Senator Maria Cantwell is not one for taking our online privacy for granted as the new era of digital communications emerges. With a few keystrokes, it’s possible for someone to access your most personal medical, financial, and legal records. Cantwell has taken this issue, and other aspects of technology, with her to the other Washington.

Cantwell is very tech savvy. In 1995, she joined software start-up Progressive Networks - now you know it as Real Networks - as one of the company's first ten employees and set out to build the leader in Internet media technology.

Cantwell was a member of the U.S. Congress in 1992 and worked hard to protect our privacy by fighting the government proposal to build surveillance capabilities into computer chips. Remember the “clipper chips”?

Cantwell gave us 10 minutes for 10 questions on her ideas on the future of technology in politics and the net issues she cares about.

Q. After working at Real Networks, what inspired you to jump back into politics?
A. Five years in the private sector is a fascinating experience that I enjoyed very much. I guess I really was motivated by the fact that I think the government doesn’t move as fast as our world in the new economy is moving and does need to reinvent itself.

Q. How has your experience at Real Networks impacted you as a Senator?
A. There are some unique issues as they relate to the Internet and the economy that we’re in: privacy, e-commerce, job training, education, infrastructure investments such as Tacoma’s fiber optic infrastructure. I worked on these issue in the private sector. I think in general there’s just the experience of seeing the phenomenon of how fast things can move and wanting to bring that kind of openness and process of moving faster to government.

Q. What is your overall position on Internet privacy?
A. In the software industry there are a lot of people who have done things right - informing consumers about how information is being used and getting their consent for it. Unfortunately, the public worries that the Internet may become more of a repository of information on them that they may not have supplied online but is gathered as part of what business and the government collect during communication with them. Probably a good national policy is we need some base level that says you should have informed consent in opting in when communicating online.

Q: Have you seen this invasion of privacy first hand?
A: Yes. Someone printed out what amounts to my own financial resume, which included my social security number, my parent’s social security numbers, and transactions I had participated in.

Q. How did your campaign website factor into your Senate race?
A. We ran an open discussion forum from our website where people could speak their mind. What’s unique about that is people in the political realm are not used to that kind of open and frank discussion. It wasn’t dissimilar to what happens at a Town Hall meeting, but at a desktop convenience. We had a lot of free-flowing input there that’s not very comfortable for some politicians to do because they’d rather have just the positive information to talk about. Slate Magazine gave us an award for the best campaign on the web for the openness of that discussion.

Q. In your opinion, how does a politicians website best serve a constituent?
A. I think the Internet provides an open access forum that is so different from someone sitting down to write a letter, find their address, send it and find out if they will even write me back. It’s just a quicker communication process.

Q: Most people use the Internet for research. Does this bear out in politics as well?
A: The great thing about the web is it provides information on demand in details beyond what a radio or TV can provide. I know individuals who have gone to various websites and typed in the issues they care about and found the politician they feel most aligned with. I think the Internet is a very valuable tool, because when all is said and done, that’s what voters are looking for - who agrees with their opinions and philosophies or at least where do they want to make sacrifices in saying that they don’t agree with somebody all the time but these are the three things they do agree with them on.

Q. Do you see a day when we will vote online?
A. It may take five years or more, but it is coming. I personally think it will have an impact because right now in the ballot process, we in Washington have gotten comfortable taking our Voters Guide, sitting down in the living room with the absentee ballot, looking through it and making informed decisions. In the online world of the future, candidates will have information about their voting records that the public will check. There will be all sorts of organizations who build searchable information about candidates and politicians so that people can be informed about their views in a deeper way.

Q. What do you see around the bend as politics and the Internet mesh further?
A. The net could facilitate a great turning point in speeding up the whole process to the way campaigns are financed, organized, and run today: two-year long cycles seeming they are more like negatives of politics than voting records and issue position. We need clarity with the public on who stands for what. I actually think the public is ahead of elected officials. I find them pretty informed about issues, but cynical about the process. They think that what happens is those elected officials get more wrapped up in the special interests of the other Washington and end up making short-term, politically expedient decisions instead of focusing on the long-term vision.

Q: As the “#1 Wired City”, Tacoma would like to see government embrace technology.
A: I hope to hear more about all the exciting things going on in Tacoma!

______________