the home of venture capitalist John Doerr with numerous Silicon Valley execs, where POTUS sat between Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Video streaming by Ustream

Remarks (as prepared) by Paul Otellini, President and CEO of Intel Corporation, during President Obama’s visit to Intel’s campus in Hillsboro, Ore., on Feb. 18, 2011.

Good morning and welcome. And Governor Kitzhaber, thank you for being here. I’m excited to be here today to celebrate American innovation and American manufacturing.

Our country and this company have been built on innovation – and manufacturing has been at the heart of America’s economy for over a century. Technology and the semiconductor industry have been driving economic growth for the last 50 years. In fact, when averaged over the last 5 years, the semiconductor industry is the nation’s #1 exporter.
Today we celebrate the construction of Intel’s new semiconductor manufacturing plant called D1X.

For the past 2 years I have been discussing the need to re-ignite innovation in the U.S as a means of creating jobs and wealth in our society.

I believe the world of technology and a vibrant manufacturing base lies at the heart of creating this future. This is one of the reasons for our continued investment in Oregon, and our commitment to build Fab D1X.

This new factory will play a central role extending Intel’s unquestioned leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. The transistors and chips it will produce will be the most dynamic platform for innovation that our company has ever created.

Together they will enable more capable computers, the most advanced consumer electronics and mobile devices, the brains inside the next generation of robotics, and thousands of other applications that have yet to be invented.
I’d like to pause for a moment to give you a glimpse of what will be involved in creating such a technologically advanced operation.

D1X will be a vital addition to what is already one of the largest and most advanced semiconductor research and manufacturing sites in the world. Building it we will create approximately 3,000 construction jobs over 2 years. The structure will require 19 tons of steel, 40 miles of pipe, and 13,000 truckloads of cement. When finished, D1X will have a cleanroom as big as 4 football fields. It is scheduled for start-up in 2013; and it will be the first 14-nanometer microprocessor factory in the world.

Intel is a global company today, and proudly so. Yet, we think of ourselves as an American enterprise. Intel generates three-fourths of its revenues overseas, yet maintains three-fourths of its manufacturing here in the United States. The company sets the bar for world-class manufacturing around the world.

We believe in this country’s power to create a future where America maintains its unparalleled global leadership and where jobs in 21st century industries are created and flourish. I am pleased that the President and his Administration have taken a number of steps to invest in innovation and education so that we are building the skills needed to achieve success in the 21st century and grow the economy. At Intel, we believe that we will help create this future.

Building such a future requires more than just investments in technology and manufacturing. We need to also invest in educating and training the workers that will invent and manage the industries of the future. At Intel, for example, over half of our 82,000-person workforce has technical degrees and nearly 8,000 hold a Master’s degree or Ph.D. Looking forward, we are concerned that there may be a shortfall of qualified experts in science and math in this country to meet the needs of our industry.

There are two fundamental solutions to this problem. First, revitalizing math and science education will generate qualified, interested and motivated students, and drive increased enrollments in our great graduate schools. Then, government and businesses need to make sure all of these graduates are given an opportunity to work in this great country.

I want to commend the President for his leadership and focus on improving our science, technology, engineering and math education. He has taken actions — including key steps like making STEM a priority — in his $4 billion Race to the Top competition and his Educate to Innovate campaign.

I’m proud to tell you that over the last decade, Intel has invested nearly $1 billion in education around the world, especially math and science education. Our Intel Teach program has already trained more than 9 million teachers worldwide — with nearly half a million right here in the in the U.S. — to integrate technology into and the learning process. The result is improved critical thinking and problem solving skills. We view these efforts — and our many other education initiatives — as vital investments in the next innovators, thinkers, scientists, and entrepreneurs.

This investment comes full circle when we can then hire the people we are investing in.

I’m proud to announce that this year Intel will hire 4,000 new permanent, highly skilled employees in the U.S. above and beyond the factory jobs that I previously mentioned.

These new employees will focus on areas that span the exploration of new materials to create even smaller transistors, to products that we believe will transform the way that healthcare and education are delivered, to “future technologies” that involve augmented reality and computers that can read minds, or at least anticipate your needs!

The investments I’ve discussed today are long-term investments in the things that make innovation possible. They also send a clear message that the United States will remain the location for Intel’s most advanced technology development and manufacturing.

And, I’ve saved the best news for last.

I’m happy to announce another NEW multi-billion dollar investment in America. Intel will soon begin construction in Arizona on a greater than $5 billion manufacturing facility called Fab 42 that will focus on 14-nm silicon process technology and beyond. When completed, Fab 42 will be THE most advanced high-volume semiconductor factory in the world. This activity will create thousands of construction and permanent manufacturing jobs in this country above and beyond what I’ve described earlier.

My closing message is that the best way forward for us is to unleash the unmatched creative energies of the people of this country to transform our manufacturing base for the 21st century. Intel is proud to do its part to create this promising future.

With that, ladies and gentleman, I’m pleased to introduce the President of the United States.

Today the the CTIA, the wireless industry trade organization, got behind the president’s plan in a big way, and suggested that the proposed spectrum auctions could bring in billions of dollars more than the president said. Using data from 13 prior spectrum auctions as a model, the organization today released the findings of a study conducted in partnership with the Consumer Electronics Association saying that an auction of 120 MHz worth of spectrum could produce revenue in the range of $36 billion to $48 billion.

The study also found that only in the top 30 markets in the continental United States will TV stations actually have to exit certain spectrum ranges to clear up sufficient spectrum for wireless broadband. In most cases, TV broadcasters will probably be satisfied with incentive auctions that give them some portion of the proceeds raised from the auctions. In a few cases it will be trickier, and the study suggests a few options like channel-sharing and repacking. Broadcasters outside the top 30 markets should not have to give up any spectrum, the study says.

The point of the study, CTIA president Steve Largent told me, is to help nudge Congress toward passing a law that will allow the Federal Communications Commission to hold incentive auctions that can help spur TV broadcasters who currently have the licenses for the spectrum. So far, broadcasters have signaled that they’re not yet entirely willing to go along with this plan. “We think this can be relatively painless for the broadcasters, but it’s still going to take a lot of work at Congress and at the FCC to get it done,” Largent said.

That the wireless industry would be getting behind Obama’s plan is no surprise given their exploding spectrum needs for data services, so there is a bit of a grain-of-salt element to the study’s findings. However it’s also a solid signal that the wireless carriers are willing to bring serious cash to bear for spectrum, which is, generally speaking, good news for all concerned.

Broadcasters are understandably taking a cautious line. In a statement issued last week in response to Obama’s speech in Michigan, Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters said, “Let’s not forget that broadcasters returned more than a quarter of TV station spectrum to the government less than two years ago, and that much of that spectrum has not yet been deployed. NAB is not against the President’s plan. We will work to ensure that incentive auctions remain truly voluntary, and that broadcasters who don’t volunteer to return spectrum–and the millions of viewers that we serve–are held harmless.”

The latest batch of disclosure reports for lobbying expenditures during the third quarter have been released, and the Associated Press has been doing the yeoman’s work of moving a batch of short stories summarizing the facts contained in these disclosures. I noticed several focused on tech companies, and I thought I’d summarize the summaries, with a few highlights.

Verizon spent $3.83 million lobbying on several issues, including taxes and texting while driving, at numerous branches of the federal government, including the White House, Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Trade Commission. It spent $2.96 million in the same period a year ago.

AT&T spent $3.47 million, up from $3.18 million a year ago. Its agenda items included legislation on calling cards, broadband buildouts and distracted driving.

Hewlett-Packard spent $1.6 million–nearly double the $970,000 it spent in the third quarter of last year–chatting with members of Congress and officials at the Department of Justice and the Commerce Department about taxes, immigration and how government agencies use technology in the areas of health care and law enforcement.

Microsoft spent $1.63 million, an increase from $1.49 million a year ago. It visited Congress, the Pentagon and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security to talk about computer security, how the government buys software and the competitive state of online advertising. It also lobbied the Federal Communications Commission on net neutrality.

Oracle spent $1.6 million, up from $1.3 million, lobbying Congress, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security on patent litigation and the government’s technology spending plans.

Google spent $1.2 million in the third quarter (which TechCrunch noted in October following a press release by Consumer Watchdog), an increase from $1.08 million in the same period a year ago.

IBM spent $1 million, up from $850,000 a year ago, talking about transportation, the power grid, funding for research and the military, on visits to Congress and the Departments of Transportation, Defense, and Health and Human Services.

Intel spent $830,000, which is notable because the amount decreased from $1.1 million a year ago. Intel was the target of both a private antitrust lawsuit from rival Advanced Micro Devices and a government antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, both of which were intensifying in the fall. Both cases have since been settled. Its efforts were in immigration, government research funding and issues related to trademarks and education.

Yahoo spent $540,000, up from $510,000 a year ago.

Apple, easily the most influential company in consumer technology today, spent relatively little on lobbying efforts: Only $340,000.

Facebook spent $120,000.

For a little more on what companies spend on lobbying efforts in Washington, it’s always enlightening to peruse the database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks not only lobbying expenditures but campaign contributions.

As you can see, the CRP shows that, among computer and Internet companies, Microsoft was the leading lobbying spender for the first nine months of the year. The wireless industry’s trade association, the CTIA, led the pack in the telephone equipment and services category, spending more than $6 million. Meanwhile, Verizon and AT&T each spent more than $12 million.

There are of course a lot of moving pieces surrounding this debate, and however the chips fall, it’s going to have a long-term effect over how the Internet operates over the next several years.

Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski was dealt an important setback when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the legal authority to impose net neutrality rules on broadband providers. In hopes of still finding a way to rein in the providers, he’s since circulated new proposed rules that would require providers to disclose what kind of traffic they intend to throttle and why, giving consumers a little more information so they can make a more informed choice when picking a provider. And in a speech on Dec. 1, Genachowski also expressed support for “usage-based pricing,” which would essentially allow providers to charge variable pricing plans where consumers would pay higher fees for using higher amounts of bandwidth.

Certain Internet companies that aren’t providers, but who rely on having unfettered pipes through which they can deliver their services, aren’t happy with the proposed rules either. Companies like Amazon, Skype and Netflix, want stronger rules that would prevent the providers from slowing down traffic from their sites or blocking them altogether. They’ve even pushed the FCC to reconsider regulating the Internet outright as a telecommunications service, as it does the telephone system today, an idea that Genachowski briefly considered, then abandoned.

No surprise, they’ve been lobbying the FCC heavily, as have the telecom providers. According to Capital Business, a Washington Post publication, 150 organizations have hired 118 lobbying firms to try to influence the outcome of tomorrow’s vote.

The pressure isn’t stopping there. Republican commissioner Robert McDowell has pledged to vote against the rules, saying, as he did in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, that imposing regulations would threaten everything that makes the Internet a source of innovation. Commissioner Meredith Baker Attwell, also a Republican, has attacked the proposal and similarly pledged to vote against it, arguing that only Congress, not the FCC, has the authority to regulate the Internet.

Congressional Republicans, with their heads full of steam after their November electoral wins, are rushing into the fray. Michigan’s Republican Representative Fred Upton, who will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee when the new Congress comes into session early next year, wrote Genachowski and called his proposal “the most controversial item the FCC has had before it in a decade.”

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats are pressing fellow Democrat Michael Copps to vote for Genachowski’s rules, fearing that a vote against them would hurt President Obama politically, as Sara Jerome wrote in Hillicon Valley. In the end, he is expected to fall in line and vote in favor.

Perhaps a harbinger of things to come is the spat between Level 3 Communications and Comcast. Level 3, which operates much of North America’s fiber-optic network, last month accused Comcast of “trying to set up a toll booth” by charging Level 3 recurring fees whenever a Comcast subscriber streamed content that got delivered by Level 3. This happened right after Level 3 cut a deal to become the primary delivery network for Netflix.

The dispute has reached sufficient intensity for Level 3 to ask federal regulators to impose conditions on Comcast in its efforts to acquire NBC Universal, arguing that Comcast’s demand for the fees “adversely changes the nature of the Internet.” The FCC may yet get serious about reviewing the merger, as Politico reported last week.

Comcast for its part has argued that Level 3 is gaming network peering rules, and has “demanded unlimited capacity at our cost.”

Whatever the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, expect lots of unhappy people.

The strategy is expected to be unveiled in a report being issued by the U.S. Commerce Department in coming weeks, these people said. The report isn’t yet final and could change, these people said.

In a related move, the White House has created a special task force that is expected to help transform the Commerce Department recommendations into policy, these people said. The White House task force, set up three weeks ago, is led by Cameron Kerry, the brother of Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Commerce Department general counsel, and Christopher Schroeder, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice.

The initiatives would mark a turning point in Internet policy. Recent administrations typically steered away from Internet regulations out of concern for stifling innovation. But the increasingly central role of personal information in the Internet economy helped spark government action, according to people familiar with the situation.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

“We think it sets a dangerous precedent.”

–State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on the United Arab Emirates BlackBerry ban

Coming as it does after the State Department’s condemnation of the United Arab Emirates demand for oversight of BlackBerry mobile services, a White House-sponsored bill that would require all Internet-based communication services to be technically capable of intercepting and unscrambling encrypted messages on behalf of the government seems more than a little ironic.

Sadly, that irony appears to have been lost on the Obama administration, which plans to submit the bill for congressional deliberation next year despite the unsettling implications. Requiring providers of encrypted communications services to create back doors through which government officials with a wiretap order can eavesdrop carries no guarantee that only government officials with wiretap orders will use them, is it?

“Back door” is really just another term for vulnerability, and there are plenty of interests out there willing to try their hand at exploiting them. And that’s without including the National Security Agency.

“I think it’s a disaster waiting to happen,” Columbia University computer science professor Steven Bellovin told The New York Times. “If they start building in all these back doors, they will be exploited.”