Engineers and Politics

Writing as I am on the morning after the President's State of the Union address, as much as I feel tempted to, I will still resist the temptation to comment on it. My main reason is that this is not a political blog. and the speech was a political event with mostly political implications. Some of its ramifications may affect the technology world down the road. Then would be a great time to comment on them.

However, I do want to use the momentum of the Speech to warn my fellow technologists of the pitfalls they might encounter on the road to Washington. Honestly, I think good engineers serve the nation better by developing the technologies that improve the quality of life of our fellow citizens than by going into politics.

Yet, since politics has a way of insinuating itself into every aspect of life, it might be useful to try to flesh out some principles that those of us in the world of zeroes and ones can follow in order not to support political agendas that will hurt our work.

(1)Fuzzy is as Fuzzy Does
Precision in implementation, measurements and language are staples of the engineering world. Ambiguity in technology is not just frowned upon; it has no place. In politics, however, ambiguity is often sought and frequently used.

This translates many times into politicians drafting members of the digital economy into fighting against their own interests.

So how can we protect ourselves from shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot? In the same way in which we harden our applications for use in the real world: know the environment. In other words, do your homework and fully understand the issues before committing.

Int their book, Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner, warn us to always remember that experts have their own self-interest in mind even as they make recommendations. This applies infinitely more to politicians.

(2)Neutrality, It's Not Just Good For The Net
One of the advantages of being an engineer is that one is excused if one chooses not to take a position in political or otherwise extraneous matters.

It turns out that this is a very good idea. This course of action is especially advisable when the issues being discussed or the way in which they are being discussed are murky. Take, for example, net neutrality.

I have read and heard so many a definitions —at times conflicting, at times too imprecise— of the term "net neutrality" to render it useless for engineering purposes. The situation has gotten so bad that should Congress pass a law that says "let there be net neutrality," no one would have any idea how to implement it.

Once upon a time, net neutrality used to be defined as all data packets on the internet being given the same priority regardless of content or origination. Not one of the positions currently being debated involves this simple definition, therefore the discussion is really about something else nowadays.

In times like these, it would serve the technology world best if many of us were to remain neutral until the concepts are properly clarified. Otherwise, we might end up actively promoting policies that hurt our our principles, our livelihoods, or both.

(3)Don't Be Evil
This applies not just to large Google-like corporations with valuations in the billions of dollars. We all have some measure of power to affect how the lives of others will be governed. From voting at ballot station to serving in some advisory panel.

It is vitally important that you remember that with power comes responsibility, that good law is measured not by its intentions but by its effects, that freedom is self-correcting while coercion self-multiplying, that the moral hazards of a policy can nullify its laudable objectives. Above all impress in your mind that there is such a thing as the law of unintended consequences; it is as pervasive as Murphy's and neither may be safely ignored.

Wether you are worth a few hundred dollars or a few hundred billion, please, for the sake of the rest of us and your own, don't be evil — and do not support the causes of evil people either.