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.