Over the past many years, America has seen a slow degradation of trust in the structures of government. While the source of this eroding confidence is debatable, what is not of contention is the desire to return the public’s trust in the processes and control of government through the process of legitimation. One major area of both consternation and promise is that of information technology use in government. The modern age has brought us a tool for both good and evil in the form of computer and Internet technologies. As government slowly adopts these technologies as a means of efficiency and enhanced service delivery, the question that presents itself is, “what legitimacy is inherent in the technologies that government employs to conduct the public’s business?” Are we to simply trust that the computer programs used by government are written with the interest of the public in mind? Does the government itself even know what its chosen applications are doing? If not, then what can be done to legitimate the use of these new technologies on the citizenry?

Transparency in government is the preferred method of legitimizing any sort of government action. Secrecy in government is antithetical to the beliefs our nation was founded upon. Yet the adoption of mainstream information technology applications in government is, for the most part, built upon a platform of secrecy guarded by copyright law protecting proprietary software. When a private entity writes a computer application with the intent to sell it for profit, the only way they can distribute the software and continue to make a profit is by keeping the logic or source code (human readable programming logic) secret. Obviously, if the source code of the software was known, then anyone with the right technical knowledge could simply compile and use the software free of charge, thus negating any profit incentive for the company to continue producing software. This software development and distribution model is ideal for most private businesses as it both stimulates economic development in the software industry and address the businesses productivity needs.

Yet, the business of government, while somewhat similar to those of private companies in the procedural aspect, is unique in that its primary motivation is not profit; rather it is the public good. Unlike private business, government must answer to the public. Government also must prove legitimacy in the actions it takes, since unlike private businesses, citizens cannot simply choose to receive services from a competitor. Thus, the problem of proving legitimacy through proprietary (closed-source) software presents itself as: How does the secrecy of proprietary software ensure the public good when neither government, nor its citizens, can examine the logical methods (algorithms) used to manage the business of government? The simple answer is that it does not. Proprietary software lacks transparency and thus cannot be publicly validated to work for the public good.

Now, for a good percentage of mundane bureaucratic government processes, this lack of transparency in government-utilized software is acceptable. There is no real legitimacy or utility gained from the public scrutinizing source code for an instant messaging system like AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) that might be used by a government agency to facilitate better communication between departments. However, there would be great legitimacy and utility in making the source code of an electronic voting system available to both government and public inspection prior to its use (Dibold?). I would venture to say that any computer software used by government that either interacts directly with or is used in the protection of the public should have its source code made publicly available for review both prior to and during its public use. The obvious exceptions to this would be most military computer systems and national security applications (NSA cryptographic algorithms, etc.).

While it would be difficult to discuss every pro and cont attributable to open code government applications, I will attempt to address the most pressing. The greatest advantage to open review of government utilized software code is that it would lend legitimacy to the processes of an increasingly technology driven government. Citizens would no longer be faced with the, “just trust us” dilemma. Technically minded citizens could peruse the code of actual applications used by government and thus become aware of flaws, security problems, and deficiencies. At which point, an open dialogue between government, the software developer (most likely a private corporation), and the public could assist in making the application more robust while ensuring the public’s trust in the system. (Please keep in mind that an open-code review of an application does not present a security or privacy risk. It is not the actual data that is examined; rather it is the code logic [algorithms] or procedures of the application that are under scrutiny.)

Despite the great advantage of open code in government, there does exist a cost burden to private software companies that may provide government software. As mentioned above, private software companies make their profit by selling licenses to use the proprietary software they write. Given that many software applications are used in both public and private organizations (think Microsoft’s Office Suite), divulging the source code of a popular application used in both industries could harm overall sales. Even when governments contract for specialized applications, the contracted company, not the government, often retains the intellectual property rights for later use.

Yet despite the apparent cost of intellectual property pressed upon some private software companies, the net gain of a renewed public trust in our government’s use of technology may prove to be in the best interest of the people. Additionally, open code and public code review does not necessarily grant the right for the public to use such code in a commercial manner. Modifications to copyright law and terms of use contracts can be made such that while the public may peruse and hold public discussions about the code, they may not legally use the code in a commercial or for-profit manner.

The impacts of computer and Internet technology are all round us. As government slowly adopts computer technologies to improve and enhance service delivery, with each new system (non-technical ones included) it is the duty of government to provide the public with transparent and fair information regarding the details of that system. Open code reviews are one such way to provide transparency and openness in technology solutions entrusted with the public’s data. From electronic voting systems, to tax and evidence management systems, all would benefit from public review. When the public knows how a systems works, it can then fully trust that system, and by proxy, trust the government that operates that system. That should be the goal of any government.

Tags: e-government, legitimacy, open code, open-source