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.