U.S. Department of Defense Creating a Public Nuisance?
By Jane Genova, We’re the government and we’re here to help. When government first says that, it probably is true. Take the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
Decades ago, DOD became involved with research and development of high performance computers (HPC) as a must-do in national security. Those HPC applications support aeronautics, cryptography, and nuclear weapons design and testing. Then, in the mid 1980s, DOD leveraged that expertise for U.S. economic competitive strength, including stimulating productivity and innovation in the private sector, ranging from manufacturing to energy [http://www.stormingmedia.us/15/15559/A155994.html].
That was then. Today, HPC is a stand-alone industry. It’s business-as-usual in the financial markets, biological sciences, geo-sciences, and engineering. Last year, despite the downturn, the high end grew by 25% to $3.4 billion, according to WORLDWIDE HIGH-PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL SERVER.
Yet, an irony tragically typical of government, DOD seems to be the source of problems in the HPC industry. Those problems are of two types. Together they could be impairing or harming the common good in such a way as to be considered legally and in terms of public policy a “public nuisance.” Since 2005, I have been covering how the traditional theory of public nuisance is being applied to product liability, the environment and energy. Recently, in “North Carolina v. TVA,” the plaintiff used the concept of public nuisance and won.
One of the two problems is the lack of disclosure, which could be masking a conflict of interest. That is the situation in the DOD publication of InsideHPC.com. That online site is headed by DOD full-time employee John E. West. On the “About Us” page, West identifies himself as employed “in a computing strategy role in R&D in the public sector.” Why isn’t DOD explicitly identified? A source informs me that West “works with Lockheed Martin as the systems integrator at the U.S. Army site.” John Leidel, also involved with InsideHPC.com, the same source tells me “works for Convey Computer.”
When I presented this information to Christopher M. O’Neal, Chief Executive Officer of SuperComputerOnline.com, he noted, “FTC Disclosure Policies are designed to allow online communicators to self-identify any affiliation that may influence the content of the blog and allow readers to make their own judgment regarding the influence on content.” Variations of disclosure rules regarding online content are working their way through state and federal courts. At stake in those rulings is the credibility of digital as a medium as well as its commercial future.
Some might shrug “InsideHPC is only one of those dry government publications.” But, Inside HPC.com is hardly that. Actually it is slickly commercial. In fact, it gushes on its website, “We aren’t just another ‘me too’ HPC news site, and we aren’t interested in letting ‘me too’ HPC companies reach our readers.” Yet, this no me-too is paid for with tax-payer money. West’s trips to HPC conferences are funded by tax-payers.
Simultaneously, there are now private-sector HPC publications, ranging from SuperComputerOnline.com to HPCWire.com, which play in that same sandbox. Only to play, all their expenses, including for trips to conferences, must come from their own pocket. Those costs represent a minus from revenue.
That leads right in to the second argument supporting that DOD might be creating or contributing to a public nuisance in permitting InsideHPC.com to exist in its present form. That second issue is: Why is this unfair competition with the private sector being permitted?
Anyone who understands perception knows this: The DOD publication, being issued by the government, implies a type of official imprimatur. In media we call that the “halo effect.” That could position it, among private-sector publications, as unique in its authority and credibility. Clearly, that is an unfair advantage it has over other HPC publications that should not exist.
That brings up the core issue: Why would any government agency set itself up as a competitor with business? Doesn’t that bring up the very question of what is the mission and function of government?
When government intrudes in this way, at best this creates redundancy. At worst it is taking on private enterprise – and with built-in cost and influence advantages. At the top of the list in not having to factor in many kinds of expenses which enterprises have to.
There’s more. InsideHPC now has a dedicated marketing and sales arm, including Mike Bernhardt, to sell ads. Right now most of advertising is a zero-sum game. What space InsideHPC sells, the private sector likely doesn’t. Yet, most publications depend on advertising for profits.
The Business Coalition for Fair Competition provides a white paper on what’s very dangerous with both these best and worst case scenarios [http:governmentcompetition.org/howgovtcompetes.html]. Isn’t this the other side of the coin of government agencies being too cozy with businesses? Unfortunately, this side too often remains invisible, due to lack of transparency.
U.S. government can be most helpful when it discerns its mission has been accomplished and it surrenders that function. If it refuses to do just that, then it can be viewed in the legal and public policy light of creating a public nuisance.
Jane Genova blogged the Rhode Island lead paint public nuisance trial and its aftermath, beginning on syndicated site http://janegenova.com under “legal” and continuing on syndicated site http://lawandmore.typepad.com. Then she expanded analysis of public nuisance to environmental and energy matters. She has been interviewed on legal and policy issues by THE NEW YORK TIMES, CRAIN’S BUSINESS and PLAIN DEALER. Her posts are regularly linked to by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, LEGAL TECHNOLOGY, PUBLIC NUISANCE, and NEW YORK Magazine.
Decades ago, DOD became involved with research and development of high performance computers (HPC) as a must-do in national security. Those HPC applications support aeronautics, cryptography, and nuclear weapons design and testing. Then, in the mid 1980s, DOD leveraged that expertise for U.S. economic competitive strength, including stimulating productivity and innovation in the private sector, ranging from manufacturing to energy [http://www.stormingmedia.us/15/15559/A155994.html].
That was then. Today, HPC is a stand-alone industry. It’s business-as-usual in the financial markets, biological sciences, geo-sciences, and engineering. Last year, despite the downturn, the high end grew by 25% to $3.4 billion, according to WORLDWIDE HIGH-PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL SERVER.
Yet, an irony tragically typical of government, DOD seems to be the source of problems in the HPC industry. Those problems are of two types. Together they could be impairing or harming the common good in such a way as to be considered legally and in terms of public policy a “public nuisance.” Since 2005, I have been covering how the traditional theory of public nuisance is being applied to product liability, the environment and energy. Recently, in “North Carolina v. TVA,” the plaintiff used the concept of public nuisance and won.
One of the two problems is the lack of disclosure, which could be masking a conflict of interest. That is the situation in the DOD publication of InsideHPC.com. That online site is headed by DOD full-time employee John E. West. On the “About Us” page, West identifies himself as employed “in a computing strategy role in R&D in the public sector.” Why isn’t DOD explicitly identified? A source informs me that West “works with Lockheed Martin as the systems integrator at the U.S. Army site.” John Leidel, also involved with InsideHPC.com, the same source tells me “works for Convey Computer.”
When I presented this information to Christopher M. O’Neal, Chief Executive Officer of SuperComputerOnline.com, he noted, “FTC Disclosure Policies are designed to allow online communicators to self-identify any affiliation that may influence the content of the blog and allow readers to make their own judgment regarding the influence on content.” Variations of disclosure rules regarding online content are working their way through state and federal courts. At stake in those rulings is the credibility of digital as a medium as well as its commercial future.
Some might shrug “InsideHPC is only one of those dry government publications.” But, Inside HPC.com is hardly that. Actually it is slickly commercial. In fact, it gushes on its website, “We aren’t just another ‘me too’ HPC news site, and we aren’t interested in letting ‘me too’ HPC companies reach our readers.” Yet, this no me-too is paid for with tax-payer money. West’s trips to HPC conferences are funded by tax-payers.
Simultaneously, there are now private-sector HPC publications, ranging from SuperComputerOnline.com to HPCWire.com, which play in that same sandbox. Only to play, all their expenses, including for trips to conferences, must come from their own pocket. Those costs represent a minus from revenue.
That leads right in to the second argument supporting that DOD might be creating or contributing to a public nuisance in permitting InsideHPC.com to exist in its present form. That second issue is: Why is this unfair competition with the private sector being permitted?
Anyone who understands perception knows this: The DOD publication, being issued by the government, implies a type of official imprimatur. In media we call that the “halo effect.” That could position it, among private-sector publications, as unique in its authority and credibility. Clearly, that is an unfair advantage it has over other HPC publications that should not exist.
That brings up the core issue: Why would any government agency set itself up as a competitor with business? Doesn’t that bring up the very question of what is the mission and function of government?
When government intrudes in this way, at best this creates redundancy. At worst it is taking on private enterprise – and with built-in cost and influence advantages. At the top of the list in not having to factor in many kinds of expenses which enterprises have to.
There’s more. InsideHPC now has a dedicated marketing and sales arm, including Mike Bernhardt, to sell ads. Right now most of advertising is a zero-sum game. What space InsideHPC sells, the private sector likely doesn’t. Yet, most publications depend on advertising for profits.
The Business Coalition for Fair Competition provides a white paper on what’s very dangerous with both these best and worst case scenarios [http:governmentcompetition.org/howgovtcompetes.html]. Isn’t this the other side of the coin of government agencies being too cozy with businesses? Unfortunately, this side too often remains invisible, due to lack of transparency.
U.S. government can be most helpful when it discerns its mission has been accomplished and it surrenders that function. If it refuses to do just that, then it can be viewed in the legal and public policy light of creating a public nuisance.
Jane Genova blogged the Rhode Island lead paint public nuisance trial and its aftermath, beginning on syndicated site http://janegenova.com under “legal” and continuing on syndicated site http://lawandmore.typepad.com. Then she expanded analysis of public nuisance to environmental and energy matters. She has been interviewed on legal and policy issues by THE NEW YORK TIMES, CRAIN’S BUSINESS and PLAIN DEALER. Her posts are regularly linked to by THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, LEGAL TECHNOLOGY, PUBLIC NUISANCE, and NEW YORK Magazine.
How to resolve AdBlock issue?