How Much Information is Enough?

As I near the completion of my Information Technology and e-Governance class, I find myself asking the question, "How much is enough?"

There is already ample information accessible on the Internet to occupy the rest of my life. I could not possibly read, much less understand, even a fraction of the information that is available on-line.

Research that previously took weeks or months to complete can now be accomplished in a matter of minutes. The speed and storage capacity of computers increases at a rate that makes state of the art technology obsolete almost as soon as it hits the market.

Is it possible, or even desirable, to establish a limitation or goal regarding computer capacities (speed, storage, etc.)? If we assume a certain human life-span (80 years? 100 years? 150 years?), is there some point where a hard drive could contain all of the information that could possibly (reasonably?) be absorbed? One hundred pages a day? Five hundred?

Some have posited that we are nowhere near our technological limits concerning information. A 2005 article posted on Responsible Nanotechnology observed:

[W]hat I find ridiculous is Huebner's theory, as quoted in a New Scientist article about his work: "Perhaps there is a limit to what technology can achieve."
A few years ago, I attended a talk by a physicist who spoke about the physical limits of computation. He derived some astronomically vast number of operations per cubic centimeter per second. Then someone in the audience announced that Moore's Law predicted that we'd achieve that in five hundred years. Perhaps that represents a real limit to what technology can achieve. But with the computer invented a mere half-century ago, we're only one-tenth of the way there. Molecular manufacturing relies on existing technological theories, and doesn't even begin to strain today's fundamental scientific theories. But even such a mundane technology will be able to build computers at least a billion times as efficient and powerful as today's. (Actually, even nanoscale technologies will probably be able to do that, eventually.) Molecular manufacturing will be able to build motors at least a million times as powerful, and materials a hundred times as strong, and integrate these powers into complete products at all scales. And it will enable automated general-purpose manufacturing, a technology that does not exist in the world today, and that
will do for manufacturing what computers have done for information processing. (What, you mean information processing isn't synonymous with computers? Think about it... there used to be other ways to process information, but now computers are used almost universally.) All I can say is that anyone who thinks technology is nearing its limits must not have thought through the possibilities. It's an attractive idea, if you're afraid of change -- as many people are. But it just doesn't fit the facts.
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2005/07/limits_of_techn.html

In 2003, Grady Booch, an IBM fellow, identified several factors that define the limits of technology:

the laws of physics
the laws of software
the challenge of algorithms
the difficulty of distribution
the problems of design
the problems of functionality
the importance of organization
the impact of economics
the influence of politics

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/2082.html

Generally, I agree with the precept that one should always seek improvement. However, I also believe that occasionally we should reevaluate our position in life and consider the price we pay in our quest for "more." Just because technology allows us to sit at home and have the world at our fingertips does not mean this is a worthwhile venture. From time to time, it is important to step back and appreciate where we are, instead of furiously racing toward a finish line that may not exist.

A Proposal for Criminal Defense Attorneys

Law enforcement has long used technology to gather evidence against the clients of criminal defense attorneys. Perhaps it is time to turn the tables on law enforcement. The article invites comment regarding a proposed web-site that would be focused on sharing individual citizen encounters with local law enforcement officers.

Every criminal defense attorney has read police reports purporting to describe "what happened" during a particular incident, only to be told an entirely different version of events by their clients or other witnesses. No defense attorney is so naive as to disbelieve that many of their clients lie on a fairly regular basis. However, if one were to take the police accounts at face value, they would also be left to conclude that police officers have never uttered a profane word in any of their cases. At least that is the experience of this writer, who, after having read thousands of reports, cannot recall a single incident where an officer was quoted using a cuss word.

Omissions of foul language by police officers are not particularly disturbing. What is more troubling are instances where suspects are alleged to have confessed to crimes after having been Mirandized, and the only evidence supporting the confession is a single officer's uncorroborated testimony. Many cases are largely decided based on this type of evidence, and the issue often boils down to the credibility of the officer versus the credibility of the criminal suspect.

Perhaps the most concerning cases are those rare occasions that involve actual physical abuse or intimidation by an officer. Suspects often complain of this type of behavior, but it is extremely problematical to substantiate. Further, it is difficult and time-consuming for defense counsel to investigate the validity of such allegations. The reality is that criminal defense lawyers do not have the resources to fully investigate every law enforcement official involved in every case.

A shared web-site among criminal defense attorneys might give lawyers a tool to help determine when additional investigation is warranted regarding police misconduct. Initial input would be solicited from citizens, including specific encounters with individual officers. Citizens could also report when they have filed formal complaints against law enforcement. This type of information is frequently difficult to access. If it were readily available through a database, however, this would help attorneys determine where to best direct their resources. Attorneys within the jurisdiction would also be able to provide input regarding their experience with the specific officer.

An arrangement such as this would not relieve attorneys of their duty to fully prepare their cases. However, it might alert the attorney in cases that are likely to hinge on officer credibility, and where there is an indication from their client that the officer acted improperly. Acknowledging that there is an opportunity for abuse in this proposal, it cannot be denied that similar abuses have been undertaken by law enforcement in the past.

Why Not a National ID Card?

After recently completing two assignments in my Information Technology and e-Governance class, I came to the realization that both projects would have been much simpler if a national identification card system had been in place. It is time to move beyond the debate as to whether we should have a national identification system, and shift the focus on how to implement such an arrangement.

A national ID would be an important tool in integrating databases. It would make substantially more information available to more people in a much quicker time. It could also be used to verify voter registration, work eligibility, driver's licenses, organ donation, address, passport information, and airport identification. In fact, it could serve as a passport, driver's license, voter's registration card, and eliminate the need for duplicate processes at the state level. It could also be a tool in deterring/reducing voter fraud. Evidence suggests that the majority of voter fraud does not occur at the polls; it occurs through fraudulent registration combined with absentee voting.

A national ID card, supplemented with various biometric safeguards, has been successfully employed in Israel. At Ben Gurion International airport, passengers are required to insert their ID at a kiosk, undergo a hand scan, and be subject to facial recognition software and iris identification. Israel has not experienced a hijacking on El Al, the national airline, since 1968, and no known hijackings have originated at Ben Gurion. Other countries that are far from totalitarian regimes have also adopted national ID's, including France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, Brazil, and Argentina.

The biggest objections from opponents seem to relate to privacy concerns, claiming that a national ID has the potential to impinge on privacy rights. Setting aside the difficulty in defining these amorphous "rights," discovered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1965, through "prenumbras, formed by emanations...," (Griswold v. Connecticut), one might logically counter the privacy advocates with the undisputed fact that we are already subject to numerous privacy "invasions" on a daily basis. A more extreme and (over-) simplified retort might be: So what? If you are not proud of what you do, then stop doing it! Besides, we already have an intrusive identification process within us, DNA.


Medical history seems to be of particular concern. Is there really any difference if the hospital compromises your personal information or if the government is the culprit? The solution is to make entities responsible and accountable for breaches of security. Accountability is not accomplished through a standard public apology from an agency head, followed by hollow promises to get to the bottom of things, only to have the issue drift off the front pages and out of sight while a "blue-ribbon" committee investigates. Rather, it means that people are promptly disciplined (fired) and are subject to individual liability, both financially through civil actions, as well as criminally (many criminal offenses currently on the books require mere negligence for their mens rea). It also should allow the veil of sovereign immunity to be pierced at the local, state, and federal levels.

Accidental disclosures, misuse, theft (credit card fraud, identity theft), are all valid concerns. Unfortunately, these things happen under the current system. Stricter punishment should be considered for identity theft-related crimes.

Another objection seems to follow the logic of "let's do nothing, because eventually things will change/something better will come along." Supporters of this position might also cite costs as a reason not to venture into the unknown. Unfortunately, everything costs!


If the idea of a national ID is accepted, the question turns to who gets one, at what age, how much data to include, who could request/require production of the ID, how would the data be edited, and what type of punishments would be imposed for failing to adhere to the system.

A national ID card is not a panacea for all the problems it seeks to address. Once we acknowledge the need for a national ID card, we can more fully invest our energies in making it cheaper and more secure. There are incidental burdens associated with any new technology, and very few original ideas that were not eventually improved upon. It is time to move this project along, if for no other reason, so that Santa can make all of his deliveries this year!

Is High Voter Turnout Indicative of a Successful Democracy and Freedom?

Many efforts at election reform routinely tout the desirability of high voter-turnout as if it were a universally accepted "good." The suggestion is that if more people vote, democratic principles are reinforced. Occasionally, re-examination of such "universal truths" is appropriate.


In some countries, like Australia, high turnout results from compulsory voting. However, forcing one to vote does not inevitably support notions of democracy. More nefarious examples, such as elections in Iraq under Saddam Hussein a few years ago, intimate that voting is not necessarily indicative of freedom or a flourishing democracy. As John Hickman, an Associate Professor of Comparative Politics at Berry College has noted:

The basic problem with treating high voter turnout as the evidence that an election is democratic is that it substitutes considerations of quantity for considerations for quality. Elections in democracies are mechanisms for people to choose collectively from among alternative possible leaders. That's why real democrats care whether elections are sufficiently free and fair to present voters with meaningful choices and to record their decisions accurately. In contrast, elections in authoritarian states are mechanisms for people to legitimate government by leaders who have already chosen by other means. That's why authoritarians focus so much on high voter turnout.

Comparing the 2003 parliamentary elections in unambiguously democratic Switzerland and unambiguously authoritarian North Korea helps make the point. Swiss voters could choose candidates from six major political parties with comparable campaign resources and many minor protest political parties, and the votes that they cast actually determined which political parties formed the next government. North Korean voters were presented with a much simpler decision. They could vote 'yes' for the single slate of candidates selected for them by the leadership of the Korean Worker's Party. Of course, if they [were] feeling particularly self-destructive on election day, they could always vote 'no.' Voter turnout in the Swiss election was a miserable 44.5 percent, low even by the standards of the other wealthy democracies, while voter turnout in the North Korean election approached 100 percent. If voter turnout is really the proper indicator of a democratic election, then we would have to conclude that North Korea is a model democracy and Switzerland a rank tyranny.
(For the complete article, see http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0410a/afghanhighturnout.html ).

Would our nation be better served by everyone being forced to cast a ballot, regardless of interest or knowledge concerning the issues, or with a lesser number of well-informed voters? Our country has already experienced people who felt no compunction announcing to the nation that they were unable to fill out a punch card, or some variation of "I was too stupid to read my ballot." (For a related article, see Jonah Goldberg's article from 2006, "We Don't Need Beavis and Butt-Head Voters,"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2006/07/28/we_dont_need_beavis_and_butt-head_voters ). Our nation also has witnessed, and participated in, the tyranny of the majority. Several initiatives have been passed by "the people," with little or no thought of the unintended consequences that followed.

Long ago, we chose a representative republic form of government over direct democracy. A variation of the following quote, often attributed to Professor Alexander Tytler (1747-1813), reminds us that pure democracy has had its critics since our nation's founding: "Democracies fail when people awaken to the fact that they can vote themselves generous gifts (largesse) from the public treasury." More recently, Josef Stalin is credited with saying, "It is enough for the people to know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Both of these quotes support the notion that high voter turnout is not necessarily a positive thing.

This article is not intended to dissuade well-intentioned efforts towards voting modifications and improvements. It certainly does not advocate that anyone be denied the franchise. It merely questions the premise that higher voter turnout is desirable, especially as it relates to election reform, and cautions advocates for reform to consider this alternate view when contemplating success criteria for their proposals.

One Person's Experience with Confronting the Digital Divide

Many sources have addressed the digital divide in terms of race, income, age, education, and the like. Until recently, I had no doubts concerning where I fell along this divide. As a person who did not even use e-mail regularly until just over a year ago, I was clearly among the "have-nots."


When I took an introductory computer course at a local community college, I called my fifteen year-old granddaughter (at the time), and tried to impress her by proudly sharing my (rudimentary) knowledge of PowerPoint. She dismissively replied that PowerPoint was mandatory for all of her presentations in her junior high classes. (This should not have been a surprise--when she started kindergarten years ago, I was shocked to learn that her required school supply-list included a computer disc).


At work, I have also felt the impact of the digital divide. For years, I sought to avoid computer-related technology in my office because I knew that my assistant and staff were able to account for, and overcome, my shortcomings (and to some degree, they still do!). Since I seldom used my computer in the first place, I never complained when it was the last in the office to be updated. I was able to get by with this elusive approach most of the time, but when it failed, it failed miserably. I cannot begin to estimate the number of hours I wasted researching and re-formatting projects because of my ignorance in computers and information technology.

In addition to the traditional categories mentioned in the opening sentence, I have observed another example of digital divide, and that is between criminal prosecutors and public defense attorneys. Prosecuting attorneys represent governmental entities, whether they be at the federal, state, county, or municipal level. Their computers are provided through public funding, and they invariably have access to well-entrenched IT support and resources.

In Washington State, the vast majority of counties contract with private individuals or firms to provide indigent defense. Rarely do these defender agencies possess technology resources even remotely resembling those enjoyed by the government. Younger attorneys may not be as vulnerable to this digital gap, but for older lawyers who lack IT skills, they remain complacent with the status quo at their peril. Unfortunately, their failure to confront the challenges of new technology also places their clients at risk.

The solution is obvious. In order for defense attorneys (and most other groups experiencing the digital divide, for that matter) to catch up, they must recognize that digital technology is not merely a fad or a desirable option; it is a necessity to function in the world of today and tomorrow. Once they accept this fact, they must take affirmative steps to begin closing the gap. This includes taking classes, even if it means attending continuing education classes through a local community college. It means not avoiding technology-laden upper-level classes, and not forgoing other computer-related opportunities, such as CLE's (continuing legal education). It also means being willing to ask for assistance, especially from those several years their junior. Finally, it means recognizing that the battle is not lost, and that they are not so far behind that they can never catch up.

My purpose in writing this is to convey to others who may feel they have been left behind in the digital age that there is hope. Today, I continue to improve my skills by increasingly taking advantage of technology. While I am a long way from where I want to be, I am a lot farther along than I used to be.

A Hurdle to Acceptance of e-Governance Proposals

While researching an assignment on e-voting, I encountered several blogs that illuminated an issue presented by many e-governance proposals, and that is lack of confidence in governmental institutions in general.


When elections results differ from exit poll data in a statistically significant way, technology is attacked, elections workers are assailed, and conspiracy theories abound. Consequently, a group who feels aggrieved as the result of a lost election engages in an analysis that goes something like this: We (our candidate, initiative, referendum) lost; we weren't supposed to lose (after all, our candidate/idea was the best); technology was used to count the votes, and therefore technology must have been flawed/manipulated; even if the process and technology are investigated, the results are unreliable (unless they favor us) because we cannot trust the investigators; we could investigate the investigators, but that would similarly be unproductive (unless they agreed with us) because they are probably part of the conspiracy. Hence, we should not accept, or even recognize, the outcome. In fact, we should devote all of our time between now and the next election cycle complaining about the result and engaging in venomous, personal attacks, instead of "moving on."


This is true, whether the culprits are Democrats crying "foul" for the 2000 Presidential election, or Republicans making a similar claim regarding Washington's 2004 Gubernatorial race. Such attitudes are attributable, at least in part, to large sections of the population with an utter disrespect, bordering on contempt, of governmental institutions. Unfortunately, these views are not confined to extremists living in isolation in the mountains of Idaho or communally in the mountains of Santa Cruz. Very often, they emanate from our country's elected leadership.

When elected officials pander to the most base instincts of the electorate, they set an example unworthy of emulation. Political discourse has a particularly acrimonious tone at the national level, and when elected leaders at the highest strata see fit to make accusations with rhetoric that exceeds the bounds of civility, we should not be surprised when the citizenry follows suit. After enduring a constant bombardment of accusations against public officials that equate them to criminals, or worse, it is no wonder that large portions of the public display a complete lack of trust regarding modifications proposed by government to modify government.

There is a difference between healthy skepticism and unwarranted paranoia. There is a difference between saying we could do something better, and declaring the entire system and everyone involved in it are corrupt. Undoubtedly, some in power have provided ample justification for cynicism and mistrust. Media are quick to respond to failings by those in government, but rarely do they emphasize the positive contributions of public servants. Many who work in the public sector display a commitment to their duties and a level of expertise that can only be matched, but not surpassed. Their efforts will not be highlighted on a "Sixty Minutes" segment, and their endeavors will likely go unnoticed except for those who work closest to them.


Until a much higher degree of confidence is restored in governmental institutions and those who make them function, novel ideas, such as e-governance, will not be universally and readily accepted, regardless of their merit. This "confidence restoration project" could begin with national figures leading the way, and advanced through a little more media coverage of things that are going well in this country. After all, people are not packing themselves in cargo containers, or braving rough waters in leaky boats, to enter other countries; they are coming to the United States for a reason. Surely, our nation must be doing something right.

A Few Thoughts on Net Neutrality

As a newcomer to the world of Information Technology, I had no concept of "net neutrality " less than a month ago. To educate myself on the subject, I began in the place where most of my research begins, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality).

The net neutrality debate poses an interesting choice for those who ascribe to American traditions of free markets and free speech. On the one hand, notions of free enterprise support the idea of entities being able to package and sell their product in the way they choose. This is countered by net-neutrality advocates who remind us that government has an important role in regulating monopolies, trusts, and communications, especially as they relate to public resources. Supporters on this side believe government regulation is required to maintain and promote the internet's advances thus far, and to continue this progress in the future.

One thing that became immediately apparent when I began to search the web for relevant sites was that supporters of net neutrality had an advantage just by defining the term. An overwhelming majority of pro net-neutrality sites appeared on the first pages of Google and Yahoo when entering the search, "net neutrality." The opponents have yet to coin an appropriate counter-phrase that lends itself to easy searches on the internet in a way that other issues have been defined, such as abortion, where we have numerous "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sites. It is difficult to promote a position based on "anti-neutrality."

There is clear advantage in being the first to define the terms of any argument or debate, or in adopting catch phrases and labels. For historical and political junkies in the audience, you may recall the less than impressive tenure and success of the Anti-Federalist movement (at least in terms of name-longevity, though not necessarily in terms of philosophy) versus the Federalist party in early American history. It is not necessarily the prefix, "anti," that leads to such a disadvantage; "anti-war" movements have had an easier time defining themselves than their opponents. People may have a position regarding a specific situation, but relatively few consistently rally under the banner of "pro-war," or consider themselves "pro-war activists." To date, net neutrality opponents lack an appropriate search-term/phrase that readily leads to internet sites supporting their position. Any ideas?

A Piece of Free Legal Advice for Juvenile Offenders

As a juvenile public defender who has handled more than 3,500 criminal cases and nearly 5,000 probation violations, I have a tidbit of wisdom to pass on to kids who are participating in Washington's juvenile justice system: Most, if not all, of what you put on your computer can, and will, be used against you.

In addition to obvious cases, such as taking pictures of classmates in various stages of undress (which can be construed as violating RCW Chapter 9.68A--Sexual Exploitation of Minors, a Class B felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and a registerable sex-offense), a more common example concerns those already on probation. Probation officers (PO's) routinely check MySpace accounts and similar social networking sites that you and your friends (co-defendants?) have generously shared with the public (including your PO).

One popular pose is "Probationers and Their Friends," friends who bear a striking resemblance to individuals with whom the court has ordered the probationer not to have contact with. The components of this classic image include everyone modeling intoxicating smiles, proudly displaying illicit substances in their hand(s), and various pieces of drug paraphernalia providing the background. Surprisingly, not long after the PO's view such a post and call in their colleagues to share their "idiot logs" ("you think that's stupid, I had a kid one time who posted a picture of ..."), they have the adudacity to follow up by filing a probation violation that seeks jail time as a reward for your photographic and computer prowess.

For the prodigies among you who think you are equipped to practice law as a teenager, I've got some more bad news for you. The rules of evidence are inapplicable to probation violation hearings (Evidence Rule (ER) 1101 of the Washington State Rules of Evidence, in case you forgot), which means that hearsay is admissible, the "Best Evidence" rule does not apply, and authentication is not required to admit most exhibits. Further, the standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but , rather, a mere "preponderance" of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). Finally, for those of you who spend most of your time contemplating appellate issues (that is, when you're not stealing underwear from Macy' s), you probably recall that the trier of fact (yes, the judge) makes determinations concerning credibility of witnesses. In other words, when you try to "explain" your story in the same, convincing manner that has been so successful in the past with your parents, your stellar reputation and that of your colleagues (more than likely the same people in the pictures) will be pitted against the questionable opinion of the PO, aka the Court Services Officer.

Many of you constitutional scholars may cry "foul" at the mere suggestion that your "right to privacy" has been invaded by a government agent. Upon careful reflection, however, this should not come as a shock. After all, this is not the first time your interpretation of the Constitution has been at odds with those in authority, including the United Staes Supreme Court and the Washington State Supreme Court. Children (that means you, if you're under the age of 18 in Washington--RCW 13.04.011(2)) have a lessened expectation of privacy in schools, and that means that less than "probable cause" is required to search you and your belongings. You also probably remember that not only do you not have a right to "a jury of your peers," you have no right to a jury trial at all!


Smarter, adult career-criminals have learned a good technique to avoid getting caught, and that is to dispose of incriminating evidence, rather than collect it, store it, and disseminate it publicly through a computer. For those of you who continue to post evidence of your illegal activity on computers and expect is to be protected in the name of "privacy," I (or one of my colleagues) will see you soon. Of course, you don't have to follow my free advice (after all, it's only worth what you paid for it), and that's OK. Besides, I'm always happy to have another client.