Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement

["Russ White" <[e-mail]>]

> Well, public authorities are often very important users of technology.
> So
> their participation in the definition of the specifications / standards of
such
> technology might actually be useful for later adoption.

As _users_. The problem is that it's often taken as a given that if a public
authority determines it should use technology x in a specific way, then the
market must (as a matter of course) adopt it. One of the rather healthy
things to happen in the US, for instance, was the non-adoption of ADA even
though it was mandated through various laws, etc. That showed that the US
government didn't, at that point, have a "controlling interest" in where the
market went, and hence the market could develop better solutions to problems
as they arose.

> I also believe that standard setting which does not take into account the
> broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies will be
> used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities are
an

Can you explain the use of the term "sustainable" here? Just curious what
you actually mean when you say the social legal environment won't be
"sustainable..." Are you saying that governments can't maintain control over
their populations if technology is not properly controlled, or... ?? I don't
know if I understand the meaning in this context.

:-)

Russ