4 ms·

If the Whitehouse isn't recruiting top Silicon Valley talent to fill technical positions, would you rather they fill them with executives from Washington D.C. a

If the Whitehouse isn't recruiting top Silicon Valley talent to fill technical positions, would you rather they fill them with executives from Washington D.C. area beltway bandit management consulting companies? They've got to go somewhere for the talent pool and credentials, and that means tapping Google, Twitter, et al. It helps that Google and many Bay Area companies lean progressive and helped both Obama's campaign, as well as fixing ACA Web sites. If the suggestion is this somehow proves some nefarious NSA connection because a few employees went to work for the government, that seems pretty fallacious to me.

api 12y ago
Very good point. DC should be reaching outside its toxic beltway bandit ecosystem in general any time it wants anyone talented at anything other than milking the Federal cow.
worklogin 12y ago
I suppose you're right: If not Google, then who? But I don't think it's entirely fallacious: The US government is a toxic organization, and I hope Google keeps true to its civic duty to resist government spy agendas. To be fair, their technical wing seems to be trying, with end to end email encryption and PFS.
azakai 12y ago
I think the contrast is to the complaints we often hear when a top financial position is an ex-Goldman exec. Or in general when a top regulator is recruited from the industry they will soon regulate. In those cases too, you could say "well, how else would you rather they fill those spots?" And yes, it is likely the a Goldman exec would have lots of expertise in the financial sector, so it's a natural place to recruit from. Still in both those cases, and with Google here, there are large potential conflicts of interest. People that complain about Goldman execs in Washington will also complain about this appointment, and there are valid reasons for such complaints.
- magicalist 12y ago
  One big difference is that the CTO role is not as regulator, so you don't have the large concerns you have with putting a cable company exec in charge of the FCC, or an RIAA lawyer in charge of the DOJ's copyright enforcement policy. There may be some instances when a conflict of interest comes up, but as others point out, that's virtually impossible to avoid for anyone with expertise. Many here might not object to an academic being appointed to the role who specializes in open source and advocating for the limitations of copyright, but of course there's a huge conflict of interest there, too.
  - azakai 12y ago
    What would be the "huge conflict of interest" with an academic in this role?
    - magicalist 12y ago
      Sorry, I missed your response. The conflict of interest would be their tendency to see everything from the lens of their life's work, and of course to actively advocate for their values, which are already well formed in the relevant domain. Barring financial conflict of interest (e.g. stock still owned from the previous job), it's just as much of a conflict of interest as someone previously at one of these related companies but no longer employed there.
- cromwellian 12y ago
  The conflict of interest I see is more along the lines of when it comes time for the government to pick a service provider, for save, Maps, Docs, Email, etc, Google being part of the bidding (with say Microsoft and Apple as the other bids) creates the appearance of favoritism. Of course, one could argue that in many cases, Gmail is a better solution than Exchange or Outlook for the government workers, but Google as CTO will forever taint any wins. I don't think the Goldman comparison works. In those cases, industry reps control the implementation of regulations or help draft rules or laws, and that is a much bigger conflict of interest.

api 12y ago

Very good point. DC should be reaching outside its toxic beltway bandit ecosystem in general any time it wants anyone talented at anything other than milking the Federal cow.

worklogin 12y ago

I suppose you're right: If not Google, then who? But I don't think it's entirely fallacious: The US government is a toxic organization, and I hope Google keeps true to its civic duty to resist government spy agendas. To be fair, their technical wing seems to be trying, with end to end email encryption and PFS.

azakai 12y ago

I think the contrast is to the complaints we often hear when a top financial position is an ex-Goldman exec. Or in general when a top regulator is recruited from the industry they will soon regulate. In those cases too, you could say "well, how else would you rather they fill those spots?" And yes, it is likely the a Goldman exec would have lots of expertise in the financial sector, so it's a natural place to recruit from. Still in both those cases, and with Google here, there are large potential conflicts of interest. People that complain about Goldman execs in Washington will also complain about this appointment, and there are valid reasons for such complaints.

magicalist 12y ago
One big difference is that the CTO role is not as regulator, so you don't have the large concerns you have with putting a cable company exec in charge of the FCC, or an RIAA lawyer in charge of the DOJ's copyright enforcement policy. There may be some instances when a conflict of interest comes up, but as others point out, that's virtually impossible to avoid for anyone with expertise. Many here might not object to an academic being appointed to the role who specializes in open source and advocating for the limitations of copyright, but of course there's a huge conflict of interest there, too.
- azakai 12y ago
  What would be the "huge conflict of interest" with an academic in this role?
  - magicalist 12y ago
    Sorry, I missed your response. The conflict of interest would be their tendency to see everything from the lens of their life's work, and of course to actively advocate for their values, which are already well formed in the relevant domain. Barring financial conflict of interest (e.g. stock still owned from the previous job), it's just as much of a conflict of interest as someone previously at one of these related companies but no longer employed there.
cromwellian 12y ago
The conflict of interest I see is more along the lines of when it comes time for the government to pick a service provider, for save, Maps, Docs, Email, etc, Google being part of the bidding (with say Microsoft and Apple as the other bids) creates the appearance of favoritism. Of course, one could argue that in many cases, Gmail is a better solution than Exchange or Outlook for the government workers, but Google as CTO will forever taint any wins. I don't think the Goldman comparison works. In those cases, industry reps control the implementation of regulations or help draft rules or laws, and that is a much bigger conflict of interest.