What Even Is Public Interest Technology?

Technology is taking more and more time

in our lives. To the point, some people

consider their smartphones and computers

to be prosthetics.

They are useful, but opaque devices.

And beyond smartphones, when you buy a

new appliance, one of the first steps to

set it up is often to connect it to the

internet.

This can help the device stay up to date,

add new features as the manufacturer

implements them, and allow you to buy new

content and features.

But it can also give the manufacturer a

lot of control over the device and

content you bought, and a lot of

visibility into what you are doing with

it.

This problem goes beyond the individual

scale. How can we know if the technology

deployed in the public space is always

necessarily in the public's interest?

And what is public interest technology in

the first place?

You're listening to Flint and Silicon,

and today I'm with Lillian Corll, VP of

Technology and Democracy programs and

head of the Open Technology Institute at

New America.

Lillian, welcome. Can you tell us a bit

more about yourself?

Thank you. Thanks for having me, Thibault.

Yeah, so I'm currently the Vice President

of Tech and Democracy programs at New

America.

But, you know, my road into this world

of, whether it's public interest

technology, government technology, Smart

Cities at one point, as we called it,

is actually sort of an interesting and

windy road. There's not a straight shot

into it, which in many ways, I think,

sort of makes me a quintessential public

interest technologist.

My formal education is actually in public

policy, so not in tech, and the emphasis

really of it is international policy.

But much of the shift that I've made

towards tech and equity is really

dictated by the fact that I'm an

immigrant and the eldest daughter of a

Latino family here in the US.

And so I was deeply shaped by that

experience to step into the technology

space when we started to see devices like

iPhones really spread quickly.

And so whereas the first part of my

career really was about public policy,

the last almost 15 plus years of my

career have really been focused on how

government uses technology to deliver

better services and to really help

communities thrive, which in a lot of

ways is my goal.

Right. And it's something that my own

experience navigating a new culture,

learning a new language and finding my

place in the US really helped me to kind

of like bring that perspective to the

work that I do today.

So that's a little bit about myself. My

career in the tech space has really

spanned three different critical sectors.

I've worked in government.

I was the chief data officer for the city

of Los Angeles. I've worked in

philanthropy for five and a half years. I

led the Knight Foundation's tech and

innovation strategy and communities, what

we called our resident centered smart

cities approach.

And for the last two years, I've been

here in New America, working to really

build out both our tech and democracy

programs, but really advance the vision

also of the Open Tech Institute, which is

to make sure that everybody has access to

technology and its benefits.

That makes you very qualified to answer

this question then. What is public

interest technology?

Public interest technology is really sort

of this notion that we need to bring

together multiple fields, computer

science, law, public policy and social

justice to design and implement

technology solutions that prioritize the

common good.

Right. Especially for underserved

communities. And really, you know, some

of the key principles around public

interest tech is ensuring that we have

ethical and inclusive design so that

we're not just developing technology in a

vacuum, but really understanding the

impact that it has on everybody in our

community.

And then especially marginalized or

underrepresented groups so that we can

ensure that we're prioritizing their

experience and then equally looking at

things like user privacy and autonomy in

this digital world.

Another key principle really is around

accountability, right? Making sure we

have systems in place to uphold the

public good and make sure that companies

are held accountable if their products

don't uphold those values.

And then I think the third important

principle, which is really, again, back

to the concept of bringing these fields

together, is around a cross-disciplinary

approach, right?

Technology really can't just be only a

technologist driven venture. It really

has to involve policymakers,

technologists, community leaders and, you

know, all different kinds of fields and

walks of life so that we can create

solutions that really reflect the diverse

needs of our communities, but also the

diverse person.

And so that's one of the key

perspectives.

You're telling me that the public

interest technology involves many fields.

I can easily imagine that it involves

many academic fields. Is it well-defined

and fixed in time, or is it something

that is going to be actively researched

forever given its nature?

I think, you know, we're still in the

early stages of like, what is public

interest technology? The way that we've

defined public interest technology at New

America and through one of our programs

called the Public Interest Tech

University Network is that it's really

the study and application of technology

expertise to advance the public interest.

So that includes all the goods and

services that communities rely on, like

health care, education, housing, food,

etc.

How do we make sure that technology

advances a lot of those systems and

community services with an ethical design

approach, accountable approach, a

collaborative approach to the design of

it?

So it really does involve a lot of those

disciplines and promotes justice and

dignity and autonomy.

But as you can imagine, I think that's

the definition itself, I think will

evolve as our new technologies evolve as

well.

I mean, I think, you know, when public

interest technology as a concept started,

we started socializing it.

You know, we're looking at 2016, you

know, between then and now, there has

been so much one impressive growth in the

public interest technology field, but

also in the technologies themselves.

And now we're looking at generative AI as

sort of the next frontier digital

technologies to be looking at.

I think the term has to evolve as the

technology evolves, but the spirit and

the principles behind it definitely can

be the same.

As somebody who grew up without any

material issue, when I hear technology, I

hear tech, I mean, iPhones, computers,

gadgets.

Is public interest technology limited to

digital technologies or does it go

beyond?

For example, I would assume that

developing renewable energy is in the

public's interest. Does it count?

Yeah, I think for me, I would say right

now, public interest technology has to

really be focused on digital technologies

because it is sort of, I think a lot of

what's driving the emphasis of the work

is this notion of equity and justice

and how we all have access to these new

technologies now, not as new, but still

relatively new, and then be able to

really shape the way in which they are

impacting all aspects of society and

life.

Right. And so I think the emphasis on

digital technologies is really critical.

I would argue that obviously green

technologies and renewable technologies

have a public interest value and

component.

And I think that there is a place for

aspects of public interest technology and

how PITT is developed.

So in the how that could apply to green

technologies. But I would say that in

terms of the emphasis on what technology,

public interest technology is focused on

or the field is, I would say it's an

emphasis on digital technologies.

Now, what I mean by the how is that, for

example, we have a program at New America

that's called the New Practice Lab.

And this program really goes and explains

this really nicely, which is for them,

it's about designing digital solutions

for public goods and services in

partnership with people who use them and

ensuring that the solutions are really

suited for the digital age we live in.

That's really about a practice. And you

can apply that same practice to the

development of green technologies and

renewable energy.

Right. And I think that's where perhaps

these examples that you're giving, I

think, fit into the public interest tech

realm.

And we do have lots of examples in the

environmental space where obviously the

practice of PITT really blends really

nicely because a lot of the solutions,

let's say, for climate change adaptation

really are going to require community

engagement.

Right. Going to communities that are most

impacted by climate change and figuring

out how we design solutions for how they

are adapting and they're having to adapt

because of climate change.

And so I think that's where PITT comes

in. So there's both the how and then the

what. But I do think the what has

definitely focused on digital

technologies.

The P in PITT doesn't stand for policy.

Is it possible to produce effective PITT

without involving policymakers?

I think policy plays a significant role.

I mean, in many ways, I feel like a lot

of the challenges that public interest

technologists address are the result of

either policy failures or gaps.

And so the policy, I think, is critical.

And I do not think that we would be

effective at really sustaining this

notion of public interest technology if

we don't make the policy change behind

it.

That's required behind it. I do think

that part of the practice and the how of

how we do public interest technology

requires that we not just think about

designing technology as the end all be

all,

but really hoping to learn from the

actual practice of designing that

technology with communities, of going

through the user experience and

understanding all of the various friction

points and really kind of the root cause

of a lot of the issues that people are

struggling with

and making sure that we feed that

information back into the policy

apparatus.

Because if not, I think what we're doing

in some ways could be just creating sort

of Band-Aid solutions to real systemic

issues.

And so I think that's why Pitt can be so

powerful, because in some ways, what

we're saying by bringing all of those

disciplines is that we're not going to

create Band-Aids.

We're going to create systemic change.

But you can't do that if you don't feed a

lot of the information and the engagement

and the collaboration output back into

the policy apparatus to do that.

So that's how I would approach the

connection between policy and the P and

Pitt.

Source code is the recipe developers feed

computers to build apps. When talking

about apps, does PIT need to have its

source code publicly readable by

everyone? Or are there cases where it

makes more sense to keep the secret so

secret?

Yeah, so, you know, Pitt doesn't have

sort of a defined requirement that it has

to be open source.

And I think we're seeing examples where,

you know, for example, our new practice

lab is building technology with

government institutions and some of it

has to be closed for a reason.

But I do think what's important behind

your question is really like the

principles behind open source development

are the things that align with Pitt.

Open source technology emphasizes

transparency, collaboration,

accessibility.

And these are central values to the

public interest tech work.

But I don't think I think it would be

dangerous to say that we're going to

close ourselves off to building public

interest technology with proprietary

solutions, because the reality is that,

you know, at least, you know, in my

experience, when I worked at the city of

Los Angeles,

we didn't have at that scale of a city,

the ability to really integrate a lot of

open source solutions in a very easy or

seamless way.

So we had to really work with a lot of

the proprietary tools that were available

to us in order to make the kinds of

changes we were trying to make, whether

it be around open data and accessibility

or around trying to drive up the city's

acumen around data science and digital

services.

So you I feel like you have to work with

the environment that you have.

Right. And so it would be misguided to

just close ourselves off to proprietary

solutions.

But I do think the spirit of

transparency, collaboration,

accessibility are important.

And I also think that in a lot of ways.

The goal here is not to keep the secret

sauce secret, as you said, but it's

really that because in theory, right,

if we're able to develop a solution with

one community, then what you want to do

is make that open so that other

communities, other institutions at other

scales can also take what you've

developed and really build and iterate on

it.

Right. Like that's the power. That's the

scaling power of a lot of the work that a

lot of us have been trying to do in

government, in community and with

technology.

And so this notion that we might have to

keep it like closed also is sort of

ineffective in that way.

And I think what we want to do. And in

fact, I find that both the public

interest technology, as well as all of

these other communities around GovTech,

CivicTech, etc., have been really great

and bold about like, we want to unleash

and put a lot of the code out there so

that others can really use it.

So, yeah, I think definitely don't keep

the secret sauce secret in the public

interest tech.

You said you dealt with public interest

technology as the chief data officer for

the city of Los Angeles. Can you expand

on the role of the public sector in PIT?

A public sector plays a critical role

because, you know, it's one sort of,

again, the dominant space where

oftentimes the challenges and the gaps

that we're trying to address with

technology, it's where it emanates from.

It's also a place where we really want to

make sure that there are more

technologists going into because

oftentimes public sector institutions,

less so now, but in the past, you know,

have increasingly had challenges around

capacity and having technologists

in-house who can really modernize their

systems and revamp and actually engage in

digital engagement and activities.

So it's a place where one is often the

source of a lot of the challenges and

gaps we're trying to address.

But two, it's a place where we want a lot

of technologists to be really integrated

into working alongside policy analysts,

leaders, designers, administrators to

make sure that we're getting the policy

right and that we're implementing

technology solutions that support policy,

that support good public policy.

But the other place that the public

sector plays an important and critical

role is that, you know, frankly,

government is one of the biggest

purchasers of technology, especially in

the U.S.

And so, you know, there's a massive

amount of power that they have as a

market driver.

And there is tons of opportunity to

ensure that government uses its

purchasing power to ensure that companies

are upholding, you know, to ethical

standards and design, that they're

prioritizing equity and ensuring that

we're mitigating any harm to populations

within our communities and that we're

really addressing the public good with

these technologies.

And so, you know, I think especially with

A.I. in particular, what we saw now

almost a year ago from the White House in

terms of its executive order on A.I. was

that really it was using the weight of

the federal government, that purchasing

weight to be able to say to companies

vis-a-vis its departments that, you know,

we need to make sure that technology

we're procuring is not producing harm.

And that has tremendous power.

And so the public sector is a critical

player in all of this.

Most private sector organizations try to

maximize profits. Does this conflict with

P.I.T. or can the private sector be

incentivized to produce P.I.T.?

I mean, our goal and our wish is that the

private sector obviously is incentivized

to produce more public interest minded

technology.

And, you know, I don't want to believe

that there's a natural conflict

necessarily, but I do think that there is

a challenge with this notion that the

profit motive oftentimes can trump

upholding things like ethical standards

and prioritizing equity and ensuring that

the public good is maintained.

Right. You know, I think there's often

this question in our space about, like,

for example, applications like Uber and

Lyft.

They've created a ton of mobility options

in cities that oftentimes don't have

great public transit systems, but they've

also created a ton of issues, let's say,

around employment conditions.

Right. The gay economy, as we call it

now.

So I think there's this inherent conflict

on whether, like, the profit motive just

drives technology in a particular way.

And it means that you can't have kind of

a more ethically equitable minded

approach to developing technology.

But my my hope and my belief is that

that's not necessarily true.

Right. I think what is required, though,

is there's a little bit of like a shift

that needs to happen.

And I think in particular, within sort of

like, you know, you know, sort of the

Silicon Valley kind of community in

nature that says these mottos of like

moving fast and breaking things like

that's not acceptable.

Right. In some ways, what Pitt is sort of

asking for is for us to go slow and build

together.

Right. Because we cannot continue to

break things that that are inclusive of

like breaking people, breaking systems,

breaking public trust.

So, you know, for me, Pitt is really

about leveraging technology to build more

people centered, equitable, innovative,

participatory world.

Like that's the world in which I work in.

That's in which the way in which I want

to see technology really be leveraged.

And I think there's an opportunity to try

and really one train the next generation

of technologists to maybe question a bit

more the notion of just build things and

see how they work.

And then if they break things, we'll

figure that out later. Right.

So let's train technologists in sort of

really thoughtful ways.

And then let's also create better

accountability as a society with, you

know, private sector to say, you know,

there is a role and an opportunity and a

space for innovation.

But how do we invest in way in

understanding the impact of these

technologies?

Right. Because we're still early on, so

we don't know what the impacts are.

So let's make sure we're investing, that

we have the resources in many of these

companies to be able to understand the

impacts, then be transparent about what

those impacts are, and then make the

right level of changes that can really

help our society continue to thrive, to

be open, to be democratic, things like

that.

I think that we can get there, but I

think we just need to, you know, still,

you know, like a bit of a mind shift on

what this really means.

And I think we're seeing, you know, I

think I'm always optimistic that we're

seeing some level of like progress in the

space, obviously.

But I do think that we still need to keep

pushing industry in this regard so they

can get there.

But I think it's going to mean that

public interest groups, civil society and

government really step up to the table

and continue to hold them accountable.

What about philanthropic organizations?

They are private organizations with

strict compliance rules.

501c3s in particular must have a

charitable purpose to keep their tax

exempt status.

Do they usually have their own definition

of PIT or are they following guidance

from specific bodies?

Yeah, I mean, I think there is a huge

role for nonprofit organizations and

philanthropic organizations and public

interest technology.

I'll take the philanthropic first and

then talk about nonprofits.

I mean, one, I would say that, you know,

philanthropy has played a catalytic role

in the field.

Right. And just this past July at the

White House, the Office of Science and

Technology Policy held an event where

they announced nearly 100 million dollars

in new commitments from government,

philanthropy and civil society to

continue building out the field of public

interest technology.

And the the work of public interest

technology would not be possible without

a lot of that philanthropic support and

really push to say, let's explore one,

how we can leverage the technology for

the public good.

But then let's also invest in the

research to understand the impact it's

having and to build out the practices

that help us really kind of move against

just designing technology, you know, with

with a profit motive driven in mind.

But also with a societal kind of focus in

mind, a mission oriented technology.

So philanthropy has played an amazing

role.

And in many ways, I would say the way

that each foundation is very different,

you know, and each one really has a debt.

And many of them that are investing in

across the ecosystem, they really they

invest in pit in ways that align with

their broader organizational mission and

goals.

And so some emphasize social justice,

equity, others access to essential

services.

But I think so it looks different in

different organizations, but it's all

aligned to their broader goals.

But definitely with the spirit of ethical

and inclusive design, accountability and

cross disciplinary collaboration behind

it, for sure.

What I would say about nonprofit

organizations is they have a ton to a

huge role to play.

And it's an interesting, you know, it's

an interesting space because, you know,

if we think government is sort of ill

equipped or under, you know, it has very

little capacity to implement public

interest technology solutions and to and

to kind of recruit the kind of talent you

need to build them up, then nonprofits

are in even more kind of a dire place.

Right. Like and so there's an opportunity

still within the space, I would argue, to

be able to do that.

And so I think it's important to build

capacity across nonprofit institutions to

build greater awareness about technology

across nonprofit institutions.

And really, I would argue, hopefully

empower them to start to think about the

role the technology is playing and how

they deliver services and how they might

want to rethink about the way in which

they deliver services or connect with the

public.

I mean, the the thing that always and I

actually started in my career in

nonprofit service delivery and

technology, that's where I really got my

hands kind of dirty in public interest

tech.

Right. I worked with the two one one

system across the state of California,

and they are an information and resource

referral set of agencies.

And many of them were these legacy

systems that you would call and you would

dial to one one and someone would answer

on the other line and help you navigate

the community resources available to you.

And obviously, when the iPhone came out

and the availability of all of this

information on your hands, you know, at

your hand, you know, you don't need to

call a place to find out where you need

to go.

So I worked on the digital transformation

of those systems and really trying to

rethink like what the value proposition

is of those kinds of institutions in a

digital age.

And that's a really hard thing to grapple

with. And it's still a huge area of

growth and opportunity for us because

there's a lot of nonprofits out there

that are doing amazing work on the

ground.

And some of it is one to one in person,

but a lot of it really still has the

opportunity to digitize to have broader

reach.

And in some ways, we still have a ways to

go to giving those institutions more

talent, more education and awareness

about how to use these tools and frankly,

more access to the tools, because it's

not it's also not easy and not cheap to

digitize.

Right. And so I think they are, they're a

place where still continued investment is

needed.

Is it even sustainable or reasonable to

get public interest technology funded

exclusively by grants from private

organizations, including philanthropic

organizations?

I mean, I think the point of public

interest technology and the work that

we're trying to do at New America is

really to shape the way that we train

technologists and the way that we build

and invest in new technologies.

So I guess I would say I don't think that

I don't think the goal is to create sort

of just a stream of funding and to have

that support only public interest

technology projects.

Right. I think there there is a strong

place for that in the ecosystem because

that allows us to test the way we build

in.

We build new technologies or new

solutions. Right. And then be able to

demonstrate that there is a there there

that there is a way of designing

technologies and in an inclusive, ethical

and effective way.

Right. So there's a role for that. But I

don't think that that really is the end

game, the end game, that real for me, the

sustainability pieces when we have

technologists who are coming out of

universities who understand that their

role in developing a new solution, new

technical solution.

Right. Like has impact on society. And

that's built into their own DNA for how

they then think about designing and

deploying new technologies.

It's in the way the sustainability of

public interest technology is going to be

in the way that investors think about how

their dollars are being used by founders

and companies and the impact that that

has on society.

And that that in some way that that

becomes a part of the equation when we

think about return on investment.

So like the sustainability of public

interest technology is not just in

funding, creating new pots of funding to

be able to do a particular thing.

It's really, I think, in the in the

legacy of this idea that we have to build

technology differently because technology

is not just a silo.

Right. It's cut across every aspect of

our lives now. And so we've got to really

approach it in that comprehensive way.

So it's to me, the legacy is in the idea

and then how it gets baked into the DNA

of technologists and the way that we

build things and invest in things.

It's not just in creating a grant program

from a foundation.

And that's not to say that I think

obviously the work that's been done to

cement investments in public interest

technology has, you know, monumental.

And it's it's it's what's going to create

the foundation for us to continue to

build this field and for us to continue

to have, I think, a shot at being able to

ensure that technology doesn't take over

our world, but becomes like a more

natural part of our world and helps all

of us really thrive in the digital age.

The Open Source Initiative is an

organization in charge of defining what

open source means and in charge of

approving licenses.

What about P.I.T.? Is there an authority

to define if technology is in the public

interest? Are there certifications?

There isn't an authority per se, but in

2019, New America launched with the Ford

Foundation, the Public Interest

Technology University Network.

And that's really been focused on

fostering collaboration between

universities and colleges to build the

field and nurture the next generation of

civic minded technologists.

And since 2019, the network is now has

grown to be 64 universities.

There are now over 60 new or redeveloped

courses in the field.

And we even have examples of like degree

granting programs like Arizona State

University in the U.S. has a master's in

P.I.T.

We have certifications at Carnegie Mellon

and others.

So the field is starting to emerge with

that sense of like certification and

P.I.T.

U.N., if you will, is really the hub and

the central place for that.

But it doesn't certify what is P.I.T. or

not.

But I do think it's it's like a place of

gravity. Right.

Like the gravitas is there. And so so I

think that that's the beginning of a

foundation for something like the open

source initiative for sure.

I mean, I think that's definitely I think

the spirit of what we're going towards.

And in some ways, you know, something I

probably should have mentioned at the top

is, you know, public interest technology

is really takes its inspiration from

public interest law.

And so obviously at some point, we'll

hopefully get to a place where just like

we have public interest law programs

across universities all over the world,

that we will have public interest

technology programs as well.

We have been taking a rather U.S. centric

approach to the definition of P.I.T.

Is public interest technology the same

everywhere in the world?

I think the vision of P.I.T. really

aspires to be unifying, but I think

because it's one where technology is

built with people first.

Right. And so naturally. So so that's

unifying.

But naturally, that's going to look

different in different cultural like

cultural contexts.

I mean, even within the U.S., that's

going to look very different.

You know, the experience of building a

public interest tech solution in a city

like Chicago is going to look very

different than perhaps in a city like

Miami.

Right. And so, like, I think the

definition has to account for that.

I would say that, you know, from our

perspective, what we're seeing is that

there is a there is a move within P.I.T.

U.N. and this is led by a wonderful man

named Brian Grant, who's really kind of

taking the charge to actually build a

global network.

And so I think there is a move to

understand how P.I.T. fits as a global

concept.

And I think, you know, for me, the one

thing that I would say is I totally agree

with you with the very U.S.

Central context, which is like I think as

we approach the globalization, if you

will, of P.I.T., there's so much work

done outside of the U.S.

that we can learn from. And so what I

would emphasize is that while there's

that unifying factor of like,

you know, a people first centric approach

to design, what we what we would need to

be open to within the U.S. context.

And I think we are because of the spirit

of the folks who are really in this space

is that we've got to learn as much from

others as it is,

you know, us sort of driving our ideas

out. And so we emphasize that actually in

New America and a lot of our different

programing,

whether it's in the policy work or in the

standard shaping work, you know,

making sure that we're being inclusive of

like the global south perspective, which

is always going to be very different than

the EU perspective.

And definitely also different than, let's

say, like, you know, sort of an Eastern

European or even Asian context.

Right. Like all of these regions are very

different. An African context is going to

be very different.

And and yet they all have their own

flavors and perspectives around public

interest.

For sure. Is there anything else you

would like the world to know about

P.I.T.?

Well, I mean, I think I would say, you

know, I started doing this work because I

was, you know,

I was working in the health and human

service space with lots of nonprofits and

this iPhone came out and it sort of

revolutionized the way that we access

information.

And it felt like the world had shifted in

a matter of a year.

But that was 2008. And I feel like less

than 20 years later, like we've made such

tremendous strides and shifts.

And so I think in some ways, the only

thing I would leave us with is that,

like, it's so early yet in the trajectory

of a lot of this technology and

development.

Right. And at the same time, it has been

20 years and we've made so much

tremendous growth and success.

And so I think, you know, this work is

more meaningful now than ever.

And I'm really excited because I think in

some ways the when the conversation

started 20 years ago,

plus, you know, and obviously, you know,

folks have been doing this work even

before the iPhone.

I think there wasn't as you know, that

there wasn't as many people as tuned into

the conversation and really ready to have

a discussion about the role that

technology would have in our lives.

And I think one good thing that we've all

seen and many people recognize with the

generative AI boom is that there were

more people,

especially from civil society and the

public interests right at the table,

ready to say, wait a minute, like, what

does this really mean for us?

Are we ready to go down this path? And

how do we harness this technology for

good?

So I'm always a techno optimist and in

some ways I'm even more so because I feel

like there's such a breadth of people in

this ecosystem.

And increasingly more committed to

ensuring that we get technology right.

Lillian, thank you very much for your

time and insights.

We now have a better understanding of

what public interest technology looks

like, at least from a US perspective.

We only had the time to scratch the

surface of PIT, but the good news is that

we have more episodes coming.

Subscribe to Flint and Silicon, wherever

you get your podcasts, to get informed of

new releases and I'll see you next time.