Policy '98: Implications for SIGCHI

A report from SIGCHI's representative

Austin Henderson

POLICY '98: The Hope

POLICY '98: The Result

POLICY '98: SIGCHI's Participation

POLICY'98: Implications for SIGCHI

Conclusion

Acknowledgment

Author's Address

POLICY '98: The Hope

From the call for participation:

On May 10-12 1998, the Association for Computing will hold its annual meeting in Washington DC. This national conference will focus on critical public policy issues affecting the future of applications of computing. The purpose of the conference is to forge stronger links between computer professionals and policy makers. Participants will interact with leaders from academia, industry, Congress, and Executive agencies, and participate in debates on policy issues including Universal Access, Electronic Commerce, Intellectual Property, and Education Online.

Participants will be able to influence decisions about making productive use of computing and information processing innovations, while coping with the inherent dangers of any transformational technology.

Continuing collaborations with policy makers will be beneficial to citizens, consumers, entrepreneurs, students, and computing professionals.

POLICY '98: The Result

From the report of Ben Shneiderman, Co-chair:

I am pleased to report that ACM Policy '98 went very well (May 10-12 in DC). We had almost 300 registrants and the featured speakers were terrific. A major speaker was Ira Magaziner (Senior Advisor to the President) who drew strong press interest (one online story is at http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/domnam/TWB19980512S0006) He echoed the comments of Federal Trade Commissioner Mozelle Thompson, who wanted to limit government regulation of the internet in favor of industry self-regulation. However, online fraud and privacy violations, especially concerning kids, were forcing more government involvement. The FTC's study of 1200 websites, will be out in a few weeks and will likely raise concerns about inadequate industry self-regulation.

Representative Vern Ehlers, who is reformulating US science policy, discussed models of basic and applied research support. Ehlers responded to the recommendations of the USACM concerning the development of science policy ("Principles for U.S. Science Policy" -- http://www.acm.org/usacm/science/usacm-policy-principles.html). A lively discussion continued well past the time he was supposed to leave.

Representative Constance Morella and then Mike Nelson of the FCC both discussed the Year 2000 problems and detailed government efforts -- they were thorough and thoughtful -- it certainly made me more aware of potential problems.

Robert E. Kahn, (President, CNRI -- National Medal of Technology winner for helping develop the internet) talked about the future directions and concerns for the net.

Assistant Director Juris Hartmanis spoke about The Role of the National Science Foundation in Computing Policy. He gave a detailed view of how budgets are made and showed the steady growth of support for computing research.

The conference opening on Sunday set the intellectual foundations with lively discussions of ethical and social impacts of technology. Speakers offered software engineering codes of ethics, raised concerns about privacy, and debated educational technology strategies.

The Sunday evening ACM Awards Banquet included the Turing Award, given to Doug Engelbart for his pioneering work on user interfaces, including invention of the mouse, and early versions of windows, hypertext, and CSCW. A Special ACM Presidential Award for founding NetDay was given to John Gage (Chief Scientist, Sun Microsystems). He told the story in a charming Garrison Keillor-like way that made it fun.

The panels on Universal Access, Electronic Commerce, Intellectual Property, and Education Online were lively. The conference was designed to promote connections between computing professionals and policy makers. Tuesday was enlivened by requests for attendees to go to the phones to encourage their representatives to vote against a current bill that would extend copyright protection to databases. Most analysts find the bill too strong in support of publishers and potentially interfering with scientific uses.

The ACM will expand its support of policy related issues by increased budgets for USACM the Public Policy Committee (http://www.acm.org/usacm). ACM has 1-2 staff working on these issues, versus approx. 35 at AAAS and 20 at IEEE.

POLICY '98: SIGCHI's Participation

At its Extended Executive Committee Meeting following CHI 98, SIGCHI agreed to support Policy'98, becoming one of only three ACM SIGs (with SIGCAS and SIGGRAPH) to do so. The SIGCHI Extended Executive Committee (EEC) agreed that it was valuable to support this activity as a first step in exploring engagement in policy-making. Over the years, SIGCHI has chosen not to "be political", but there is a growing feeling that we should revisit this decision, and ask whether we, as experts in HCI, can and should be instrumental in shaping the role that technology plays in our world.

As a result, I was asked by the SIGCHI EEC to attend Policy'98 on SIGCHI's behalf, to represent SIGCHI as appropriate, and to make a report on steps that SIGCHI might take in engaging in policy-making.

In making the request, the EEC made two things clear:

that, even though Policy'98 was focused on national policy-making in the United States only, SIGCHI's position was that of a world-wide professional organization, and that I should make my representations and my assessments from that wider perspective
that SIGCHI is part of ACM, and my stance should work to further that relationship.

I attended the conference, and Ben's report above only begins to capture the excitement and complexity of the interactions that took place. I took the opportunity to talk with many of the participants that Ben mentions in his report: on the whole, very thoughtful and attentive people. I was impressed. However, the range of concerns they must address, and the complexity of our concerns, leads me to the conclusion -- one that was repeated by many -- that they can profit from some help from those of us who understand the complexities of "technology". While HCI was not mentioned directly very much, many of the issues have, or should have, HCI as a central pillar.

In addition to the sessions, I spent much time in the halls and at meals in discussion with those who are leading ACM in its engagement with policy-making, including Barbara Simons (USACM), Stu Zweben (ACM past president), Chuck House (ACM President) and Joe DeBlasi (ACM Executive Director). [Positions will have changed by the time you read this due to ACM elections; these people continue to play strong roles.] Also, staff members of USACM, who are ACM's daily contact with policy-makers in Washington. And representatives from other computer-related organizations (e.g., IEEE's policy office).

There was considerable debate about how much awareness of policy-making in other countries should affect policy-making in the United States. I'm pleased to report that public and private debate seems to point in the same direction: we needs lots of awareness, as the world is a small place.

There was also debate about the nature of USACM: is it the policy-making arm of ACM, or is it the policy-making arm of ACM in the United States. The conclusion here seems to be "yes" -- it is both. And something needs to be done about it: these two roles must be separated, so that when conflicts between them arise, those conflicts can be represented without conflict of interest.

There was a strong call for help from those trying to act on policy in Washington. The staff of USACM is doing a valiant (but understaffed and underfunded) job of trying to: track what is going on in all the committees in Washington; make that information available to anyone in ACM who is interested, along with what actions will help; find experts who can take part in the workings of policy-making: testifying, participating in committees and boards, interacting with the press. First and foremost there is simply a huge information exchange problem to be solved. Not least in the factors making this difficult is the fact of how little the average member of ACM is aware of how policy-making really works; there is much training to be done.

Finally, there was an undercurrent of concern about values. Policy is made against a backdrop of values: only through appeal to values can the compromises of different perspectives be reasoned about and working solutions achieved. The presence of vocal participants from a number of countries other than the USA demonstrated clearly how US values are not shared world-wide; others have values not often voiced (if even recognized) in the US (e.g., a concern with "Cultural Sovereignty" in both New Zealand and Canada). Again, I'm pleased to report that the voices leading ACM seem well aware of these issues and appear to be seeking structures and mechanisms that will accommodate this richness and complexity.

In the end, I tried to make SIGCHI visible, but without a strong position yet. I admitted that we are very early in trying to assess what actions we should take. We are searching for structures that will meet the needs of our membership in its attempt to be responsible participants in local and national life worldwide.

POLICY'98: Implications for SIGCHI

I propose that SIGCHI should adopt the following policy on policy.

SIGCHI should acknowledge that, as a leading HCI professional organization, it has a responsibility to play a role in bringing HCI concerns to bear on policy-making worldwide. This role is, at least and primarily, informational; and where we agree, advocative. For example, we could add a clause to the bylaws, and insure that our documents reflect this.
SIGCHI should develop a segment within its leadership structure to address policy-making issues. This segment (possibly a Vice-Chair for Policy) would be responsible for:
- developing and managing information exchange mechanisms between SIGCHI members, itself, and other policy-making organs within ACM
- developing mechanisms for expressing and debating SIGCHI's role in policy-making (see 1),
- developing SIGCHI's positions on policy issues
SIGCHI should separate its policy segment into distinct organs reflecting political jurisdictions of interest. These would include:
- an overall SIGCHI policy organ
- a policy organ for any political jurisdiction (e.g. state, country, country union, trade association) in which SIGCHI members wish to be politically active on behalf of SIGCHI.
SIGCHI should encourage ACM to develop a matching structure within ACM (one reflecting, and separating, political jurisdictions -- see 3) and should do so by setting an example by its own structure. SIGCHI should work closely with other SIGs, ACM, and other professional societies to develop coherent and coordinated positions on policy issues.