A Brief History of

Public-Sector Information

Technology Policy

In 1813, a year before the British burned the buildings of the nation's
capital in ".Mr. Madison's War," Congress made provision for the protec­
tion of state documents. In what may be considered the beginning of fed­
eral information policy, it was mandated that one copy of the House and
Senate journals along with certain other legislative documents be made
available by the secretary of state to selected universities, state libraries,
and historical societies. By the 1840s, the Depository Library program
was promoting the practice of agencies making their publications avail­
able to the public. The Printing Act of 1852 established the office of the
Superintendent of Public Printing under the Secretary of the Interior,
who in 1857, became responsible for distribution to depository libraries.
On the day Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, the Government Printing
Office (GPO) was established, displacing the private printing companies
serving the government at that time. The Office of the Superintendent of
Documents was created in 1869, and under the Printing Act of 1895 the
Depository Library program was taken over by the GPO and the Monthly
Catalog of GPO publications was launched. There is a direct line of
development of federal information policy from the wartime concerns of
1813 to the launch of electronic publication formats in the 1990s, but by
then the scope of governmental publications had grown exponentially
and all agencies, not just the GPO, had become outlets for federal infor­
mation, often via the Internet.
The first depository library shipment under the 1895 act was sent out to
420 libraries on July 17, 1895. It contained only 11 publications of Con­
gress. By 1922, however, depository libraries were receiving so many pub­
lications that they complained'about lack of space and staff, particularly
in view of relative lack of use of government documents. The GPO ended

29

30 CHAPTER 2 A BRIEf HiSTORY Of PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY War and CoId~

the practice of sending every library every publication and instead devel­ WARANDCOUl
oped the Classified List of United States Government Publications, allow­ . .FRASTRUCT\I
ing libraries to select desired holdings. Only 48 of the 418 depository
libraries existing in 1923 opted to continue to receive all publications. In Chap
Still, by 1945, the GPO was doing eight mailings a day per library. Vannen
Libraries were overwhelmed, complaining about being unable to main­ Deyelop
tain comprehensive records, to ensure documents were actually shelved, Bushla
and to cope with the perishable stock paper on which documents were ohjocttel
printed. Eventually, under the Depository Library Act of 1962, libraries see and·
were relieved of the obligation to retain forever documents they had future. 1
agreed to receive; instead, 53 regional depositories were named to receive itself. _
all government publications, but even they could dispose of documents
after 5 years (McGarr, 2000). The fioI
in 190,
During the 1980s and 1990s, governmental efforts to reduce paperwork the BriIi
combined with sharp cutbacks in funding for printing meant a notice­ Ii Stripf
able decline in the number of federal publications in print. Information Lab'~ ZI
dissemination on microfiche, which the GPO had seen as a solution to
the fiall
the information explosion, now became viewed as outdated technology
tube ....
as libraries, universities, and the media retooled for the computer age.
Many government publications became issued only in electronic format,
abandoning print altogether. As this occurred, the GPO, which for over
100 years had been the dominant agency for information dissemination
by the federal government, now became one among a larger number of
players in the arena of federal information policy. The National
Technical Information Service, the National Archives, the Smithsonian
Institution. the office of the president, and of course the agencies them­
selves all have become major direct providers of federal information in
electronic format. In 2004 the GPO, having already cut its consumption
of paper in half in the 1992-2003 period and mounted over a quarter
million free digital documents by 2004, drew up a 3-year plan to trans­
form itself from a printing office to a manager of digital documents
(Menke, 2004a).
The fedtlral Depository Library program and the GPO were pioneers
establishing the principle of information access for all Americans. At the
dawn of this new century, however, information access has come to tran­
scend thtl concept of document dissemination. Moreover, since the
1970s. new information policy issues have come to the fore as well, in­
cluding the government's role in developing the infrastructure for infor­
mation and communications technologies (leT); leveraging information
technology (IT) to promote public-sector productivity and to reinvent
the way government does business; information security, particularly
after the terrorist attack of September 11,2001; and any number of reg­
ulatory issues arising from the coming of age of cyberspace.
.. PI::u::Y War and Cold War: Origins of Information Technology Infrastructure in the United States 31

. . instead devel­ WAR AND COLD WAR: ORIGINS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

M nlions. allow­ INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES
It 418 depository
It.n publications. In Chapter 1 we discussed the vision of the digital future foreseen by
• 4IIIy per library. Vannevar Bush, who directed the Office of Scientific RQsearch and
11III:able to main- Development for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was no accident that
t-=tnitUy shelved, Bush had overseen the effort to mobilize scientist5 in support of military
l drnlments were objectives in World War II, and that he was also in the be5t p05ition to
l rrl 1962. libraries see and understand the potential of new electronic technologies for the
-=015 they had future. The origins of widespread use of IT and, indeed, of the Internet
t~ to receive itself. were inextricably linked to military uses.
. . of documents
The first programmable computer in the world was the Colossus, cre:lWd
in 1943 and in service until 1946 as a code-breaking maching built for
.doer pHperwork the British war effort by Max Newman and others (Cragon, 2003; Hinsley
.. :meant i1 notice­ & Stripp, 2001). There had been other earlier computers, such as Bell
pint. Information Lab's Z3 computer based on electromagnetic relays, but ColoSSU!l was
_ lII§ ioJ. solution to
the first digital all-electronic programmable machine, based on vacuum
.bta:l tl?cimology tube technology. It was designed and used successfully to break German
... romputer age. military codes, which were based on teletype-like electromechanical
ll' ironiC format, devices built by Siemens. By the end of the war, 10 Colossus computers
I(), .-hich for over were in operation.
. . dli;s.emination
• JsIogm' number of Because of the secrecy associated with the development and use of the
&'f. The ~ational Colossus computer, its influence on postwar IT was limited. A greater
... tbe Smithsonian role can be ascribed to the ENlAC computer. dovoloped between 1942
lie agencies them­ and 1946 by J. Presper Eckert and John W. Mauchly at the Univomity of
aI infonnation in Pennsylvania for the U.S. Army, which employed it for ballistic calcula­
• ir5 consumption tions. ENIAC, which stood for Electronic Numerical Integrator And Com­
lid. over a quarter puter, was a gigantic machine using more than 18,000 vacuum tubes and
year plan to trans­ weighing some 30 tons.
clifPtal documents
Eckert and Mauchly went on to develop a successor computer, the
UNIVAC 1 (Universal Automatic Computer 1), constructing it under the
PO were pioneers auspices oftheir own company. The UNIVAC 1 used 13,000 fgwer V:lC­
l Americans. At the uum tubes than the ENIAC. reducing the size of the computer by over
• has come to tran­ two-thirds but still weighing eight tons! Eckert and Mauchly sold their
(I(eOyer. since the technology to Remington Rand in 1950, and in 1951 Remington Rnnd
1M 10K' as well, in­ sold the first UNIVAC computer to the Census Bureau, making it thg first
Idnu:tUl'Q for infor­ commercially available computer. It was also the first alphanumeric
nging information computer, capable of handling text for government and business. The
ly and to reinvent U.S. Navy and the Atomic Energy Commission bought the second and
cnrity, particularly third UNIVACs. The first private sector purchaser was General Electric,
m)' number of reg­ which bought the eighth UNIVAC 3 years later in 1954, UNIVACS were
rspace. phased out, however, in the mid 1950s.
n CHAPTER 2. A BP.IEF HISTORY OF PUBLiC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

The advent of widespread mainframe computing in the federal govern­ ers." Tho!
ment was associated with IBM's 701 computer, which was sold starting System Do
in 1952-1953 for defense purposes during the Korean War. IBM. in an directly liD
alliance with Harvard University, had developed the Mark 1 computer ARPAnet, t
in 1944. but it had been a relay computer. relying on decimal storage It reached 1
wheels and rotary dial switches. IBM chief Thomas Johnson Watson had nections in
the 701 developed specifically for the Korean War effort. as a "defense resoarch pn.
calculator." Early 701s were sold to the U.S. Navy, the Department of fundamenta.
Defense, aircraft companies, atomic research laboratories, and other gov­ online digC\l
ernment agencies. accidental !,l
1990, hadnE
A new level of computer use in government was achieved by the IBM
7090, introduced in 1950 as the first commercial transistorized com­
puter and the world's fastest. With the 7090 and its upgrades, IBM dom­
ESTABLISHING THE I
inated the mainframe world of computing in the 1960s and 1970s. Then,
INFORMATION POU
in the face of competition by Apple Computer's revolutionary desktop
microcomputer, IBM introduced the IBM PC in 1981. Intended as a per­ Although not
sonal computer for use in the home and not competitive with IBM's gmergence of
mainframe computers for business, the PC soon came into general gov­
ernmental and business use, eventually ending the stand-alone main­ The Admini.!:lt
framg architecture for IT, Gal piecm; of I,
(APAL which I
In 1957 as IBM's 701 computers were coming into widespread use in the
regulatiom to;
federal govgrnment, the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial
eleGtronic u , "
satellite, Sputnik-I. In direct response, that same year the federal govern­
inga and publit
ment established the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) within
the APA becm
the Department of Defense to promote defense technology. Over the next
12 years, major governmental initiatives reconstructed telecommunica­ rUlemakiug.
tions infrastructure and created the predecessor of the modern Internet. The Federal XI
Some of these initiatives were specifically military. Semi-Automatic Act of 1950 (A
Ground Environment and the related Whirlwind project (1958), for quate and prop
instanGe. represented major advances in data communications technology decisions, pro
and were used in the service of air defense. In 1960, President Eisenhower Combined \\itJ
placed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in Electronic Free
charge of communications satellite development. Echo, NASA's first satel­ for the mandatf
lite, was launched August 12 and functioned to reflect radio waves back
The Freedom I
to earth. ;rhe Communications Act of 1962 combined the efforts of AT&T,
established thl
NASA, and the Department of Defense to create Comsat on February 1,
Agencies ,\'ere
1963. In 1964, led by Comsat, a consortium of 19 nations formed IntelSat
their own initio
with the purpose of providing global satellite coverage and interconnec­
fled certain exe
tivity. IntelSat in 1965 launched the Early Bird satellite, the world's first
matters, interru
commercial communications satellite, serving the Atlantic Ocean Region.
tected by othe
Global satellite coverage was achieved by IntelSat 7 years later, in 1969.
secrets and fim
In an effort that predated the modern Internet by decades. in 1965 ARPA civil discoverr
sponsored a study of the "cooperative network of time-sharing comput­ privacy, im'esti
lGY POLICY
the federal govern­
:II was sold starting
an War. IBM, in an
e Mark 1 computer
on decimal storage
ohnson Watson had
ifnrt. as a "defense
the Department of
mes. and other gov­
aeyed by the IBM
banSistorized com­
IfI8"9-des. IBM dom­
ESTABLISHING THE ARCHITECTURE OF FEDERAL
III and 1970s. Then,
INFORMATION POLICY, 1946-1980
lUlutionary de5klop
I.lD.tended as a per­
,.m,-e with IBM'g
.. into ggngral gov­
t d!Dld-aloDl=! main­
ilmpread use in the
_leh first artificial
r IIIIc federal govern­
~ L\RP.\) within
~_ On~r the next
II!II tdernmmuniea­
• ...-iern Internet.
~ Semi-Automatio
.~ {19(8), for
IIIiI:IIions tochnology
.&i"Pnt llignhowflr
~ C\"\SA) in
a,N.-\S.-\:s first satel­
f! ad.io wayes back
~ dbts of i\T&T,
~ em February 1,
;.. bmed InteiSat
~.-) inteocollneG­
.tIae ,,-odd's first
- Oc.oon Region.
,.., l:Ib!!r. in 1969.
IIIIIIL irn. 1Q65 ARPA
_ h iug comput-
Establishing the Architeaure of Federal Information Policy, 1946-1980 33
ers." The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Lab and the
System Development Corporation in Santa Monica, California, were
directly linked via a dedicated 1200 bps phone line. Finally, in 1969
ARPAnet, the predecessor of the Internet, went online with four nodes.
It reached 15 nodes by 1971, had e-mail in 1972, and international con­
nections in 1973, the year in which Bob Kahn started the "internetting"
research program at ARPA, working with others to develop many of the
fundamental concepts on which the Internet rests. ARPAnet initiated
online discussion lists in 1975 and suffered its first viruses in 1980 (an
accidental status message virus). ARPAnet was not phllsed out until
1990, having performed its function as the test bed of thg Interngt.
Although not directed specifically toward IT, thg postwar pgriocl saw tbg
emergence of several pillars of federal information policy.
The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. The earligst of thgse criti­
cal pieces of legislation was the Administrative Procedures Act of 1945
(APA), which required agencies responsible for proposing new rules and
regulations to publish them in the Federal Register, which developed an
electronic version in 1993. More significantly, the APA required hellf­
ings and public participation in regulatory rule making. In the late 1990s
the APA became a legal basis for elgctronic public participation in e·
rulemaking.
The Federal Records Act of 1950. Four years later, the Foderal Recordg
Act of 1950 (FRA, amended 1964). mandated agencies to preserve "ade­
quate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, polioies,
decisions, procedures, and essential tnm5actiontl of the agency."
Combined with the 1966 Freedom of Information Act and thg 1996
Electronic Freedom of Information Act, the FRA became the legal basis
for the mandate that federal agencies make information available online.
The Freedom of Information Act of 1966. This act, known as FOIA.
established the right of public access to government informfltion.
Agencies were required to make information available automatically at
their own initiative or in response to individual f(lqUgsts. FOIA speci­
fied certain exemptions. including classified defense and foreign policy
matters, internal agency personnel rules and practices. information pro­
tected by other laws (e,g., many contractor bids), commercial trado
secrets and financial information. documents normally privileged in thg
civil discovery context, personal information affecting an individual's
privacy, investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes,
34 CHAPTER 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

information that might reasonably be construed to interfere with law

enforcement or deprive a person of a fair trial, information revealing the
identity of a confidential source, information needed to protect the safety
of individuals, records of financial institutions, and geographical infor­
mation on oil wells. Three decades later, the Electronic Freedom of
Information Act Amendment of 1996 (EFOIA) updated the Freedom of
Information Act for the digital era.
The Technology Assessment Act of 1972. This act created the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) , later disbanded as other IT agencies
superceded it. The OTA, along with the Congressional Research Service
(reconstituted and expanded by the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970) and the Congressional Budget Office (created by the Budget Im­
poundment Act of 1974) became major users of FOIA to access executive
agency data.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. FACA was an elaboration
of the 1966 FOIA legislation. It required timely notice in the Federal
Register of advisory committee meetings. FACA also required agencies
to allow interested parties to appear or file written statements and man­
dated that advisory committees keep detailed minutes (to include a
record of the persons attending, documents received, documents issued,
and documents approved by committees). These materials and all other
advisory committee minutes, transcripts, reports, and studies were
required to be available for public inspection.
The Privacy Act of 1974. This act protected the privacy of individuals
identified in information systems maintained by federal agencies. The
collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information were
regulated. The Privacy Act forbade disclosure of any record containing
personal information, unless released with the prior written consent of
the individual. Agencies were also mandated to provide individuals
with access to their records.
The Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976. This was another elabo­
ration of the 1966 FOIA. It established the principle that the public is
entitled to the fullest practicable information regarding the decision­
making processes of federal agencies.
....

1k~
The Presidential Records Act of 1978. This post-Watergate legislation
changed the legal ownership ofthe official records ofthe president from ..,..
private to public, further expanding public access to federal information. -II
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. The PRA mandated an informa­ -'
du
$
tion resource management (IRM) approach to federal data. This impor­
tant piece of legislation was the culmination of a decade of information
policy discussion and debate and represented the first truly unified pol­
icy framework for IRM at the federal level. The director of the Office of

MWEt£lI!t
0L0G'r Poucy
lD interfere with law
nnation revealing the
d to protect the safety
d ~a.phical infor­
II:I:1TOnic Freedom of
lated the Freedom of
created the Office of
15 other IT agencies
mal Research Service
eorganization Act of
d by the Budget Im­
A to access executive
A was an elaboration
mce in the Federal
II) required agencies
FROM BITNETTO FIRSTGOV: GROWTH OFTHE INTERNET,
llatements and man­
1981-2000
inutes (to include a
I., documents issued,
IIIerials and all other
;,. and studies were
:iYacr of individuals
IIdernl agencies. The
iJl information were
IY record containing
.. written consent of
protide individuals
; .-as another elabo­
Ie that the public is
IIrl:ing the decision-
Iatergate legislation
.the president from
iederal information.
-.dated an informa­
II data. This impor­
lCade of information
1St truly unified pol­
elm of the Office of
From BITNET to FirstGov:Growth of the Internet, 1981-2000 35
Management and Budget (OMB) was given responsibility for developing
a policy for treating information as a resource and for overseeing the
implementation of an IRM plan. A major revision of the PRA in 1995
made strategic planning for IRM a federal mandate.
Thus, by the end of the 1970s, the federal government had moved from
data management to IRM and had put in place the legal infrastructure
to ensure both public access to federal information and also the protec­
tion of individual privacy. As later chapters will discuss, this legisla­
tion was less than effective in rendering its lofty ideals into satisfactory
practice. Moreover, these acts were the architectural underpinning for
what was to come, but they were written before the full impact of the
IT revolution in the two decades that followed. That impact ensured
that policies associated with the legislation enumerated above would
continue to require revisitation for the remainder of the century and, in­
deed, to the present day.
The last two decades of the 20th century witnessed the coming of age of
the Internet, which in turn breathed life into visions of e-governance dis­
cussed in Chapter 1. In 1981 there was no Internet. By 2000, the federal
government had established an impressive presence on the Web-a
presence that many thought would change everything.
The year 1981 saw the establishment of BITNET, the Because It's Time
NETwork. This important forerunner of the Internet was initiated as a
cooperative network at the City University of New York. It provided
electronic mail, file transfer, and discussion list functionality. In 1986
the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded NSFNet as a backbone
network. In 1987, NSF signed a cooperative agreement to manage
NSFNet in cooperation with IBM, MCI, and Merit Network. By the end
of 1987 there were 10,000 Internet hosts. Together, the military'S
ARPAnet, academia's BITNET, and the government's NSFNet formed the
triad of networks that melded to become the modern Internet.
By 1984 computer networking had advanced to the point where a for­
mally administered system of addresses was necessary. The domain
name system (DNS) was established that year, allowing users to employ
mnemonic Internet addresses (URLs-uniform resource locator ad­
dresses, such as www.nsf.gov) instead of numeric Internet provider (IP)
addresses. The translation between URLs and their IP numeric counter­
parts was first done through a single lookup file, hosts. txt, maintained
by UCLA's Jon Postel, on a Department of Defense contract. Later, a
36 CI-IAPTER 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

company called SRI maintained the lookup file, transferring it by file

transfer protocol (a way to transfer computer files over networks) to
server administrators around the country and around the world. In 1984,
USC's Information Sciences Institute devised the modern DNS, in which
DNS address information is spread out across the Internet. Maintenance
of DNS administration remained under Department of Defense contract
until 1991, when the NSF took over the nonmilitary portion. In 1992,
NSF contracted with Network Solutions, Incorporated (NS!) to perform
this function. Later, the government-created Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers assumed responsibility for the DNSs and
related Internet infrastructure functions, though tbe military remains
responsible for the .mil sector, the federal government for the .gov sec­
tor, and foreign governments for their own domains.

By 1989, the number of Internet hosts reached 100,000, and the fol­
lowing year ARPAnet was phased out, eclipsed by NSFNet. When the
Clinton administration took office, the growing significance of the
Internet was already clear. Vice President Al Gore had been a cham­
pion of the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, which autho­
rized the creation of a "national high-performance computing program"
for high-speed networking and established the National Research and
Education Network. A year later the number of Internet hosts had
reached one million, the first Web browser software was released
(Mosaic, created by Tim Berners-Lee), and the age of Web surfing was
launched. The same year, 1992, the first White House Web page was
put up, and in 1993 public e-mail to the president and vice-president
was inaugurated.

Up to 1992, access to the Internet backbone was limited by the NSF's

"Acceptable Use Policy." This restriction, instituted by the National
Science Foundation Act, prohibited commercial traffic on the Internet.
Up to 1992, all Internet traffic had to be educational, scientific, or re­
search oriented. With the support of Congressman Rick Boucher (D,
VA), Chairman of the Science Subcommittee of the House Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, legislation was passed and in Nov­
ember 1992 President Bush signed new legislation that repealed the
Acceptable Use Policy, replacing it with language that permitted com­
mercial traffic on the Internet backbone. The effects were profound and
immediate.

The commercialization of the Internet was given a further accelerant in

1992, when the Supreme Court in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota
chose to uphold the precedent of its Bellas Hess V. Illinois State
Department of Revenue (1967) case. These principles prohibited Inter­
net sales taxation, overruling a North Dakota Supreme Court finding that
Q..OGT POLlO
From BITNET to FirstGov: Growth of the Internet, 1981-1000 37

tr:m!;fprring it by file
technology had made the 1967 ruling obsolete. The tax prohibition
las oyer networks) to
applied to vendors with no physical presence in the state. In 1991), the
ad the world. In 1984, World Trade Organization (WTO), meeting in Singapore, reduced tariffs
lDdem DNS, in which
on IT trade items, thereby encouraging global Internet commercial de­
kdernet ~aintenance velopment And in 1998, the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 (ITFA)
III of Defense contract imposed a 3-year moratorium on state and local taxation of Internet
tary portion. In 1992, access-a moratorium that was subsequently renewed. 1 The overall ef­
IIIed (XSI) to perform fect of Supreme Court, congressional, and WTO actions was to open up
llnet Corporation for e-commerce as a very attractive milieu for doing business.
iIi:ty for the DNSs and
the military remains
By the time federal funding of the Internet ended in 1993, the Internet
llent for the .gov sec­
had become a private-sector entity. Routing began through private pro­
s..
viders in 1994. NSFNet to being a limited research network. But
loo.OOO. and the fol­ the commercialization of the Internet did not mean the federal govern­
r KSFXet. When the ment had lost interest in promoting IT infrastructure-far from it. The
significance of the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993 mandated funding pri­
e had been a cham­ ority in federal research and development efforts be given to accelerated
tOOl. which autho­ development of high-performance computing and high-speed network­
I:DIDputing program" ing services.
tional Research and
: Internet hosts had The federal government also became more sensitive to social problems
hr:tn> was released associated with the growth of the Internet in this period. The Commgrcg
:of Web surfing was Department's 1995 National Telecommunications and Information
louse Web page was Administration's report, "Falling Through the Net," brought widespread
t and \-ice-president public attention to the issue of the digital divide. In reaction, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided for a Universal Service Fund
fee (a telephone tax, also known as the HE-rate" fund or fee), pa:rt of
iIIlited by the NSF's which became used on a Clinton administration initiative to providg
at b,- the National modem-based Internet access to schools, libraries, Indian reservations,
.me on the Internet. and other digital divide target groups.
- . scientific. or re­
II Riel Boucher (D, At the start of the new millennium, on June 24, 2000, President Clinton
D House Committee made the first presidential Internet address to the nation, calling for the
pas,..~ and in Nov­ establishment of the FirstGov,gov portal, a consumer-oriented one-stop
II that n!pealed the Web address leading to all that the federal government had to offer. It
IIat permitted com­ was seen by some as the start of building the virtual state. FirstGov.gov
were profound and was launched September 22, 2000, as a Clinton management initiative
that provided a gateway to 47 million federal government Weh pages.
FirstGov.gov also linked state, local, DC, and- tribal government pages in
ather accelerant in an attempt to prOVide integrated service information in particu)IH argall,
.... Xorth Dakota such as travel. It was managed by the Office of Citizen Servin!s and
m- I: Illinois State
Communications within the General Services Administration (GSA). It
.. prohibited Inter­ fell short of some aspirations for it, but FirstGov.gov marked a tremen­
e Gmrt finding that dous milestone in federal IT policy.
39 CHAPTEI\ 2 A Bfl.IEF HISTOI\Y OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

POLICY ISSUES IN THE INFORMATION AGE, 1986-2005

The coming of the information age brought with it several policy issues,
all having the common theme of applying long-standing social princi­
ples to new situations created by the possibilities of leT. These issues
included guaranteeing public access to electronic information, promot­
ing public participation in e-government, ensuring accessibility for the
disabled, protecting individual privacy, modernizing education, secur­
ing intellectual property, and, more recently, implementing electronic
voting and stopping the export of American IT jobs.

Public access to electronic information. EFOIA extended the right of cit­

izens to access executive agency records, updating FOIA rights to include
access to electronic formats and mandating agencies to provide online
opportunities for public access to agency information. EFOIA officially
defined a record in very broad terms. Release of information had to be in
a format convenient to the user instead of the agency's choosing, as pre­
vious case law had held. Agencies were required to make "reasonable ef­
.. ­ .,
forts" to search electronic databases for records. Electronic reading rooms
were required to have available "policy statements, administrative rul­
ings and manuals, and other materials that affect members of the public."
In 1998, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) , in
Bulletin 98-02: Disposition of Electronic Records, reminded agencies of
5 ,t
their obligations under federal law to provide documentation of agency
activities, including website pages and records.
'j
7
7

)7 . ,

.... i
Public participation in e-government. Toward the end of the last decade ~

of the century, e-government advocates increasingly emphasized the

- .
p .­
need to go beyond passive information provision and instead actively -=T~j
involve citizens in agency decision processes. In 1997, the U.S.
••
Department of Agriculture became the first federal agency to engage in
e-rulemaking, soliciting Web-based comments on rules for organic foods.
This initiative won the 1998 Government Technology Leadership Award.
A few other agencies followed suit, but implementation of this type of
------.

.....
ma....
!­

initiative did not become widespread until management of e-rulemaking

became one of the two dozen Quicksilver e-government projects of the
Bush administration's President's Management Agenda in 2001. In 2002
.....­
1m"'.

....
11Iis.....
the OMB called for a uniform protocol for e-rulemaking by the end of 21m.. willi!
2003. Finally, Regulations.gov was launched as a new one-stop Web por­ ~
tal in late 2002, part of the Bush administration e-government initiatives.
On this site, citizens could find, review, and submit comments on fed­ )( , 7 ,

eral documents that are open for comment and published in the Federal its - I I I
Register. 2 t:imL. n.1
Accessibility for the disabled. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of drt-di i
aDSSFtI
1986 (sometimes called the Rehabilitation Act of 1986) added Section
 ..-,

IGT POuCY Policy Issues in the Information Age, 1986-2005 39

508 to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 508 required federal agen­
cies to establish guidelines for making IT accessible to the disabled.
-al policy issues, Agency accessibility evaluations were mandated, and the attorney gen­
IIIiiIIg social princi­ eral was charged with compliance evaluation. The 1998 Amendments to
fK:T. These issues the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required federal agencies to make their
lilnnation. promot­ electronic information, including their Internet pages, available to peo­
a::essibilitv for the ple with disabilities. This strengthened the Section 508 disability access
I education, secur­ standards mandated, by the 1986 amendments, though a significant loop­
~ting electronic hole allowed federal agencies to be exempted from Section 508 imple­
mentation where the disability initiative in question would constitute
an undue burden.
W the right of cit­
Ll\rights to include Individual privacy. Privacy in cyberspace has been a continuing con­
:to prmide online gressional priority as federal IT has become pervasive, though imple­
L EFOL\ officially mentation has been weak, as later chapters discuss. The Computer
-.lion had to be in Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 was an amendment to the
II chOOSing, as pre­ Privacy Act of 1974 that extended Privacy Act protections to most
- -reasonable ef­ forms of computer matching of individual records across agencies .
.uc: reading rooms However, in 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
lliministrative rul­ Reconciliation Act, also known as welfare reform, required interstate
~ of the public." and intergovernmental coordination for the matching of records to
IIICIIion [~ARA), in ensure that no individual exceeded the allotted 5-year lifetime cap on
liDded agencies of assistance. Moreover, many IT initiatives after the terrorist strike of
llltation of agency September 11, 2001, were based on creating new levels of computer
matching of individual records, often in secret and rarely with individ­
ual consent.
I of the last decade
, emphasized the
President Clinton, in his presidential memorandum of May 14, 1998 (Pri­
II instead actively
vacy and Personal Information in Federal Records), directed federal
• 1997. the U.S.
agencies to review their compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974. Each
IIIIlDCY to engage in agency was to designate a senior official for privacy policy. Each agency
I for organic foods.
was required to conduct a Privacy Act compliance review. This require­
r..dership Award.
ment was generalized under the Bush administration, when in 2003 the
ion of this type of
OMB required privacy assessments as part of the FY 2005 budget process.
III: of e-rulemaking
For the first time agencies were required to submit privacy assessments
!Ill projects of the
of major IT systems as part of their annual business case submissions.
Ia in 2001. In 2002 This implemented privacy provisions detailed in the E-Government Act of
ing by the end of
2002, which included sections on privacy assessments and Web site pri­
l8le-stop Web por­
vacy statements.
mInent initiatives.
comments on fed­
Modernizing education. In the 1990s, the federal government increased
bed in the Federal its support for modernizing technology infrastructure in public educa­
tion. The Information and Technology Act of 1992 promoted technology
:I Amendments of development in public education, health care, and industry and called
16) added Section on NSF to fund efforts to connect K-12 classrooms to NSFNet. And, as
40 CHAPTER 2 A BRIEF HISTORY Of PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

mentioned above, the Telecommunications Act of 1995 provided for the Thedn
HE-rate" telephone tax to fund Internet access for schools, libraries, and con.ftuo.
others. Likewise. the Library Services and Technology Act of 1995 pro­ pel$OnaI
vided additional IT funding for public libraries. Finally, the New Commm
Millennium Classrooms Act of 2000 provided tax incentives to corpora­ from chi
tions to donate up-to-date computers and related technology to schools and 5imi
and libraries. dren 1»41
tered _
RQgulating Q-vicQ. The dark side of the Internet also came under con­
gressional scrutiny in the 1990s. The Communications Decency Act of To~-SllJiII

1996 (CDA) prohibited Internet distribution of "indecent" materials. GoIIJ.IIJi:l

A few months later a three-judge panel issued an injunction against trot"~

its enforcement on grounds of vagueness. The Supreme Court unan­ to r.. nul
imously ruled most of the CDA unconstitutional in 1997. Subse­ The Pm!
quently, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) established Title X.
$50,000 fines for commercial Web publishers who knowingly used prort. .
the Web to allow children to view pornography. It also required adults non ....
to have to use access codes or other registration procedures before Th,p. " .
being allowed to see objectionable material online. The American ~-dII
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the position that COPA criminal­
ized free speech. In the last case of its term, by a five to four vote, in lbr: CW
the case of Ashcroft v. the AGLU (2004), in July 2004 the Supreme liIJeUt III'
Court ruled that COPA "likely violates the First Amendment" and that
.....
fAwaIiI
the government had not shown that its more restrictive approach was
more effective than less restrictive approaches such as filtering soft­
ware. The case was remanded to the lower courts, where the Bush
--- ...
Iftp'·
.".
•

administration was expected to continue to defend the law as of this .A ••

writing. fir- OJ
noc-.
.. ...,.
........
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995 (CPPA) sought to outlaw
digitally altering images of nude adults to make them appear to be chil­
dren. This was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2002 on grounds it n. ....
unduly censored artistic expression. Congress then reworded its legisla­
tion and passed the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the .. ..e
Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT). This also out­
lawed adult images being digitally altered to appear as if children were
having sex and prohibited use of misleading domain names that tempt
children to access pornography. An amendment to PROTECT is the Child
Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2003 (confusingly also
called COPPA, the same acronym as the 1998 act discussed below), which
addressed the Supreme Court's 2002 decision by not mentioning artistic
morphing of images at all, but instead simply outlawed solicitation to
buy or sell child pornography. The ACLU found PROTECT to be a con­
siderable improvement over the CPPA, but still found it fell short of free
speech standards.
:r Poucy
Policy Issues in the Information Age, 1986-2005 41

i prmided for the The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA, not to be
DIs. libraries, and confused with COPA, above) made it illegal to collect, use, or disclose
Act of 1996 pro­ personal information from children under 13. Enforced by the Federal
'malh-. the New Communications Commission, COPPA required those who collect data
1Ii,""e5 to corpora­ from children under 13 to first obtain parental permission. Chat rooms
Bogy to schools and similar websites were also prohibited from collecting data on chil­
dren as a prerequisite for access to the sites. COPPA legal action has cen­
came under con­ tered on nonpornographic commercial sites such as GirlsLife.com and
s Decency Act of Toysmart.com, which became entangled in COPPA-related Federal Trade
!Cent"" materials. Commission (FTC) fines and litigation. COPPA has been much less con­

_e
junction against
Court unan­
in 1997. Subse­
troversial than other legislation mentioned in this section and is thought
to be unlikely to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, in its

..~-\) established Title X, Section 604, made it the responsibility of Internet service
mowingly wled providers (ISPs) to report to law enforcement authorities any informa­
• required adults tion pertaining to child pornography, child prostitution, or child abuse.
DCPdures before The great majority of reporting under this act has been in the first Gate·
_ Thfl .·umJrican gory, child pornography.
COP.-\ criminal­
! to four \'ote, in The Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 (CIPA) was an amend.
1M tht- Supreme ment to an omnibus appropriations bill for the departments of Labor,
dmt-nt"' and that Education, and Health and Human Services. It required use of filter soft­
~ ilpproach was ware by schools and libraries that received federal funds. Part of CIPA
.. filtflring soft­ was the Neighborhood Children's Internet Protection Act, which
"eIQ the Bush required schools and libraries to post Internet safety guidelines. The
II! law as of this American Library Association and the ACLU challenged the constitu­
tionality of CIPA, the former on digital divide grounds (poorer citizens
who can only get Internet access through libraries would be restricted to
~t to outlaw a smaller, inferior subset of the Web) and the latter on traditional free
ppear to be chil­ speech grounds. Supreme Court upheld CIPA in a 6-3 decision on June
12 on grounds it 23, 2003 .
...ted its legisla­
.as Against the In 2002, Congress passed the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency
).. This also out· Act, creating a new .kids domain, similar to .com and .edu. This domain
iI children were was to be a child-friendly space constituting a safe zone for children,
-.es that tempt monitored for content, safety, and from which all objectionable material
ILl is the Child would be removed. Online chat rooms and instant messaging were pro­
-UU;inal\' also hibited unless they could be certified as safe. The websites under this
~ ­

.. tJt'low). which new domain would not connect a child to other online sites outside the
.rioDing artistic child-friendly zone. While representing a novel approach to the issue of
• mlicitation to child protection on the Internet, as of this writing the .kids domain
II::T to bQ a con­ remains relatively unpopulated and unused.
WI ~bon of free The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Market­
ing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM) gave the FTC, state attorneys general, and
42 CHArTER 2 A BI\IEF HISTOI\Y OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

ISPs the power to enforce rules requiring senders of marketing e-mail to ..........
to COUIIIII
include pornography warnings, to offer opt-out methods, and to not use
falae or deceptive information in e-mail subject lines. The law became IlDsallo
effective January 1, 2004, and authorized the FTC to impose fines up to x..wJa
$250 por o-mail, with a cap of $2 million for initial violations and $6 _ot: _)
million for repeat violations (these caps do not apply to e-mail using fIIInx..

false/deceptive aubject lines), There were also criminal penalties includ­ 76 \DIIJII
ing up to 5 years of prison. The FTC was mandated to develop a plan for bowa.
a national do-not-spam registry and was authorized to launch the list ~
after filing its report.
A 2004 Btudy found that most spammers were ignoring the CAN-SPAM
~
parft:ww

~n.l
...
law. However, it was only in April 2004 that the first CAN-SPAM pros­ IT lII1:d...
ecutions took place against operations promoting diet patches and
human grown hormone pills. In May 2004, the FTC required that the In~
term SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: appear in the subject line of sexually ori­ from tI.::
ented commercial e-maiL In June 2004, the FTC advised Congress that haTt" ....
the proposed no-spam national registry could not be implemented until af!a::t tl.:1
technology emerged that could verify the origin of e-mail. The~
Cinf':Stt.
Securing intellectual property. Largely in response to demands from the IXllitlad ill
entertainment industry, Congress moved to protect intellectual property
rights through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA),
which extended copyrights to digital media, but the "Fair Use Doctrine"
was retained to promote the rights of universities, libraries, and other
occaBional Wlers of intellectual property. The act also prohibited removal ET'eIl bc6..
of copyright management information from electronic media, outlawing
the circumvention of antipiracy access controls. The DMCA imple­
~­
~iDWi
nm:.lllba- _
mented the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPOJ Copy­
right Treaty of 1996 and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
of the same year. The next year, the Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention
Act of 1999 outlawed cybersquatting, giving corporations and others pro­
~
1_
In the
C..IlP".
tection against those who register well-known domain names as a means npID2D,
of extorting fees from existing trademark owners. fnmd _-\ 111
Electronic voting. The "hanging chad" controversy over voting in the Intf""5t* "
2000 presidential elections motivated passage of the Help America Vote tioos PtiwIiI
Act of 2002 (HAVA). HAVA funded replacement of lever and punch card crimin;;aJi;,.
voting technologies with new electronic systems. By January 1, 2004, ~,.I
the~
states had to submit plans to switch to electronic voting machines for
use in the 2006 national elections. However, since 2002, numerous
issues have emerged about the security and integrity of existing elec­
my d
requind iii
H"
tronic voting systems from Diebold and other vendors, bringing imple­ 3l!!Lmi1! . .
mentation into question and raising fears of litigation. Intbel~
Regulating the outsourcing of IT jobs. The faltering performance of the tedun!~
economy and the approaching 2004 presidential elections brought 19901..~
GT Poucy
..n.eting e-mail to
Us. and to not use
I. The law became
-.pose fines up to
'I'iolations and $6
Iy to trmail tilling
I penalties includ­
_~lop a plan for
Iu launch the list
11K the CAN-SPAM
&A.."t-SPAM proB­
diet patchea and
lllqaired that the
• of sexually ori­
lid Congreaa that
~ented until
IIIil.
IaB:mds from the
IIRa::tu.al property
"'" 1008 (DMCA),
- t)~ Doctrine" SECURING E-GOVERNMENT, 1986-2005
~. and other
flllDbited removal
~outlawing
• 1l!\.fL-\ imple­
.... f"'1PO) Copy­
t ~ Treaty
IiIIIcY Preyention
_.ad otherB pro­
~iI.<;ameans
. . 'fVting in the
IIIp America Vote
r..a punch card
" a!'y 1. 2004,
... aw-hinea for
~ numerous
"* c:Dsti.ng elec­
I.l.ringing imp le-
IIIIIrwumce of the
IIIeIic:IDs brought
Securing E-Government, /986-2005 43
another IT policy issue to national center stage: the offshoring of IT jobs
to countries such as India and Ireland, where lower wages prevailed.
This also raised information security issues in the case of federallT work,
as well as issues of enforcement of privacy protection legislation when
work is performed abroad. Passed in January 2004, a provision of the
omnibus budget bill barred companies that win federal jobs through A­
76 competitions from shifting the work to other countrie5. The meaSUT\:1,
known as the Thomas-Voinovich Amendment (after its two Republican
sponsors), prohibited for one year any work won by a vendor from being
"performed by the contractor at a location outside the United States,"
unless the work is already being done overseas by government gmploy­
ees. The bill reflected growing congressional opposition to outsourcing
IT work, especially overseas.
In summary, the period from 1986 to the present has brought IT policy
from the sidelines to the forefront of congressional attention. Policies
have been formed and implemented in a wide variety of arenas tha.t
affect the way government does business and the rights of all Americans.
The policy issues raised in each arena are far from resolvedi in most
cases the legislated solutions are less than effective, and much more
political and agency activity may be anticipated in the future.
Even before the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. guaran­
teeing the security of cyberspace was emerging as a central concern for
those involved in public IT policy. After 9111, security emerged as the
number one priority of federal information officers, and IT budgets WQTQ
reallocated to reflect its heightened importance.
In the 1980s, security was seen primarily in tmms of computer crime. The
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 impD!md fines and imprisonment
up to 20 years for various types of unauthorized computm access and
fraud. A 1996 amendment extended coverage to all computgrs involvgd in
interstate commerce and communications. The Electronic Communica­
tions Privacy Act of 1986 updated wiretap laws for the digital era and also
criminalized the unauthorized capture of telecommunications between
network points. The Computer Security Act of 1987 [CSA) mandated that
the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST) develop secu­
rity standards and guidelines for federal computer systems. The CSA alao
required that all federal agencies and their contractorB eBtabliBh computer
security plans.
In the 1990s, the Clinton administration began to put into placg thg archi­
tecture for securing cyberspace against foreign and domestic gngmi{}fJ. In
1994, reflecting FBI support, Congress passed the Digital Telephony Act,
+4 CHAPTER. 2 A BR.IEF HtSTOR.Y OF PUBLIC-SECTOR. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

requiring telecommunications carriers to design systems that would be _\I:'lO t

tappable by law enforcement authorities. In 1998, in his Presidential Prolvrl
Decision Directive 63 (Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures),
Inf:rd
based on recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical tral ma
Infrastructure Protection, President Clinton set forth the goal of estab­ p~1
lishing an integrated, secure IT infrastructure by 2003. A national center
to warn of infrastructure attacks was established in the National Be.1:taP )
Infrastructure Protection Center. Agencies were required to establish per­ law CD
formance measures of website security. authod
5epka
The Government Information Security Reform Act of 2000 (GISRA; part meantl
of the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act) amended the PRA by enact­ Act em
ing a new subchapter on "Information Security." Sometimes called the d ti.ll!!lll
Security Act, this legislation required the establishment of agency-wide than 1m
information security programs, annual agency program reviews, annual
independent evaluations of agency programs and practices, agency re­ -, q l:IIII
porting to OMB, and OMB reporting to Congress. GISRA covered pro­ P;ltrim,
grams for both unclassified and national security systems but exempted .lurhc.d
agencies operating national security systems from OMB oversight. ;md PI
they . .
The terrorist attack of 9/11 brought an escalation of activity to the secu­ Fedaa(
rity arena. The centerpiece legislation was the Homeland Security Act of inf~
2002, which established a chief information officer (CIa) for the new fOO@nl ~
Dflpartment of Homeland Security (DHS). The CIa was to oversee the ~
largest consolidation of federal databases in U.S. history. Other provi­
sions of Title 2 (the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection ~
pol.iq-I
title):
~-
5edJ:I.
• Section 201-The Office of Under Secretary for Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection was created to receive and integrate
security information, design and protect the security of data, and
issue security advisories to the public.
FOI'~
~
~
...
• Section 202-Transferred these units to DHS: the National Infrastructure DXSDiI
Protection Center of the FBI (other than the Computer Investigations and tbeF_~

Operations Section), the National Communications System of the De­ t:.:n'ldit •

partment of Defense, the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the np::wts.
Department of Commerce, the Computer Security Division of NIST, the aedit . .
National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center of the Depart­ Md-..4
ment of Energy, and the Federal Computer Incident Response Center of
the GSA.
• Section 203-This section established the secretary of homeland
-'-ily.
set ......

security's entitlement to receive intelligence and other information

from agencies.
• Section 204-Allows the federal government to deny FOIA requests
regarding information voluntarily provided by nonfederal parties to
the DHS.
GY POLICY
Securing E-Government, 1986-2005 45

!IllS that would be Also following 9/11, Executive Order 13231 (Critical Infrastructure
n his Presidential Protection in the Information Age) created the President's Critical
rl Infrastructures), Infrastructure Protection Board. The board was intended to be the cen­
Ossian on Critical tral executive branch policy body for cyberspace security. It was com­
the goal of estab­ posed of senior officials from more than 20 departments and agencies .
. A national center
in the National BeUer known by the general public, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 became
III to establish per- law on October 26 of that year. It gave government investigators greater
authority to track e-mail and to eavesdrop on telecommunications. In
September 2002, the court of review interpreted the USA Patriot Act to
moo (GISRA; part mean that surveillance orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
the P~\ by enact­ Act could apply to criminal as well as terrorist cases, meaning that U.S.
letimes called the citizens could suffer electronic eavesdropping on a less protected basis
Dt of agency-wide
than hitherto .
• nnifrwg, annual
mces. agency re­ A spate of new cybersecurity legislation followed on the hgelg of the
D{.\ Gon;red pro­ Patriot Act. The Cyber Security Research and Development Act of 2002
.... but exempted authorized funding for new computer and network security research
B OYer sight. and grant programs and shielded ISPs from customer lawsuits when
they reveal customer information to law enforcement authorities. The
IhilT to the secu­
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 strengthened the
III Security Act of information security program, evaluation, and reporting requirements of
ClO) for the new
federal agencies. In 2003, President Bush dissolved the Critical Infrn­
ID to oversee the
structure Protection Board, placing its functions in the new Homeland
Dr}-. Other provi.
Security Council, which was charged with coordinating cybersecurity
IIcture Protection
policy. Early strategy emphasized public- and private-sector best prac­
tices and downplayed enforcement of security policies on the private
sector.
IlIldtion Analysis
IJIU:md intograte For consumers, an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting l\ct 5trength~
ity of data, and ened laws to prevent identity theft, improve resolution of conaumer
disputes, improve the accuracy of consumer records. and make improve­
aal Infrastructure ments in the use of, and consumer access to, credit information. Called
IR1"!Stigations and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, the law requimd
ptem of the De­ credit reporting firms to give consumers free copies of thgir credit
~ Office of thg reports and the opportunity to correct them. Also, the law mquired that
Ilion of ~1ST, thg credit card receipts be shortened so as not to disclose consumgr namgs
... of the Depart­ and full credit card numbers. A National Fraud Alert System was also
!IpOnSe Center of set up to alert businesses of accounts suspected of being involved with
identity theft.
ry of homeland In 2004, the OMB formed the Information Systems Council (ISC) to co­
M information ordinate the sharing of terrorist information. This was seen as an im­
plementation of an August 2004 executive order by President Bush
r FOL\ requests (Strengthening the Sharing of Terrorism Information to Protect Ameri~
IIIcml parties to cans) and partially implementing recommendations of the 9/11 com­
mission. The ISC included representation from the departments of
46 CHAPTER 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and

Treasury. and the CIA, FBI, and National Counterterrorism Center. The
ISC's role was to coordinate what types of information systems were
deployed in these 10 agencies for purposes of antiterrorism.

Finally. the much-publicized recommendations of the 9/11 commission,

centering on how to avoid future terrorist attacks, included the long­
proposed establishment of a separate, secure network for federal informa­
tion sharing. The McCain-Lieberman bill (for Senators Joseph Lieberman,
D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz.) proposed such a network in
September 2004 for the dissemination of homeland security information,
in spite of some criticism that the plan would reduce redundancy and
increase the incentive for targeted hacking of federal information. Their
bill also called for establishment of a national intelligence authority and
creation of a national counterterrorism center.

BUILDING THE VIRTUAL STATE, 1990-2005

In terms of building e-government itself, one of the first important

pieces of legislation in the recent period (since 1990), was the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFOA). The CFOA called for (1) com­
plete and timely information prepared on a uniform basis and that is
responsive to the financial information needs of agency management;
(2) the development and reporting of cost information; (3) the integra­
tion of accounting and budgeting information; and (4) the systematic
measurement of performance. These four objectives required develop­
ment of a financial information system and networked access to it, as
well as a computerized performance tracking system-all central com­
ponents of e-government. 3

Political clout was given to the movement toward e-government by the

establishment of the National Performance Review (NPR) on March 3,
1993. (NPR was later renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing
Government). NPR represented the Clinton administration's belief in IT as
a tool to reform government. Under the leadership of Vice President AI
Gore, the NPR report, Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs
Less: Reengineering Through Information Technology; signified a water­
shed in thinking among governmental reformers. The reinventing govern­
ment movement, originated with a focus on decentralization/devolution,
by 1993 had come to see e-government as a major means of leveraging
reform. The Government Information Technology Services Board was cre­
ated in 1993 to help implement NPR in IT arenas.

Three other developments also made 1993 a watershed year for

e-government. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
GY POLICY
Building the Virtual State, 1990-2005 47

ostice, State, and required agencies to prepare multiyear strategic plans that described
orism Center. The agency mission goals and approaches for reaching them. The act also
tion systems were required agencies to prepare annual program performance reports to
rrorism. review progress toward annual performance goals, which, of course,
included IT goals. Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service
9/11 commission, Standards, 1993) mandated that all agencies, including IT agencies,
Deluded the long­ identify their customers, customer needs, and set standards and bench­
federal informa­
IJI' marks for customer service, laying the basis for a policy of customer ori­
Joseph Lieberman, entation as a keystone of e-government later in the decade. Finally, the
cb. a network in Government Information Locator System (GILS) was announced
mity information, February 22, 1993, as an Internet index to all federal materials. It re­
t redundancy and flected a decision of the Clinton administration to support direct agency
inlhrmation. Their release of electronic information, reversing a Reagan-era policy that hGld
~ authority and release should be contracted through private third parties.

The 1995 amendment to the PRA established strategic planning principles

for IRM, designated senior information resourceB manager positions in
major federal agencies. and created the Office of Information and Reg­
ulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB to provide central oVtlfBight of IT ac­
tivities across the federal government. OIRA was mandated to "develop
.. fi.r5t important
and maintain a government-wide strategic plan for information reBourGeS
11. Willi the Chief
management." The OIRA director became, in principle. the main IT advi­
IILxl for (1) com­
....,is iIDd that is sor to the director of the OMB. The PRA also called on agenGies to "ensure
that the public has timely and equitable acceSB to the public
IIiY miIDagemen t:
information," including electronically. Agency use of OILS (an Internet
I; (3) the integra­
index to federal information) was mandated. In these ways the PRA cre­
l) the systematic
ated the control structure for implementing the e-government initiatives
IIJ.lliI"Pd d9velop­
that were to come. To implement the PRA, the OMB's 1996 issue of Cir­
• 3CC1:J~S to it, as
cular A-130 mandated life cycle information management planning and
...n c9ntral COrn­ work process redesign.

The most important IT legislation of the decade was the Clinger-Cohen

.-nnumt by the
Act of 1996 (originally named the Information Technology Management
PIQ on March 3,
Reform Act of 1996, an amendment to the PRA of 1950), which estah·
I h RBinventing
"It ooliBf in IT as
lished a CIa in every federal agency, making agencies responsible for
developing an IT plan that relates IT planning to agency missions and
II» Progident Al
goals. The Clinger-Cohen Act also mandated top management involve­
:~r and Costs
ment in IT strategic planning, using IT portfolio management
iiIJIIifioo 11 water­
approaches. The oversight role of the director of the OMB was strength­
IIIII!!Il1ing govern­
ened. The Clinger-Cohen Act also accomplished the following;
....... devolution,
- of leveraging • Encouraged federal agencies to evaluate and adopt best managgmgnt
-Board was cre­ and acquisition practices used by private and public sector organiza­
tions
..t.d VB1U' for • Required agencies to base decisions about IT investmentB on quantita­
. . _o\.ct of 1 993 tive and qualitative factors related to costs. benefits. and risks, and to
46 CHI'IFTEf\ 2 A BRIEF HiSTORY OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

use performance data to demonstrate how well the IT expenditures

support improvements to agency programs through such measures like
reduced costs, improved productivity, and higher client satisfaction
• The Clinger-Cohen Act also streamlined the IT acquisition process by
ending the GSA's central acquisition authority. It placed procurement
responsibility directly with federal agencies and encouraged adoption of
smaller, more modular IT projects.

Later, when e-government became a priority, the existence of the CIO

strategic planning structure was an important element facilitating
e-government implementation at the federal level. President Clinton in
1996 issued Executive Order 13011, a companion to the Clinger-Cohen
Act, creating the CIO Council, an advisory body from 28 federal agencies
plus senior OMB/OIRA personnel. The CIO Council was intended to be
the central interagency forum for improving agency IT practices. EO
13011 represented the presidential "seal of approval" for e-government.
In practice the CIO Council was eclipsed by initiatives from the OMB
itself and did not become a major generator of IT initiatives under the
subsequent Bush administration.
The next major building block of IT policy was the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998 (GPEA), which authorized the
OMB to acquire alternative ITs for use by executive agencies (Sec.
1702); provided support for electronic signatures (Sections 1703-1707);
and provided for the electronic filing of employment forms (Sec.
1705). Electronic filing of most forms was required to be in place by
October 21, 2003. The GPEA was the legal framework for accepting
electronic records and electronic signatures as legally valid and
enforceable and also represented congressional endorsement of the e­
government strategy.4
At the same time, advocates of privatization and outsourcing of gov­
ernmental activities were making serious inroads in the world of pub­
lic IT. The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (FAIR)
required agencies to inventory and report to the OMB all of their com­
mercial activities. The FAIR Act then established a two-step adminis­
trative challenge and appeals process under which an interested party
could challenge the omission or the inclusion of a particular activity on
the inventory as a "commercial activity." Although the FAIR Act did
not require agencies to privatize, outsource, or compete its commercial
activities, subsequent OMB guidelines required that nonexempt com­
mercial activities undergo a cost evaluation for a "make or buy" deci­
sion. Each time a federal agency head considers outsourcing to the
private sector, a competitive process is required. FAIR put pressure on
agencies to outsource IT operations. Though core operations were not
I..OGY POLICY Building the Virtual State, 1990-2005 49

the IT expenditures to be outsourced. CIOs sometimes felt the core was encroached upon
h. such measures like and that it was difficult to establish effective performance standards
'client satisfaction with vendors.
quisition process by
President Clinton endorsed the concept of a federal government-wide
~ procurement
lDIl"aged adoption of Internet portal. Firstgov,gov, in his Presidential Memo of December 17,
1999 (Electronic Government). The President announced 12 steps agen­
cies could take, including getting forms online by December 2000, PO:lt­
!l:istence of the CIO ing online privacy policies, posting e-mail contact information, and
_mmt facilitating identifying e-gov "best practices." In the same year, the Pr8sidtmt's
~dent Clinton in
Management Council adopted digital government as one of its top three
It the Clinger-Cohen
priorities. On June 24, President Clinton made the first Internet address
I Z8 federal agencies
to the nation by a president of the United States, On September 22, ZOOO,
·was intended to be the FirstGov.gov portal was launched. In the 2000 election. both candi­
=1 IT practic8s. EO dates (Gore and Bush) advocated expansion of digital government.
~ for f:'-gon:!rnment. Though not limited to IT, the little-known Data Quality Act of 2000
~ from thf:l OMB (DQA, aka Information Quality Act) was Significant as an example of
IliJ:i.atin:l!; under the federal policy aimed at information controL Thb onf:l-paragraph provi­
sion was added without debate or hearings as Section 515a of the Trea­
I the Goyernmf:lnt sury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000. It charged
iI!Il authorized thf:l
OMB with the task of developing government-wide guidelines to ell9UI'O
Ih"o agencies (Sec.
and maximize the quality of information disseminated by ag9ncieg. Each
Idiom; 1703-1707);
agency must develop an administrative mechanism whereby affected
~nt forms (Sec.
parties can request that agencies correct poor-quality information (that
lID be in place by is, an appeals process was mandated). The practical effect of tl19 DQA
was to give primarily industry complainants the basis for holding up 9n­
IIDl'k for accepting
legally yalid and vironmental or other reports by objecting to individual statistics, rgquir­
lanement of the e­ ing agencies to provide evidence for every statistic and statement in a
report recommending some action. s

1-
.-am.n:ing of gov­
world of pub­
d 01 1998 (FAIR)
• ..n of thgir com­
The incoming Bush administration issued its core document, The Pre~;i •
dent's Management Agenda, in August 2001 (OMB, 2003a). This docu­
ment committed the Bush administration to five major management
objectives. one of which was electronic government. In June 2001. the
~@p adminis­ OMB created the position of Associate Director for Information Tech­
nology and E-Government. This gave the OMB a "point man" to give
• int@il'>Sted party
llirular activity on higher priority to IT initiatives, particularly the goal of creating a citizen­
centric government through e-government. Mark Forman waB thfl firBt to
• F~\IR "\ct did
III: ib commercial serve in this position.
t -.:mrxempt com­ The OMB issued the cornerstone document E-Government Strategy on
. . . or buy" ded­ February 17, 2002 (OMB, 2002). This document set forth the three fun­
--=nting to the damental Bush administration e-government principles: citizen-centric,
• pit pressure on results oriented, market based. 6 It also called for increased cross-agency
~werenot data sharing. Some 34 specific projects were identified for funding,
50 CHArTER 2 A BRIEf HISTORY OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

including the 23 (eventually 25) in the Quicksilver initiative announced

in October 2001:

• Government to citizen
• USA Service (GSA)
-- ........
IT u 2

_ .... I11III
Ii ...
~

• EZ Tax Filing (Treasury)

• Online Access for Loans (DoEd)
• Recreation One Stop (Interior)
• Eligibility Assistance Online (Labor)
• Government to business
• Federal Asset Sales (GSA)
• Online Rulemaking Management (DOT)
• Simplified and Unified Tax and Wage Reporting (Treasury)
• Consolidated Health Informatics (HHS)
• Business Compliance One Stop (SBA)
• International Trade Process Streamlining (Commerce)
• Government to government
• E-Vital (SSA)
• E-Grants (HHS)
• Disaster Assistance and Crisis Response (FEMA)
• Geospatial Information One Stop (Interior)
• Wireless Networks (Justice)
• Internal effectiveness/efficiency
• E-Training (OPM)
• Recruitment One Stop (OPM)
• Enterprise HR Integration (OPM)
• Integrated Acquisition (GSA)
• E-Records Management (NARA)
• Enterprise Case Management (Justice)

In 2002, the first Chief Technology Officer for the federal government
was appointed. This officer was to oversee the implementation of
e-government initiatives. Casey Coleman, heading up the GSA's Office
of Citizen Services, was appointed July 25. Although coordination of
implementation was shared with the GSA and CIO Council, the OMB
retained primary responsibility for IT and e-government policy at the
federal level.
Under the Bush administration, a performance engineering (systems
analysis) approach to public IT and e-government became ascendanL
Acting on a February 2002 recommendation from the Federal CIa
Council, the OMB established the Federal Enterprise Architecture Pro­
gram Management Office (FEAPMO) on February 6, 2002. In 2002
FEAPMO issued The Business Reference Model Version 1.0, which
created a functional (not department-based) classification of all gov­
ernment services with a view to its use by OMB for cross-agency
reviews to eliminate redundant IT investments and promote reusable
 lLOGY POLICY
Building the Virtual State, 1990-2005 51

llritiativeannounced
IT components. A Performance Reference Model (Fall 2002) set gen­
eral performance measurement metrics. A Data and Information Ref­
erence Model was issued to set uniform guidelines for data needed to
support Enterprise Architecture. Overall, this was reminiscent of 1960s
program planning and budgeting systems (PPB): functional instead of
line item budgeting, emphasis on empirical measurement of perform­
ance, strengthening top management oversight capabilities. Other 2002
developments included improvements in e-procurement and geospatial
recordkeeping. 7
Perhaps the best-known piece of 2002 IT legislation was the Electronic
Government Act of 2002 (EGA), passed November 15 and signed by the
og (Treasury) president on December 16. The act was sponsored by Senator Joe
Lieberman (0, Conn.) and was intended to promote e-government in all
federal agencies. In essence, the EGA formalized much of what had been
unerre)
done by the OMB's Associate Director for IT and E-Government:

• The EGA established an Office of Electronic Government (OEG)

1\.) within the OMB. The head of this office was to be appointed by the
president and report to the OMB director. In essence, this formalized
the administrative setup established by the OMB in 2001 under Mark
Forman, making the OEG head the federal CIO and the new OEG the
overseer of setting cross-agency standards, including privacy stan­
dards, and ensuring new e-government initiatives were cross-agency
in nature. As such the EGA represented a direct attack on the agency­
centric "stovepipe" approach to IT of prior years.
• The EGA required regulatory agencies to publish all proposed rules
on the Internet and to accept public comments via e-mail as part of
e-rulemaking.
rederal government • All information published in the Federal Register was now to be pub­
implementation of lished on the Web also.
rp the GSA's Office • The federal courts were required to publish rulings and other infor­
p coordination of mation on the Web.
CounciL the OMB • Privacy protections were added, prohibiting posting of personally
ment policy at the identifiable information. Privacy notices are required, codifying a
3-year-old OMB directive to agencies.
• The EGA also promoted better recruiting and training of federal IT
pneering (systems
officers. Each agency head was required to establish an IT training
JeCame ascendant.
program. Public-private employee exchange programs were also
I the Federal CIO
authorized.
I .Architecture Pro­
• Share-in-savings IT contracting was authorized and the Federal Acqui­
6. 2002. In 2002
sition Regulations were changed accordingly.
mion 1.0, which
• Common standards for geographic information systems (GIS) infor­
ation of all gov­
mation were mandated.
for cross-agency
• The OMB's prime role in overseeing IT security was reaffirmed, to be
promote reusable
coordinated with the NIST's role in setting security technical standards.
52 CHAPTEI\ 2 A BI\IEF H!STOI\Y OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

The EGA authorized $45 million available to the OMB for e-government
projects in the fiscal year 2003, $50 million in FY 2004, and $250 mil­
lion in each of FY 2005 and 2006. However, actual appropriations
deleted $40 million of the authorized $45 million, forcing the OMB to
implement e-gov strategy from mostly departmental budgets. Subse­
quent appropriations were also far lower than originally planned. s

In 2003, the OMB announced "Round 2" of its e-government initiatives in

March, looking beyond the initial 24 Quicksilver initiatives. Round 2 was
to focus on six areas: data and statistics, criminal investigations, financial
management, public health monitoring, and monetary benefits to individ­
uals. The OMB was trying to force joint projects (e.g.. Justice, Treasury. and
the Environmental Protection Agency to have one criminal investigation
system instead of three separate ones). However. funding of e-government
initiatives for FY 2004 was cut to $1 million. far short of the $50 million
over 5 years initially announced. OMB's head of the OEG, Mark Forman,
quit, departing for the private sector. Future grovvth of e-government was
called into question, at least temporarily, and agencies were forced to look
largely to internal resources to implement e-government. This became in­
creasingly difficult as spending for IT security trumped e-government pri­
orities in the post-9/11 period.

Nonetheless, in 2004 the OMB forged ahead with an ambitious ap;';HUcU

for public IT and e-government. A key priority was systems consoli­

dation. As part of FY 2005 planning, the OMB directed agencies to list
human resources or financial IT systems that are in planning or acqui­
sition stages, with a view to redirecting redundant spending and mov­
ing toward government-wide combined HR-financial applications.
Also as part of FY 2005 planning, the OMB required agencies to sign
fee-far-service agreements with Recruitment One-Stop, E-Training,
Grants.gov, and Geospatial One-Stop portals, attempting to institution­
alize an internal market to fund these e-government initiatives from
departmental budgets. And in the third prong of 2004 OMB IT policy,
the OMB required agencies in their FY 2005 requests to integrate secu­
rity plans with IT systems proposals, providing business cases that
incorporate security in life cycle planning. Starting in 2004. the OMB
demanded agencies not only report security incidents but break report­
ing down by certified versus noncertified systems, and to identify
causes of incidents, creating additional pressure on agencies to meet
security standards. The OMB implemented red-yellow-green ratings
of each major agency on a variety of IT dimensions. including both
e-government and security. To get green, agencies must attain security
certification for 90% of their IT systems.

Most recently, the Bush administration has pushed ahead with its priva­
tization and outsourcing agenda. This agenda is implemented directly in
oIOLOGY POLICY
l~m for e-government
{ 2004. and $250 mil­
actual appropriations
1, forcing the OMB to
tntal budgets. Subse­
:inally planned. 8
rernment initiatives in
math'es. Round 2 was
vestigations, financial
rr benefits to individ­
Justice. Treasury, and
:riminal investigation SUMMARY
ding of e-government
lit of the 850 million
~ OEG. Mark Forman,
of e-gm'ernment was
5 were forced to look
lent. This became in­
ed e-gm'ernment pri-
II ambitious agenda
iIS s\-stems consoli­
!:ted agencies to list
t planning or acqui­
spending and mov­
ncial applications.
eel agencies to sign
~top. E-Training,
IIing to institution­
III initiatives from
1M o:\m IT policy,
• to integrate secu­
RSi:ness cases that
in Z()()..!. the OMB
Is but break report­
I,. and to identify
l .ncies to meet
....--green ratings
... including both
.... attain security
... w:ith its priva­
I idirectlyin
Summary S3
the OMB's A-76 guidelines for competing federal jobs as discussed in
Chapter 10 and indirectly through the General Services Administration
Modernization Act of 2005 (GSAMA), which is pending and expected to
pass at this writing. GSAMA promotes partnering and outsourcing by
permitting public- and private-sector acquisition staff to work in each
other's organizations for a period of time. The GSAMA also makes per­
manent controversial share-in-savings contracting and requires agencies
to use commercially available online procurement services. All this is to
be overseen by a new Federal Acquisition Service, which incorporates
the former Federal Technology Service and Federal Supply Service.
From the War of 1812 to the war on terrorism, federal information pol­
icy has been influenced by military events. From the protection of
national records in 1813 to the protection ofthe nation's electronic infra­
structure in 2004, the underlying continuity of policy has been national
action to establish and safeguard information as a national resource. The
great achievement of the 19th century was the creation of the GPO under
the Superintendent of Documents, with distribution through the Federal
Depository Library Program.
In the aftermath of World War II, Vannevar Bush laid out the vision of
what was to one day be called the Internet, calling for the mobiliza­
tion of science to serve the goal of expanding human knowledge. Gov­
ernment subsidy and direction marked the advent of the computer
age, with the first mainframe computers being created for the military,
and later, used by large federal agencies such as the U.S. Census. The
origins of the Internet may be traced to the ARPA of the Department
of Defense and to NSFNet, and federal subsidy did not end until the
early 1990s. Even the commercialization of the Internet came about
through legislation.
Several important lines of policy making mark the study of modern IT
policy in the United States:
• Increasing public access to information, from the FOIA of 1966 to the
launch of FirstGov.gov in 2000
• Increasing public participation, from the APA of 1946 to the launch
of Regulation.gov in 2002
• Protecting citizen rights, from the Privacy Act of 1974 to the OMB
requirement of privacy assessments in 2003
• Establishing a comprehensive approach to the management of public
information systems, fTom the PRA of 1980 to the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 1996 and the EGA of 2002
54 CI-lAPTER 1 A BRI(;F HiSTORY OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

• Securing the infrastructure of cyberspace, from the Computer Fraud

and Abuse Act of 19S6 to the Homeland Security Council of 2003 and
the ISC of 2004.

Along the way, information policy has expanded into such issues as pro­
viding accflssibility for the disabled, modernizing education, securing
intellectual property, implementing electronic voting, and stopping the
export of American IT jobs, to name a few.

Today, in the first years of the 21st century, the evolution of information
policy is at a crossroads. E-government struggles to expand in an era of
budgetary austerity. The protection of citizen rights struggles to survive
in an agfl of counterterrorist surveillance. Efforts to expand public par­
ticipation face the long-term trend of increasing levels of nonvoting and
disbelief in the efficacy of government. Sociotechnical approaches to IT,
emphasizing the human factor, find diminishing leeway as systems
management becomes the dominant theoretical foundation of those
charged with implementing federal information policy. And the core IT
capabilities of federal agencies are stretched to the limit by the privati­
zation and outsourcing of their former functions. .......­- -..... i

-............

In the adverse setting that faces much of the public IT world, the good
news is that citizens and presidents alike believe in the efficacy of IT
solutions to the problems governments face. Whether from resignation
to technological determinism or systems theory assumptions that IT
-,,-t-
.,: ,-<

~
..
methods equate to efficiency or, for that matter, from actively embracing wc­
the belief that IT will reinforce their power, political leaders are more a . c..
prone than ever to give priority to legislation and executive branch
actions that advance public IT policies.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
.... ......
cIiIIII!Id ....
.... t!'t ' 7

I. What were some of the hurdles the federal government had to clear with respect
to saving and sharing information with the public between 1813 and I945? How - - tIIlKII
.-diDIr
have these hurdles changed since entering the electronic age? 1ianpn.­
2. How has the national defense sector influenced the development of electronic
communications?
c , s
3. The Internet has not always been open for commercial use.What events occurred i-i-i:M
dII.izrda
to change the Internet from a strictly educational, scientific, and research-oriented
tool to what it is today? ~
4. The move to privatization and commercialization of the Internet provided new '.."-'­
challenges for the government with respect to social issues.What is the digital divide,
and what actions have been taken by the federal government to bridge it?
 .~

lOGY POLICY
Glossary 55

Ihe Computer Fraud

Council of 2003 and S. What steps have been taken by Congress, the FrC, and Internet providers to stop
SPAM?What barriers remain in the way of effectively regulating SPAM?
6. Pre·lnternet computer crime legislation dealt mainly with fraud and unauthorized
o such issues as pro­ access. With the advent of the Internet how has computer crime changed, and what
education, securing steps have been taken to curb it?
118.. and stopping the 7. How have counterterrorism efforts of the federal government impacted citizen's
rights?
8. The outsourcing of IT positions is currently a controversial issue. Discuss pro and
mion of information con arguments for outsourcing and for associated legislation.
I expand in an era of 9. What steps have been taken to move federal government away from providing
i struggles to survive
purely passive information on the Internet to actively involving citizens in electronic
I expand public par­
rulemaking?
!:Is of nonvoting and 10. The funding offederallT projects remains a challenge. What has the OMB required
cal approaches to IT, of participating agencies in order to continue funding in recent years?
leeway as systems
Dundation of those
!icv. And the core IT
limit by the privati- GLOSSARY

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946: This (lct required the publica­

~ IT world, the good
in the efficacy of IT
e- from resignation
LS:mIDptions that IT
I ilrth-ely embracing
Jd leaders are more
d @xecutive branch
tion of proposed federal rules and regulations in the Federal Register. It
also required agencies to hold hearings and ensure public participation
as part of agencies' rule-making processes. In 1993 an electronic version
of the Federal Register was created. The APA laid the legal basis for e­
regulation.
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996: Also known as the Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996, this act was an amendment to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. It established a chief information offi­
cer within each federal agency. responsible for developing an agency IT
plan that incorporated the agency's missions and goals. The act also man­
dated top management involvement in IT strategic planning, (mcouragfld
the evaluation and adoption of private- and public-sector best manage­
ment practices, required qualitative and quantitative information to be
used in IT investment decision making, and streamlined the IT acquisi­
tion process.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986: This act imposed fines and
D as occurred imprisonment on those found guilty of such computer crimes as unau­
thorized computer access and fraud. The 1995 amendment extended the
legislation to cover all computers involved in interstate commerce and
communication.

Electronic Government Act of 2002: This act promotod o-govormmmt

for federal agencies. It established an Office of Electronic Government
within the Office of Management and Budget to oversee the setting of
5€. CHAI'TEP. 2 A BP.IEf HISTORY Of PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

cross-agency standards and to make sure new e-government initiatives Prlvaey,

adhered to the standards. The act also formalized prior OMB directives utle, and
that required regulatory agencies to publish proposed rules on the vaey of Il
lntmngt and to accept electronic public comments. vate info
The act u
FirstGov.gov; This Internet portal, launched on September 22, 2000, Act of 191
was the product of a Clinton administration management initiative to ing of ind
improve public access to federal information and services. At its incep­
tion. this consumer-oriented portal provided access to 47 miBion federal Reguliatio
government, tribal government, state, and District of Columbia Web citi20ns t(
paggs. The portal was expanded under the Bush administration. ulations f
product 0]
Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (FOIA): This act established the fictive slg(
right of the public to have access to federal information. Agencies were
directed to make available, either automatically or upon an individual's
request, their information with several exemptions for law enforcement, ES
military, intelligence, and other agencies. Also exempted was informa­ lPrtiBident
I
tion pertaining to internal rules and personnel issues, trade secrets, indi­ 28, 2001.6
Intern!'!! tax
Vidual privacy, items protected by existing laws, information that could
as Wtill 115 iI
affect law enforcement or trials, and geographical information on oil nificant l'G\',
w(')lltl. Thirty years later FOIA was amended to reflect the rising influ­ sion of the)
ence of the Internet. The 1996 E-FOIA directed executive agencies to an additionl
provide electronic information in a format most convenient for the user, bQQn reconG
and electronic reading rooms were mandated. ~Thc URL is
3Thll F oderiil
Homeland Security Act of 2003: This act was created in the aftermath quired agem
managllmQnt
of September 11; this legislation established a chief information officer
tho U.S. Col
for the new Department of Homeland Security, responsible for the counting sta
largest consolidation of federal databases in the history of the United accounting a
States as well as several changes in data storage, sharing, and accessi­ 4The IRS Rest
bility. This included the right of the federal government to deny FOIA tronic filing I
requests on information provided voluntarily by nonfederal parties to forms, instrul
net Section:
the Department of Homeland Security for reasons of homeland security.
ically to COIDl
Information Systems Council of 2004: Created under the Office of access to the
e-commerce.
Management and Budget, this body coordinates the sharing of terrorist
tury Act of 2(
information between agencies. The council was created in part in accord physical tram
with the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Representatives check clearan
from 10 federal agencies presented a plan in December 2004 detailing 5Jim J. Tozzi. f(
what information systems should be deployed. Regulatory Af
agriculture. aI
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA): This act mandated the first cal atrazine 01
unified policy framework for information resource management within ture, the infor:
the federal government. The PRA required that the director of the OMB same findings
Natural Resou
develop a resource management plan for information and to oversee its "hamstrung El
implementation. In 1995 the PRA was revised to require strategic plan­ mountain of d
ning for information resources management at a federal leveL opinion." A.tr.l
llOGy POLICY
n-ernment initiatives
!'rior OMB directives
JPOsed rules on the
September 22, 2000,
1gement initiative to
enices. At its incep­
to -17 million federal
:t of Columbia Web
!ministration.
5 ad established the
Ilion. ;\gencies were
mpon an individual's
b I.:lW r;mforcement, ENDNOTES
mpted was informa­
s.. tntde secrets, indi­
formation that could
. information on oil
led the rising influ­
~tiye agencies to
",anient for the user,
rOO in the aftermath
r information officer
responsible for the
Itory of the United
liming. and accessi·
.rnt to deny FOIA
!lldederal parties to
'Lomeland security.
lIIdel' the Office of
sbaring of terrorist
I!Id in part in accord
IlL Representatives
Iber 2004 detailing
.mandated the first
liiIIlilgement within
lirector of the OMB
I and to oversee its
!DiJ'e strategic plan­
m Ion;!l.
Endnotes 57
Privacy Act of 1974: This act regulated the collection, maintenance,
use, and dissemination of federal information in order to protect the pri­
vacy of any individuals identified there within. Any disclosure of pri­
vate information required prior written consent from the individual.
The act was amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection
Act of 1988 to extend the protections of act to most computer match­
ing of individual records across agencies.
Regulations.gov: This Internet portal provided an electronic space for
citizens to review and then provide feedback on proposed rules and reg­
ulations from the Federal Register. It was launched in late 2002 as a
product of the Bush administration's e-government initiative to provide
active electronic opportunities for pllblic participation in rule making.
lPresident Bush signed the Internet Access Taxation Moratorium on November
28, 2001, extending the 1998 ITFA to November 1, 2003. The moratorium on
Internet taxation was seen by the Bush administration as an economic stimulu5
as well as a promotion of Internet industries, but statg goVgrnIIlflntg fBgrBd gig~
nificant revenue losses. The Bush administration supported ft permftnent exten­
sion of the moratorium, which passed the Housg, but thB SBngtg votgd only for
an additional four years in April 2004. At this writing, the two ver,5ionB hftd not
been reconciled.
2The URL is http www.regulations.gov.
3The Fedoral Financial Management Improvement Act of 1995 (FFMIA) re­
quired agency financial management systems to Gomply with fedeml finiinGiiil
management system requirements, applicablg fgdgral accounting fltgndardf!, gnd
the u.s. Goyernment Standard General Ledger. To the extent that federal ac­
counting standards specify IT aspects. the FFMIA requires uniformity of IT
accounting across the federal government.
4The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Section 2001c promoted elec­
tronic filing of tax returns. Section 2003d required the IRS to establish that all
forms. instructions, publications, and other guidance be available via the Inter­
net. Section 2003e provided for tax return preparer5 to be authorizmd eltJGtron­
ically to communicate with the IRS. Section 2005 providgd taxpaygrg glgctronic
access to their accounts by 2006. In 1998 also. the Pmtftl Service Iftunched
e-commerce, selling stamps via the Web. The Check Clearing for thB ngt Om­
tury Act of 2003 allowed the substitutability of electronic imageB of ehoekB for
physical transfer of printed checks among bankg. It did not mandata a\actronic
check clearance but made it legally equivalent.
sJim J. Tozzi, former Reagan administration head of the Offir:g of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. later turned lawyer-lobbyist for chemicaL rubber, peotiGide15,
agriculture. and other industries, challenged the EPA's regulation of thg chmni­
cal atrazine on the ground that since there were opposing findings in the litera­
ture, the information used by the EPA could not be said to be reliable since the
same findings could not always be reproduced. The WaaiJiIlgtOIl POal quoted
Natural Resources Defense Council scientist Jennifer Sass as saying the act has
"hamstrung EPA's ability to express anything that it couldn't back up with a
mountain of data. It basically blocked EPA scientists from expressing an experl
opinion." Atrazine was eventually given the go-ahead as a hormonil blMkilr
 se C:HAPTEP- 2 A BP-IEF HISTOP-Y OF PUBLIC-SECTOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY

sprayed on corn, in spite of considerable but not universal evidence that it might
cause cancer (Weiss, 2004, p, 7),
6President Bush issued a Presidential Memo on the Importance of E-Government
in July 2002, stating, "My administration's vision for government reform is
guided by three principles, Government should be citizen-centered, results ori­
ented, and market based,"
7Thll Cllnmal Smviclls Administration and the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy, with involvement from DOD, NASA, and NIH, advanced e-procurllmllnt
by establishing the Past Performance Information Retrieval System in 2002 to
give online access to past vendor performance records. Also in 2002, the OMB
issued a revision of Circular A-76 in October, replacing lowest-cost acquisition
with best-value acquisition, a goal long sought by ClOs. The circular also
encouraged outsourcing, in line with the Bush administration's goal to out­
source 15% of "noninherently governmental jobs."
Thll OMB issulld a revision of OMB Circular A-16 in August 2002 setting
guidelines for standardizing GIS data collection records. This laid the basis for
its Cllospatial One Stop portal, one of 240MB e-government Quicksilver ini­
tiatives. Circular A-16 was originally issued in 1953 to give OMB authority over
surveying and mapping.
5The GSA was also authorized $8 million for digital signatures and $15 million
for maintenance and improvement of FirstGov.gov and other portals.
FirstGov.Gov will be improved by adding a subject directory so pages can be
accessed by topic rather than by agency.