I believe it's pretty self-evident that technology is rather generic at best. The tag currently has four questions, none of them pretty good. Let's have a look at the four burnination questions:
1. Does it describe the contents of the questions to which it is applied? and is it unambiguous?
No, it doesn't. None of these questions have anything in common. The tag is so generic, that the overwhelming majority of questions could be labelled as "relating to technology" in a sense. Saying "this question is about technology" is completely meaningless.
2. Is the concept described even on-topic for the site?
Yes and no. While most information security relates to technology in one way or another, there is also plenty of technology, which does not relate to information security as a whole.
3. Does the tag add any meaningful information to the post?
No, not at all. Just to illustrate, every question on the first page of the Highest Voted Questions relates to "technology" in one way or another, but they're all completely different content-wise. So adding the tag doesn't really add anything meaningful anyways.
4. Does it mean the same thing in all common contexts?
Yes and no. The Oxford Dictionary defines technology as
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
Which could mean a billion things.
Bonus: Can you be an expert in technology?
This is more of a personal test than one agreed on by the community, but I believe that a good tag describes something that someone can be an expert in, or have expert knowledge on.
For example, the tags passwords, encryption, network, ip, sql-injection all describe something that someone can be an expert in. technology on the other hand, does not. As such, I believe it's a useless tag.