Perhaps due to my background in technology, I was encouraged to do a review of the literature of issues concerning technology and government, although

this class, URPA 5351, is about the study of Human Resources in government. I wanted to relate the findings to the content of the class, and I quickly realized that this would involve more than a listing of particular software or databases used by different government agencies. In fact, as a first step, it would take me on a journey into the concept of e-government. However, throughout the course, I began to see that HR management acts within a political context. Just as “ideal” HR values of a particular organization can be skewed by organizational culture (Dresang, 2002, p.10), so also can these values be distorted by forces that provide the framework for organizational existence at the city, state, federal, and even regional level of political organization. And just as the fact that HR acts within a political context, so also does technology ‘act’ within a political context, and has social implications. Ultimately, the technology utilized directly or indirectly by an HR department acts within a political context as well. In narrowing the topic of this paper, I decided to focus on the values and the forces that are shaping the way government uses and influences technology, whether or not the values and forces reinforce one another, and some effects this might have on hiring decisions made by HR in government. Therefore, this paper will not touch on many technologies such as GPS, GIS, particular designs and protocols for future internet construction such as I2, and so forth. Due to the nature of the topic, current information is somewhat difficult to unearth since until recently, most of discussions of e-government focused on ICT and restructuring

of government rather than the accompanying social problems. Most of the sources I have used are easily accessible from the internet, fitting well with the online course format. E-Government E-government has been defined and described in different ways by various authors, attempting to capture a number of areas ranging from e-service and emanagement to e-democracy and e-policy. Roughly speaking, e-government is concerned with using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to enhance the provision of public services, improve management effectiveness, and promote democracy. This roughly parallels the attempts in the private sector to change from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge and technology-based economy. The Cox News Service reported as of February 27, 2007, that Texas was ranked fourth in the amount of e-government initiatives. Has all of this activity pushed Texas to a leadership position in terms of economic transformation? Unfortunately, the article states that Texas ranked fourteenth overall compared to other states (Keefe, 2007). While Texas builds prisons and discusses infrastructure arrangement such as The Trans-Texas Corridor (TCC), other states have pulled ahead. Keefe states that Texas, particularly Austin and the Dallas-Fort Worth area, helped usher in the New Economy age during the 1990s, with the rise of high-tech and telecom jobs and companies. But since then, Texas has been outpaced by states such as Massachusetts and California in new areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology and Internet-based communications.

Robert Behn (2005) exhorts us to move beyond e-government to Igovernment. He sees e-government largely as an effort to automate formerly manual processes of handling information, while the crux of what government does remains the same. On the other hand, he sees I-government as true innovation – the attempt to redesign and re-engineer as opposed to simply automate existing processes. He gives the example of Chicago’s 311 call system, as well as the Compstat and Citistat technologies developed by New York’s Police Department, and Baltimore, respectively. It is interesting to note that most of the innovations that he listed came from law-enforcement. And while Behn challenges us to use technology for true innovation in government, other leading voices encourage us to think about how technology effects the relationship we have with our fellow man. One of the innovators in the discussion of e-government is Jane Fountain, author of “Building the Virtual State”. In a 2006 online article, Allison Lake quotes Ms. Fountain as stating that “we shouldn't really be talking about e-government anymore. We are well beyond the e-mail and Web site stage. We need to return to the objective of government” (Lake, 2006). Fountain made similar remarks back in October of 2005 in her keynote address at the eGovernment Consultation Workshop for the 7th Framework Programme in the Information Society Technology Programme held in Brussels. In the speech, she states that one of the three areas for future research with regard to these e-government key challenges is social justice –

and not just the digital divide with regard to access to the internet. Fountain (2005) states the following: At the core of democracy is the need to constantly fight against social inequalities. We need to pay explicit attention to the relationship between the development of e-government and it’s potential and actual effects on social inequality. If we do not, I fear that without an explicit research agenda, we will just be building faster, better, cheaper, status quo e-government. Fountain should be credited with the recognition that although technology has made us more efficient, it does not automatically make us more democratic. So how can we examine the relationship between technology and social inequality? Where is money being spent, and by whom, and for what type of innovations? These and myriad other questions can be asked, most beyond the scope of this paper, but one tool to take note of is Fountain’s introduction of the Technology Enactment Framework. One of the key aspects of this framework is the distinction between ICT itself, on the one hand, and the perceptions and use of this technology by people. There has been debate about the number and type of actors involved, whether she is guilty of ‘technological determinism’, and whether or not it could be applied on a macro scale. However, her concepts for the most part have served as a guiding light in the discussion of e-government, and others have attempted to modify some of her ideas to better explain why some attempts at e-government seem to succeed while other efforts fail. Harvard University’s Alexander Schellong (2007), for example, is hesitant to agree with Fountain’s argument, yet he does not outright reject them either.

Instead, he admits that she has made an important contribution, and he attempts to modify the Technology Enactment Framework in order to pull it into a more acceptable socio-technical systems theory approach. In addition, both Schellong and Fountain, in the previously cited sources, have indicated a need for greater interoperability between government agencies. For purposes of the rest of this paper, we will assume that there is indeed a difference between ICT and the actors who use it. The focus will be on social justice issues called for by Fountain rather than interoperability. Not only can ICT shape the actions of the actors who use the technology, but the reverse is also true. The actors themselves, including government and even individual citizens (Schellong, 2007), who use technology, have the opportunity to shape future implementations of technological development through market participation as well as product feedback. The multiple actors, besides the e-government utilizing organizations, are not as critical from an HR perspective as simply the understanding that technology can indeed be shaped by different groups of actors, including government itself. How does this relate to social justice? There are multiple answers to this question, but one of the biggest questions involves how government influences the use and development of technology, and whether this leads to social justice and a more representative society in terms of the hiring decisions performed by HR agencies on a daily basis. This will be expanded upon further at the end of the discussion on forces/trends that affect technology and ultimately hiring decisions.

Values In order to understand how technology and other forces can affect HR hiring decisions, let’s back up a moment and take a look at some of the values of HR, as discussed in the opening paragraph. Human resource management within government is concerned not just with finding competent employees, but also that these employees are representative of society. Too often, however, the connection is overlooked concerning the fact that a representative society is the basis for a representative government. Therefore, it is important to at least consider some of the benefits and drawbacks of representative government. In order to do this, it is helpful to consider the term itself. “Representative government”, like the term “diversity”, can have several meanings. The first meaning involves the idea of accountability of elected officials to the people that elect them. The second meaning involves social representation of the multiformity and variety of different types of people included within our society. The first definition implies that the person being elected by peers to represent them will do so on some basis of merit, and that is the first value and benefit of a representative government. It also implies the value and benefit of accountability for one’s work, since the elected official is answerable to voters, at least on election day. The second definition implies the value and benefit of equal opportunity to people who work in this country. However, it does not just mean citizens of the United States, for better or for worse. Indeed, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act specifies that there should be no discrimination against any individual due to race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Despite questions

of fairness, Title VII implies that there is no longer such a thing as an “American job”. A foreigner has just as much right to a job offered by a corporation on American soil as an American citizen. Therefore, it is a bit disconcerting to speak of a representative society and diversity when the target population for a job on American soil can include everyone from the entire planet. Anyone, that is, except a US citizen who has been screened out of the employment process due to a conviction. Although a person coming from a different national origin may have a conviction as well, this would not be detected in many cases by American HR background searches, which would only screen out citizens of this country. Many local governments have requirements for employment that a person must live within the boundaries of the city; however, they also screen applicants based on background checks. Simply put, most employers are unwilling to hire those with convictions, and if they are hired, they end of working in menial labor where there is little chance of contact with the public. Holtzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2001) stated in their study concerning employer background checks and their willingness to hire ex-offenders, that Employer willingness to hire ex-offenders is very limited, even relative to other groups of disadvantaged workers (such as welfare recipients). Employer willingness to hire is highly correlated with establishment and job characteristics, and is much lower in financial or service jobs and in those involving a variety of tasks, particularly direct customer contact, than elsewhere. Employer tendencies to check criminal backgrounds also vary greatly with characteristics of the establishment such as its size, which presumably reflects both the resources and expertise available for human resource functions. (Holtzer, Raphael, and Stoll, 2001, p.30) The study states that 9 percent of all men will serve time in state or federal prisons, including 30 percent of African-American men and 16 percent of

Hispanic men (Holtzer, 2001, p.3). It should be kept in mind that these men are or become fathers, and that their children need to be supported. Elaine Sorensen(2001), in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommitee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means, states that One employment barrier that disproportionately affects poor noncustodial fathers is incarceration and having a criminal record. Nearly 30 percent of poor noncustodial fathers who do not pay child support are institutionalized. Most of these fathers are in prison. Once these fathers leave institutional life, their work prospects will not improve that much. Their criminal record and interrupted labor force participation make these men unattractive to prospective employers.

Technology has provided the HR professional the means to discriminate on behalf of the employing entity by means of database and criminal records searches which are shared across the country. A man with a mark on his record has no place to go to start a new life…anywhere he turns, the situation will be the same in terms of the employment process. Yet the sad fact is that employers are more willing to break the law by hiring foreigners and illegal aliens (who, by definition, broke the law by entering the country illegally) than domestic exoffenders citizens. The forces behind this fact are the subject of the following discussion on the economic plans formed and / or endorsed by some of the most influential leaders of our nation. Forces Rather than attempt to prove a casual relationship between technology and hiring decisions in government agencies, I will simply point towards a few major and obvious trends that I believe influence the hiring process negatively in

relationship to the values that have thus far been hammered out through the political process within the United States. Some might argue that each element is not actually a negative force, such as the first force or element - the trend towards reinventing government. But what is important is how the element affects the values of a representative society and representative government, and also how it might affect the hiring decision of HR professionals. The second force or element is the push towards regionalization as a solution to current economic problems. The third element is the alarming rate of incarceration of U.S. citizens compared to other countries of the world, and is more of a trend than an independent force. The current emphasis on reinventing government is but the latest phase of change since the inception of the Pendelton Act of 1883, and includes reinventing Human Resource management, which has generally meant a strengthening of accountability of employees to management in order to provide managers with more flexibility in pursuing goals of increased productivity. This is particularly true in reform states such as Texas, Florida, and Georgia. Focusing on Texas, which has done away with a mandatory civil-service structure, and embraced at-will employment principles, the question remains as to whether there is still a balance in the interplay of values. In order to examine this issue, Jerrell D. Coggburn (2006) surveyed HR directors of different these state agencies. He concludes that

at-will employment does enhance executive control over government, it does nothing to attract new employees or to positively motivate existing staff members. Moreover, at-will employment may discourage certain forms of desirable behavior (e.g., whistleblowing, risk taking) and, at the same time, encourage undesirable behavior (e.g., poor decision making, insensitivity to procedural fairness). At a time when America’s best and brightest opt not to pursue government careers, when those retiring from government do not recommend public service careers to others, and when antigovernment sentiment runs deep, government should be exploiting the competitive advantages it has—such as job security—to meet its HR challenges. Far from helping curb the quiet crisis, at-will employment may be helping to build a perfect storm in public sector employment (Coggburn, 2006, p.174).

Organizational culture can certainly affect the balance of representative government values at a department level (Dresang, 2002, p. 10), but it is clear that Coggburn believes that state laws also can have an effect on organizational culture as well. And while I agree that a perfect storm may be brewing, I believe that the problem has progressed far enough to have attracted the attention of legislators. While the reinvention of government started under Clinton, its acceleration of effects, particularly the most negative effects, have taken place while republicans have been in power. Were the country to move strongly back to the left, I believe that there would be an attempt to address these excesses that Coggburn sees on the horizon. However, the success of restoring a more

representative government and a representative bureaucracy, hopefully based on merit, will largely be dependent on the stability and growth of the economy. At the point of this writing, the housing market continues to crash, the dollar is taking a continued beating on the exchange market and has reached all-time lows against the euro, several major countries have or are considering diversifying assets from dollars to other currencies, and consumer debt is soaring while consumer spending has cooled. The BBC reported on April 30, 2007 that the US and EU have agreed to build a common market (see endnotes for reference), and of course there is the continued push for a North American Union. It could be asked whether the balance of values of representative government, some of which were mentioned earlier such as merit, accountability, societal representation, and career opportunities (Dresang, 2002, p.10), are skewed or contradicted by these forces as well. This, of course, leads to the second force that might provide a context for the understanding of how technology in government can effect the hiring decisions reached at the HR level. The second force to be discussed is the push towards regionalization as a solution to economic problems within the United States. Again, just as the values of a representative government can be skewed by organizational culture, and, as we have seen, state legal frameworks, so can these values be effected at other levels of government. The Council on Foreign Relations (2005) sponsored an independent Task Force to study issues related to follow up of the NAFTA accords, and released the results of their study in their 2005 paper entitled “Building a North American Community”. While the Council

has no affiliation with the U.S. government, it is important to note that nearly every former US president since WWII has been a member as well as the majority of State Department influentials. The paper calls for a common market and common security perimeter between Canada, the United States, and Mexico on page 30 and 31 of the document. It does not call for a political union, but keep in mind that economic union is a natural precursor for political union, just as in the EU, and this will be even more pronounced since security will be an issue on the table. Central to the arrangement is the issue of handling border security in ways which would not impede the free movement of goods and people across the border. And central to border security is the development of a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers as an alternative to building a physical wall at the border. The biometric agreement is not suprising based on the Smart Border Declaration update published by the (2004), which states that the facial recognition biometric “had been selected as the globally interoperable

biometric”, with iris recognition and fingerprints to be used as secondary identifiers. The U.S. Department of State (2007) has informed the public through their departmental website that the newly designed e-passports (U.S. Electronic Passports) contain small electronic chips that enable the use of this facial recognition technology at international airports. Facial recognition technology was proven highly inaccurate in crowd control situations back in 2002 according to the ACLU report “Drawing a Blank”(Stanley & Steinhardt, 2002), although the technology may have improved since then. However, although the use of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) by local law

enforcement may involve the use of face-recognition technology, many of the cameras being installed around the country are being installed on roads and traffic light intersections, so the probability is that the technology is being used to read license plate tags, which it is more than accurate enough to perform. Instead of trying to imagine a policeman in an isolated room trying to read license plates from a multitude of networked CCTV cameras, simply imagine software that detects the license plates from the feeds of these traffic light cameras. Car tags from people that have been identified for whatever reason as potential law-enforcement risks can be fed into the system, enabling police and under-cover agents to monitor and quickly converge on a ‘suspect’ once the cameras and software had alerted them of the suspect’s location, and thus would be a complement to GPS tracking technology.
Without getting into the legalities of privacy issues, which are a legitimate concern, it is helpful to understand the existing state of incarceration of U.S. citizens. An article in Criminal Justice by Catherine L. Anderson(2005) states that since 1980, the adult prison population has increased more than 300 percent, and that our incarceration rate is at least six times that of Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. She wonders whether more people are committing crimes in the United States as compared to the rest of the world, or if, on the other hand, is there a political motivation to appear tough on crime. At any rate, she points out that Federal crimes account for only 5 percent of all prosecutions in the United States. Most prosecutions take place at the local level. I will point to an article written by Paul Craig Roberts (2006), former

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. Apparently Mr. Roberts believes that a great deal of this increase has come under the Bush administration, and is unwarranted. Roberts cites statistics from The International Center for Prison Studies at King's College in London: the US has the largest percentage of its citizens imprisoned of all countries in the world, including China. One of every 32 US adults is behind bars, on probation or on parole...the US has 700,000 more of its citizens incarcerated than China, a country with a population four to five times larger than that of the US, and 1,330,000 more people in prison than crime-ridden Russia. The US has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners. The American incarceration rate is seven times higher than that of European countries. Either America is the land of criminals, or something is seriously wrong with the criminal justice (sic) system in "the land of the free”. It is reasonable to assume that the addition of cameras planted throughout American cities will only increase the rate of incarcerations. According to Roberts, many of these incarcerations are based on prosecutor gaming of the system in order to procure easy convictions by threatening maximum prison times allowed by law unless a person makes a plea-bargain deal, and not surprisingly more than 95% or all felony cases are therefore settled with a plea bargain. As a Reagan Republican and already a stauch defender of legal rights of citizens, he became convinced that the present administration is acting contrary to the Constitution of this country, and that these trends towards criminalization of the American public are increasing due to illegal use of power, such as spying without warrants. Roberts (2006), in another article, states the following:

…We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party. Whether or not one agrees with Roberts about the politicalization and corruption of the justice system, it is possible for HR professionals to develop empathy for fellow citizens. How many people do you know that have had a brush with the law due to something like substance abuse or driving while under the influence? People can get over a drinking or drug problem, but they can never get over a conviction due to background screening of employers and the HR companies, both in private industry and in government. This is true whether the charge involves drugs, or trumped up charges of “assault on a police officer” which may be politically motivated, such as was attempted on Rep.Cynthia McKinney, a lawmaker and outspoken anti-war activist (Head, 2006). The fact that certain segments of the domestic population (blacks) are convicted at such high rates compared to their population percentage should be kept in mind when entering into discussions of affirmative action and equal opportunity. If illegal immigration were uniformly enforced to the same extent as laws concerning drugs, the prison system would be crushed under it’s own weight. For some Americans born and raised in this country, the idea of illegal immigrants being allowed to work illegally in the United States is not an issue of prejudice or xenophobia, but of fairness. If we wish for those released from prison, or who otherwise have a mark on their

record, to be able to go on and live a clean life free from crime, then it is important to not cut them off from employment for which they are suited and capable of performing. Branding someone with a scarlet letter for life can in no way contribute to the functioning of a just society, and is just as important a social justice issue as a representative society. Unfortunately, shared national criminal databases, the push for open borders, and the de-Americanization of jobs located within corporations still located on US soil almost guarantees that the Scarlet Letter will be branded on these men and women for life, even after they have supposedly already “paid their debt to society”. Some of the brightest advocates of e-government have recognized the need to also focus on the relationship between technology and social inequalities. HR professionals both within government and the private industry have the capability of peeking into a person’s entire life through the use of background search databases. At the same time, the staggering amount of incarcerated citizens in the United States, in comparison to the rest of the world, only portends a continuance of the same trends due to the ability of law enforcement to watch and monitor nearly every footstep of it’s citizen population, in an increasingly politicalized environment, and to create databases which are shared with the public, including HR professionals. Americans are becoming progressively more criminalized, and those branded with convictions are screened out of the employment process, while at the same time jobs are being given to newcomers to the country, some of which broke the law by entering the country illegally. However, although the author of this paper support legal immigration, this paper

is not meant to target illegal aliens, many of who come here in desperation because they have absolutely no future in their own country. The real focus, once again, is on the progressive criminalization of those in the United States by police who increasingly seem to have forgotten the constitution and Bill of Rights, and the effects on the employability of those who have a conviction on their record. The HR professional who does a background check usually does not ask questions when finding a mark of certain categories on an applicant’s record. Instead, the assumption is made that the police made a moral arrest, and that the legal system is for the most part infallible. The New York Civil Liberties Union (2005) reports that over 1,800 people were arrested at the Republican National Convention back in 2004, and 10% of those arrested were convicted of supposedly committing some crime, although videotapes abounded providing evidence of police perjury. Some of these people will find that the mark on their record will affect their employment for the rest of their life. On May 1, 2007, LAPD police and SWAT teams used non-lethal (but still painful) rubber-bullet technology to attack citizens and non-citizens who were engaging in a peaceful immigrant-rights demonstration. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed Carol Sobel, president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. Sobel(2007) states that “quite frankly, what happened is when the police decided to sweep the park and close it down, there was no one that was doing anything more than heckling them. And they were -- I wouldn't say “heckling,” even, I would say “criticizing” them -- and they were doing it because what happened during the course of this march

is that the police wanted open up a street, and rather than talking to people and saying, “Can you move onto the sidewalk? Can you move into the park now?” what they did was run their motorcycles into women and children in the Aztec dancers group, who were in the street at that point still. And the street was closed to traffic, but they were in the street performing their ritual circle dance at the end of the march. And so, you had the police doing one of the most provocative things they could do, and all of a sudden it is the fault of the demonstrators when the police literally use their motorcycles to strike people as a means of crowd control and to strike women and children as a means of crowd control, when people were peaceful…

…there are rules within the LAPD about how you set up a press area. They just didn't care. I mean, they just -- you know, if a press person was knocked down, they struck him with a baton to get him up. If the cameraman got knocked down and the reporter tried to help him up, they beat the cameraman and the reporter. It was just -- it was senseless.” While some swaggering law-and-order types might promote a “that’s what you get” attitude and wield the brand of the scarlet letter, it may be that the forces that wish to recreate government are actually influencing technology in an Orwellian manner, and in such a way as to work against the values of social equality and equal opportunity that are valued by the America public. If the public decides that law-enforcement and the justice system have morphed into instruments of social control, perhaps we will find a small miracle occurring - that HR professionals

and hiring managers might actually experience a paradigm shift with regard to their interpretation of background checks, hopefully resulting in a bit more compassion in the hiring decisions that they make on a daily basis.

References: Anderson, Catherine L. (2005). “The Rule of Law in Uncertain Times”. Criminal Justice, Winter 2005, pp.1, 31. British Broadcasting Corporation. (2007, April 30). US and EU agree ‘single market’. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6607757.stm Behn, Robert D. (2005). M-Gov,E-Gov, and I-Gov. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/7009.pdf Canadian Foreign Affairs and International Trade Department. (2004, December 17). Smart Border Action Plan Status Report. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/main/border/status-en.asp Coggburn Jerry D. (2006). “At-Will Employment in Government: Insights from the State of Texas.” Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 26, no. 2: 158-177. Council On Foreign Relations. (2005, May). Building A North American Community. Independent Task Force Report, No. 53. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf Denis, Dresang. (2002). Public personnel management and public policy. (4th edition) New York: Addison Wesley Longman Fountain, Jane. (2005, October 25). “Key Challenges for e-Government.” Retrieved May 07, 2007 from http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/Events/jane's%20video.mov Head, Tom. (2006, April 1). “Black Representative Accosted by DC Police for Changing Hairstyle”. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257235.htm?iam=momma_100_SKD&terms=cynt hia+mckinney+police Holtzer, H.J., Raphael, S., and Stoll, M.A. (2001). “Will Employers Hire Ex-

Offenders? Employer Preferences, Background Checks, and Their Determinants”. Retrieved May 07, 2007 from http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/holzer_raphael_stoll.pdf?CFID=8979865&CFTOKEN= 46951486 Keefe, Bob.(2007, February 27). TEXAS STALLED IN 'NEW ECONOMY' RANKINGS. Cox News Service, Financial Pages. Retreived May 07, 2007, 11:11 PM EDT from LexisNexis. Lake, Allison (2006, June 6). The Outlook For Digital Government. Public CIO. Retrieved May 07, 2007, from http://www.publiccio.com/story.php?id=99815&story_pg=3 The New York Civil Liberties Union(2005, August 30). “NYCLU Post-RNC Report: City Must Change Protest Policies”. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://www.nyclu.org/rnc_report_pr_083005.html Roberts, Paul Craig (2006, December 12). “America’s Injustice System is Criminal”. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12122006.html Roberts, Paul Craig (2006, February 7). “My Epiphany: From Reaganaut to Anti-War Radical”. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060207_epiphany.htm Schellong, Alexander. (2007). Extending the Technology Enactment Framework. Part of the PNG Working Paper Series, Working Paper # PNG07-003. Retrieved May 07, 2007 from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/netgov/files/png_workingpaper_series/PNG07003_WorkingPaper_extending_technology_enactment _framework_schellong.pdf Sobel, Carol. (2007, May 8). “LAPD Reassigns Two Top Commanders Who Ordered Police to Shoot Rubber Bullets at Protesters & Journalists During May Day Immigrants Rights Rally”. Interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!. Retrieved May 9, 2007 from http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/08/1328249 Sorenson, Elaine. (2001). Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from http://www.urban.org/publications/900422.html Stanley, J., Steinhardt, B. (2002). “Drawing A Blank: The failure of facial recognition technology in Tampa, Florida”. Retrieved from the Electronic Privacy Information Center on May 8, 2007 at http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/1105/aclu0302.pdf U.S. Department of State. (2007). The U.S. Electronic Passport . Retrieved May

7, 2007 from http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt_2498.html