TECHNOLOGY AND THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT

The Homeland Security Department on Friday announced that it will expand the use of advanced imaging technology -- the controversial body scans -- to 11 U.S. airports, thanks to $1 billion in Recovery Act funds.

The units go beyond the capability of metal detectors to pick up explosives, weapons and nonmetallic threats hidden underneath clothing. Though the Transportation Security Administration promises passenger privacy through blurred imaging and remote viewing, privacy advocates have raised concerns that the scans reveal anatomical features and are stored, not deleted as TSA claims. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research group, published documents in January revealing that the machines can record, store and transmit passenger scans.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has called the technology a "virtual strip search," questioned the efficacy and privacy implications of the scanners' expanded use.

"The Bill of Rights extends beyond curbside check-in and if the government insists on using these invasive search techniques, it is imperative that there be vigorous oversight and regulation to protect our privacy," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office in a statement. "Before these body scanners become the status quo at America's airports, we need to ensure new security technologies are genuinely effective, rather than merely creating a false sense of security."

Of the 11 airports chosen, only Los Angeles International already has similar technology in place.

• Boston Logan International


• Charlotte Douglas International


• Chicago O'Hare International


• Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International


• Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International


• Kansas City International


• Los Angeles International


• Mineta San José International


• Oakland International


• Port Columbus International


• San Diego International

The first screeners were installed Friday at Boston Logan International. Chicago O'Hare International will receive units this week, and the remaining locations will be up and running this summer. TSA already has 40 units in 19 airports nationwide and expects to have an additional 450 deployed by the end of 2010.

Engineers, scientists and at least one lawmaker are pushing like never before to resuscitate a legislative agency that once provided Congress with technological expertise.

In an era of supposed government transparency, with allegations that even scientists are attempting to cover up research on global warming, an objective, authoritative Office of Technology Assessment is of utmost importance, advocates say.

Several lawmakers, particularly House member and physicist Rush Holt, D-N.J., have repeatedly rallied for appropriations to revive the office that Congress dismantled to save money in 1995. The counterargument against funding has always been that other agencies, such as the Government Accountability Office or Congressional Research Services, could provide the same services.

Now that belief may be changing, says Francesca Grifo, scientific integrity program director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who will testify on Wednesday before the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. Holt also will testify in support of restored funding.

"We've decided to make it a priority issue," Grifo said in an interview with Nextgov on Tuesday. Her group is releasing a letter of encouragement signed by 30 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the United Auto Workers. "It seems a little counterintuitive but, if you look at our current fiscal situation, OTA saves money," she said, explaining that if lawmakers have sound technical advice when they make policy decisions, "you'll waste less money."

Established in the early 1970s, the office was responsible for providing Congress with early evaluations of the potential costs and benefits of new technologies and new applications of existing technologies.

Grifo's organization estimates that the office cost Congress about $20 million annually but, since its extinction, the federal government has squandered billions of dollars on failed systems, including virtual fences to guard the U.S-Mexico border and baggage screening equipment.

A sample of reports produced shortly before its demise shows that the office already was on top of many innovations at the forefront of today's legislative agenda.

One 1995 report referenced the potential for tracking the efficacy of medical treatments with electronic health data - a controversial issue in the ongoing debate over healthcare reform. "Because large amounts of electronic data now can be collected and manipulated, there has been increased emphasis on using existing data, often in the form of insurance claims databases, to evaluate health care technologies," the research stated. "Data gathered from events occurring in a wide range of practice settings have become viewed as a tool for looking at effectiveness-- average outcomes achieved by average doctors and patients."

In a report entitled "Bringing Health Care Online: The Role of Information Technologies," the office found that electronic patient records, portable computers, automated data capture and computer networks "can potentially improve the quality of health care" by "enhancing clinical decision support and by improving data for assessing the effectiveness of health services and the performance of health care providers and insurance plans."

Another 1995 report probed the ramifications of electronic surveillance, concluding, "If major problems arise in meeting the needs of law enforcement, they will likely arise as a result of institutional difficulties in dealing with a diverse, highly entrepreneurial industry made up of a large number of telecommunications companies offering many new innovations and features, with the number of players steadily increasing."

Do you know a federal manager who recently took risks to push through a bold idea, policy or program that uses technology to make government work better or improve public services? If so, we'd like to hear your story by nominating your colleague for a Nextgov Award.

The Nextgov Award program, developed in partnership with O'Reilly Media Inc. and TechWeb, will recognize government executives who stepped outside their comfortable confines to think and manage differently. They acted boldly to push through an innovative program, policy or new management practice that relied on technology to move government in a new direction, to challenge employees to think and work differently, and that ultimately improved the lives of citizens.

We know there are many managers who have done just that, and we want you to tell us about them by nominating them for a Nextgov Award. The deadline is March 12, but we suggest you don't wait. Visit the nomination page and spend just a few minutes filling out the form. We'll tell the stories of the winners later this spring on Nextgov.

A panel of respected judges will make choose the winners, who will be honored at a luncheon on May 27 at the Gov 2.0 Expo at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. The expo is co-sponsored by O'Reilly Media Inc. and TechWeb, and Nextgov is the premier media sponsor.

The latest screening technology to hit airports nationwide is perhaps less controversial than full-body scanners but less familiar to travelers: Explosive Trace Detection units that test swabs of luggage and passengers' hands for explosives.

The Transportation Security Administration announced on Wednesday that it is expanding the random use of ETD technology at airports nationwide. To date, $15 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds have been awarded for 400 fixed ETD units, and President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget includes $39 million to purchase about 800 portable ETD machines. They'll be used on a random basis, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing each time they travel.

"ETD tests are used in checkpoint, checked baggage, and cargo environments" to swab things such as laptops, shoes, film, cell phones, bags, wheelchairs, hands, casts, and so on, wrote a member of the TSA blog team known as Blogger Bob.

"Basically, our officers run the white swab over the area in question to collect a trace sample. They then place the swab in the ETD machinery which analyzes the sample for extremely small traces of explosives. The test takes a matter of seconds."

TSA recently piloted the use of ETD technology in both checkpoint lines and boarding areas for two weeks at Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Orlando International Airport, and Pitt-Greenville and Coastal Carolina Regional Airports in North Carolina.

"Why the move? Since the attempted attack on 12/25, we looked at ways to immediately strengthen security using existing technology and procedures in different ways," Bob the Blogger wrote. "ETD is quick, good for security and cost efficient."

A Washington think tank will host a simulated cyberattack on the United States on Tuesday to demonstrate how the government would respond to a large-scale attack on the nation's computer systems and networks.

The Bipartisan Policy Center announced on Wednesday its Cyber ShockWave, which will bring together a bipartisan group of former senior administration and national security officials to play Cabinet members whose mission is to advise the president and react in real time to intelligence and news reports on the cyberattack. None of the participants will know the scenario in advance.

A post-event discussion with the participants and partners will analyze ways that the U.S. government can avoid a real world cyberattack and lessons learned.

Cyber ShockWave was created by former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and the BPC's National Security Preparedness Group, which is led by co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Thomas Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton.

Former senior administration officials and national security experts that will participate include:

* Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff as National Security Advisor
* Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte as Secretary of State
* White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend as Secretary of Homeland Security
* Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin as Director of National Intelligence
* Senator Bennett Johnston as Secretary of Energy
* Director of the National Economic Council Stephen Friedman as Secretary of Treasury
* Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick as Attorney General
* White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart as Counselor to the President
* General Counsel of the National Security Agency Stewart Baker as Cyber Coordinator
* Deputy Commander U.S. European Command Charles F. Wald as Secretary of Defense

The Homeland Security Department launched an online tool for citizens and those involved in security to suggest ideas for enhancing transparency at the agency.

The tool, which is available until March 19 at www.dhs.gov/open, allows individuals to submit suggestions on how DHS can enhance transparency, participation, collaboration and innovation, and then discuss and vote on the suggestions.

For example, "terrence.hill" suggests that DHS establish a process for engaging alumni of the department in discussions and special projects using social networks, like LinkedIn. "drhonker" recommends that DHS run more public dialogues like the one developed for the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review.

"This new online tool allows the public to play a major part in our departmentwide efforts to enhance openness and accessibility," said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a public statement.

The department hopes the site will help drive efforts to comply with President Obama's Open Government Directive, which requires agencies to create a public feedback mechanism during the development of the agency's plan to enhance transparency.

Although DHS moderates the discussions, the General Services Administration administers and supports the tool, which is available to all federal agencies to meet that requirement.

The Homeland Security Department completed the first step of a three-step process to better link operations to agency missions by submitting a review of long-term strategic goals to Congress. Technology played a crucial role, said a DHS official, by providing representatives from all segments of the homeland security community with the opportunity to contribute.

The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review will guide DHS executives' strategic planning for the next four years. The effort, which is modeled after the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, collected public feedback about the content produced by the review's study groups through three online dialogues.

"The [review] benefited from engagement of thousands of people," including more than 100 stakeholder associations and 500 experts from all level so of government, academia and private sector, said DHS assistant secretary for policy David Heyman.

"This [method] is really unique in many regards to homeland security," Heyman said. "The Department of Homeland Security is not homeland security in and of itself. As such, if you're going to do a review, you need to engage that broader community. We definitely took into consideration key comments and recommendation from those we engaged, and it strengthened the document as a result."

With the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review now in the hands of Congress, DHS will focus on a bottom-up review that identifies the activities within the department that align with defined strategic goals. Heyman expects that review to be completed by Spring and contribute to DHS' fiscal 2012 budget proposal.

"I can't predict [what] the fiscal 2012 will [look like], particularly since there will be a negotiations between the department and the Office of Management and Budget," Heyman said.

Nextgov has launched the Nextgov Awards, an inaugural program to recognize federal managers who have shepherded a program, policy or management practice that is not only innovative, but bold and brave.

Yes, we know, there are a lot of awards programs in government. But when we asked federal managers and industry executives what is missing, they told us unanimously: No awards recognize federal employees who took on risks -- personal, political and otherwise -- and boldly acted to see their idea to fruition. Or if their idea died, at least they took on entrenched bureaucratic interests in an attempt to make government better through the use of technology.

We invite you to visit our awards page to learn more and to nominate someone who fits the criteria. The technology isn't the reason for the award, but the bold idea must rely on it in some way. And we encourage you to tell us a story about the individuals you nominate. We want you to wow us because we know there are dozens of stories of federal employees trying to improve government and the lives of citizens, but they are up against big odds. Yet, they have acted bravely and with resolve to bring about change. We want to know about them, the drama they faced and the results they achieved. And, of course, the technology they used.

The winners of the Nextgov Awards will be honored at a luncheon at TechWeb's Gov 2.0 Expo in May. (Nextgov is a TechWeb partner for the event.) We'd love to see you there.

More to come.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd pointed out in her Wednesday column the incongruity of a President Obama's technological savvy and his inability to prod agencies to move out of the past:

President Obama's favorite word is "unprecedented," as Carol Lee of Politico pointed out. Yet he often seems mired in the past as well, letting his hallmark legislation get loaded up with old-school bribes and pork; surrounding himself with Clintonites; continuing the Bushies' penchant for secrecy and expansive executive privilege; doubling down in Afghanistan while acting as though he's getting out; and failing to capitalize on snazzy new technology while agencies thumb through printouts and continue their old turf battles.

She also called into question the Transportation Security Administration's inability to use technology to stop the alleged bomber (". . . travelers could see we had made no progress toward a technologically wondrous Philip K. Dick universe") and the House for trying to stop the use of full body scans ("We are headed toward the moment when screeners will watch watch-listers sashay through while we have to come to the airport in hospital gowns, flapping open in the back.)

Expect more heat from Republicans. Could more investments in technology at security checkpoints be in the cards for TSA's fiscal 2011 budget?

Anyone who has watched the news during the past few days has heard extensive commentary about how a terrorist managed to board a plane with explosives on Christmas Day. Some blame inefficient management of the watch lists, others blame lax security procedures. But one commentator who spoke during a local NBC affiliate broadcast gave the most backwards rationale of all: over reliance on technology.

According to this individual, airport security agents rely too heavily on metal detectors and not enough on thorough questioning about a traveler's background, reasons for flying, and so forth. This criticism runs counter to others, who argue that full-body scans -- which is pretty scarce in airports due to its high price tag and privacy concerns -- would be able to detect explosives.

Of course, security agents should do their due diligence to identify any red flags during check-in procedures; that's part of the job description already. But to expect them -- or even permit them, for that matter-- to make a judgment call about an individual's right to board an airplane would inevitably cause a spike in lawsuits filed by people who felt they were unfairly treated or inappropriately profiled based upon their race or birthplace. There would also be huge discrepancies in who is stopped and who is not, particularly when one considers that some security agents are TSA employees, while others are outside contractors.

The fact remains that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was able to cross the airport security checkpoint and board a plane with explosives hidden in his underwear, despite being on a terrorist watch list and driving his own father to report concerns about his mental state to authorities; this did not happen because a particular security agent failed to ask Abdulmutallab about his time in Yemen or his study of radical Islam in London.

Do security procedures need to improve? Absolutely. But technology should be the enabler.