How Tech-Savvy Will the Next President Be?

CorinneI writes "We've got our candidates. We know their positions on the major issues of the day — healthcare, the Iraq war, the economy, yada, yada, yada. But Senators McCain and Obama will also have to be concerned with tech issues. Where do they stand on Net neutrality, patent protection, piracy, broadband, privacy, and H1B visas? Do their campaign positions match up with their voting records and public statements? Here's how they stack up on the big five tech issues of the day."

Showing his age...

[smitty97 (995791)]

I think McCain has first-hand experience with a Babbage computer

Re:Showing his age...

[Rei (128717)]

I hear he's written a script, triggered by an X10 motion sensor in his front yard, that plays back an audio recording of him shouting, "Get the hell off my lawn!"

Re:Showing his age...

[thetoadwarrior (1268702)]

I heard he spends his days playing Battlefield Vietnam but he's a bit shit at it and he's always getting captured.

lol mccain

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

McCain: Supports increased broadband access via competition rather than government regulation.

This literally made me laugh out loud. I don't even know what to say.

Also, don't forget that McCain inexplicably supports telecom immunity..

Re:lol mccain

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Also, don't forget that McCain inexplicably supports telecom immunity..

I'm sure a reasonably careful analysis of his bank records would render this a good deal more explicable.

Opensecrets.org

[skwang (174902)]

I suspect the original poster is trying to imply an illegal link between the candidate and industry. I can't comment if one exists. But what I recommend is you go to Center for Responsive Politics [opensecrets.org] which will tell you where the source of campaign contributions of all presidential candidates.

The Web site aggregates company donations by industrial sector. Thus to see which candidate gets the most money from "Telephone Utilities" you can try clicking on this link: Telephone Utility Totals to Candidates [opensecrets.org] As you can see Sen. McCain has received $345,945 from said utilities while Sen. Obama has received $203,546.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

N.B. I should note that the last election fund-raising report was due on 20-May-2008 and that was for donations received in April, so the information on this Web site is usually two months old.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[wizardforce (1005805)]

You're right, he did it of his own free will- that should scare you.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[0111 1110 (518466)]

If you were accepting bribes, would you list them on your tax return?

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Slashdot Suxxors (1207082)]

Yes, because that would be the right thing to do.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[KevinKnSC (744603)]

Maybe we should look at campaign contributions [fecwatch.org] instead. Hmm, notice any telecom companies accused of illegal domestic spying on his "top 5 contributors"?

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

No, but his wife is certainly aware enough, as are his lobbyist "advisors" (whose other clients include Iran, by the way).

Oh, when John McCain's egg gets cracked, there's gonna be a huge mess. He can only hide behind the "I'm a hero because I crashed my plane in the jungle and then made videos for the Viet Cong" angle for so long. Sooner or later, some journalist is going to grow a set and actually do more than a cursory glance at McCain's history. Then, there's gonna be much wailing and gnashing of teeth among Republicans and corporate lobbyists.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Danse (1026)]

Do you know how many other elected officials AT&T supports?? Is it illegal to be a campaign supporter now? oooh 160 grand! Mccain (the millionaire) can finally buy that Taj Mahal he's been wanting.

Just shows that there is a hell of a lot of conflict of interest in D.C. People like you just accepting it ensures the perpetuation of the corruption.

Seriously, these implications of wrong doing are idiotic. Mccain, though I hate him, is a champion of campaign finance reform.

When we actually see some reform that fixes the problems, then I'll give him some credit. Until then, he's got the same conflicts of interest and appearance of impropriety as anyone else doing favors for corporate interests after accepting contributions from them. It's damn near impossible to prove quid pro quo, but the appearance is bad enough. Even if those contributions just mean that he'll take their calls, that gives them a level of influence that is much greater than anyone else. That's a corrupting influence as well.

So.... Why are there only two candidates?

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Not an American. Just would like to know why politics there is binary. On/Off, Good/Bad, Black/White.

Seems amazingly simplistic to me.

 

Re:So.... Why are there only two candidates?

[Guido del Confuso (80037)]

Because that's what the politicians want. It's what keeps them in power. We have a two party system in this country, and they have set themselves up to be diametrically opposed to each other on basically every major issue. There's no room for middle ground or alternatives, because that would open up the political system to third parties or independents, which would take away power from the established ruling parties.

As a result, you must either be for abortion rights, gun control, socialized medicine, gay rights, environmental protection, and non-interventionism, or be against all these things. Either way, you are out of necessity for more government regulation to promote your agenda, because if you don't pass a law on a given issue your opponents will. It's essentially a zero sum legislative proliferation game. If you would rather vote for a party that supports what you truly believe you are told you are throwing your vote away. So most people pick the issue that is most important to them, and ally themselves with the party they that agrees with them on that issue.

But the truth is it's not any better anywhere else, if you ask me. In some ways, the best political situation one can realistically expect is deadlock. Consensus can be a dangerous thing, because more often than not it represents an agreement that the population needs some new additional regulation or control for its own good (see, e.g., the USA PATRIOT Act or the Homeland Security Act, both of which enjoyed an broad bipartisan support).

The question is no longer whether new regulations are necessary, but rather which of two opposing viewpoints you hold as to what that regulation should be.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Jawnn (445279)]

His personal income (as reflected in his tax returns) does not reflect campaign contributions. But then, if you had half a clue about such things, you wouldn't be defending Republicans who are the telecom industry's bought-and-paid-for toadies. The "bank records" might better be interpreted as those records that indicate who paid what to whom and when in exchange for what no-bid contracts, etc., but the point is valid, nonetheless.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[The End Of Days (1243248)]

No, instead we should be defending Democrats bought by the Hollywood community who put draconian copyright restrictions into place.

Yeah, they're all scum. Even the ones you like.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[R2.0 (532027)]

"you wouldn't be defending Republicans who are the telecom industry's bought-and-paid-for toadies. "

And Jay Rockefeller, D (WV), is pushing telecom immunity because he truly believes the Telco's were the innocent victims here?

Re:McCain is spot-on

[Cairnarvon (901868)]

ISPs are a natural monopoly, so your options are basically government regulation, a government-run monopoly, or the situation you currently have in the US.
And modern socialism works a lot better than you might think. Just look at Europe.

What about the 2nd?

[bluelip (123578)]

In my eyes, the most important issue is the preservation of the 2nd ammendment.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Actually, I do RTFA (1058596)]

One, that's hardly a geek issue. Two, I've asked on slashdot a bunch of times, but never gotten an answer: Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined? Third, other than showing respect for the Constitution, why is the 2nd useful? In other words, why not overturn it (assuming you read the preamble to it in the manner the NRA prefers.)? Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military, and every idiot cannot be trusted with a tank, so any forced overthrow arguement is crap. And while I believe in guns for hunting and home protection, there are a lot of restrictions that you can place on weapons that people seem to think violate the 2nd amendement without getting close to either one of those.

I'm really trying to figure out why anyone cares about this issue.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Facetious (710885)]

Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military

Hear, hear! Groups with small arms have never been a match for a modern mil... Oh, wait.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Notquitecajun (1073646)]

The general rationale is that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate protection of all the others. You have a decent agreement that we're not really going to overthrow the government with civilian-held firearms, but that entire scenario is a bit of a stretch. However, I CAN defend certain aspects of some of my freedoms with my guns.

The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America, and disarming those of us who are law-abiding only makes us more vulnerable to attacks on our life, liberty, and property.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Sandbags (964742)]

Well, if you look at the statistics from Australia, Canada, and other countries who have enacted strict gun control laws, you'll see crime stays the same or even slightly declines, and in some rare cases, slightly increases. However, digging into the details of "armed robbery" you'll see that once the gun control came into play, although armed robbery stayed consistent, the percentage involving guns actually dropped dramatically, with the difference being replaced by knives and bats, etc.

Deperaate people commit crimes, some of them with guns. Removing guns does NOT precipitate more deperate people, therefore, there is no logical support for increases in gun crime. Wether yopu have a gun or not in your house or business, you're still likely 1) to have other weapons at hand, 2) alarms or a hpne for 911 to call cops, who have guns, 3) won't be home when being robbed, and 4) won;t be killed by your robber (less than 1 % of roberies involve a victim being killed by the crook).

What you WILL get, that is STRONGLY supported by statistics, is a sharp drop in sposes shooting each other, kids shooting people accidentally, suicides, and more. In fact, even where gun crime has increased by as much as 20%, the number of deaths from guns dropped as much as 300% at the same time, simply by limiting who can own a gun.

Look into the numbers. There are links in my other posts, or simply use Google.

This is not an argument, FACT: gun control saves an order of magnitude more lives than it places at risk.

This is also not an arguement: It is NOT against the constitution for them to limit guns. The constitution clearly reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is clearly laid out not as a right to bear arms for all citizens, but as a MEANS to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, if you are not PART OF a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then you DO NOT have a right to bear arms.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[oodaloop (1229816)]

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure military-grade weapons (flint-lock muskets at the time) remain in the hands of ordinary citizens. Today, that would include a lot more than just hunting rifles. It may seem scary to have such powerful weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, but to me the opposite is much scarier: a disarmed, helpless society unable to defend itself from its government. Much is made of the growing trend of government intrusion into our privacy, warrantless arrests, et al, using quotes like, "When they came for___, I said nothing." Well, when they come for you, what are you going to do?

Re:What about the 2nd?

[2short (466733)]

"Try England's crime rate as an example."

OK, I did. I expected the case would be ambiguous, but WOW, get a new example buddy! Based on the first figures I could find, the UKs per-capita murder rate is about one fifth that of the US, and the majority of the murders in the US used guns, whereas almost none in th UK did.

"Quit trying to pick and choose which ones you agree with."

For Gods sake why? This isn't holy scripture, it was written by men who did their best, and did by-and-large a damn fine job. The Second Amendment was muddily written, and is badly obsolete.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[spun (1352)]

Please reread the GP post. He was asking why the 'far left' do not go to Iraq and fight America, seeing as how they don't agree with US policy. Get that? He was advocating that peace activists use war to achieve peace, and stating that it was 'funny' that we don't. Yes, it's fucking hilarious. I mean, why doesn't the fire department just burn down buildings, that would certainly solve the fire problem.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Sandbags (964742)]

Actually, Armed robery in Australia, though up slightly in 2006 and 2007, is down more than 50% since 2000. Further more, numbering about 600 instances per month currently (http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/robbery/stats/) The FAR majority of these are knife roberies, very few involve guns. Homicides involving guns in australia can be measured in the 10s per year, about 1/15th the frequency, per capita, of the USA (http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)

What I think would work here, and remain constitutional, would be to limit strictly the TYPE of firearms legaly owned, limit those further to licenced persons, and their carying in public to authorized citizens only. (the constitution provides owning handguns for the efficint creation of a militia, and says nothing about hunting, home security, or any other rights) If you're not active, or in some way military trained, or work for a local molitia (AKA police) or a private and legally licenced militia (private security) then you have no constitutionally protected rights toa firearm.

Beyond limitation of ownership, unless in uniform, and wearing a badge consistent with posession of a loaded gun, police should have loosened rules for being able to shoot at armed suspects. Having a concealed weapon, in any way, unless visibly identified as someone authorised to do so, should allow police leniancy for opening fire on you sooner. A gun in your hand is all they should need to empty their clip at you. If criminals are aware of this increased risk of death, they'll stop carying guns.

The big deal however is not even limiting crime, but limiting accidental deaths and crimes of passion. The bulk of gun releated deaths in the USA fall into these 2 categories. Take a look at statistics in Canada, clearly showing that as household gun ownership increases, so do gun deaths, and in areas where guns in homes are rare, the drop in accidental and other gun related injuries is very low. Homicides do seem to remain consistent. Suicides however are more than 10 times the number of homicides, and keep in mind, 75% of homicides are people that know each other (wives killing husbands, or their lovers, etc)

Re:What about the 2nd?

[VultureMN (116540)]

Jesus Christ, do you have any other tired, worn out, bullshit stereotypes to throw out?

Seriously. I'm a liberal. I know a lot of liberals. But I can't think of anyone I know who wants to ban guns. Hell, I'm a supporter of strong 2nd Amendment rights, and a lot of my friends are, also.

Newsflash: different people are different. You'll find anti-gun conservatives and you'll find pro-gun liberals, and vice-versa. If you insist on attempting to group together everyone left-of-center and claim we're all this-and-that-and-the-other, I reserve the right to call everyone right-of-center a violent hate-fulled homophobic racist backwards inbred uneducated dipshit redneck. I know that's not true, but hey, what's good for the goose, right?

Does the President have to know about this stuff?

[krog (25663)]

I'd much rather have a President who surrounds himself with well-informed advisors, than a President who weighs his own opinions on specialized topics more heavily than a specialist's opinion. Leadership is delegation.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017)]

True, but surrounding yourself with well-informed advisors requires the ability to recognize someone that is well-informed. This is difficult to do without having some level of knowledge yourself.

Oh HELL NO!

[khasim (1285)]

But at that point it's more about reading people than knowing the subject material.

Oh no it's not. Spend any time in IT and you'll find people who can spin wonderful fantasies without any real knowledge what-so-ever.

But they'll appear perfectly sincere and trustworthy.

Having a strong ethical foundation will also factor in.

And they can fake that as easily as they can fake technical knowledge. It's even EASIER.

There is NO substitute for personal knowledge.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Rei (128717)]

That's not necessarily true. If two politicians felt they needed an expert on, say, managing the development of a large piece of code, one candidate might pick Linus Torvalds while another might pick Bill Gates. Both would certainly be qualified, but the one that would be selected is the one that lines up with your ideals on what the development should be like. If the candidate doesn't have an opinion on an issue that they're to be in charge of, that's especially dangerous, as they'll simply pick whoever exudes "qualified" the most, whether or not they're actually the best choice.

All executive power stems from the president, and all cabinet members serve at their discretion. The president's views are ultimately what matter.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[tji (74570)]

That was the argument for why Bush was an acceptable President. "It doesn't matter that he has no foreign policy knowledge, is not intelligent, and cannot string two sentences together. As long as he has good advisors, everything will be fine."

We see how that turned out.

Having excellent advisors is an absolute requirement. It is necessary, but not sufficient, for a good presidency. You definitely need someone at the top who is able to digest all the inputs and provide the guidance and accountability.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[barzok (26681)]

But are Bush's advisers really that good? Someone else pointed out that Bush is all about loyalty, not necessarily the right person for the job.

Bush picked cronies and yes-men above all else. Haven't we heard a number of stories of Bush refusing to listen to those who disagree, simply because they disagree?

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Woundweavr (37873)]

Well Obama is good friends with Lawrence Lessig.

On the other hand, I think McCain grew up with Alan Turing's Dad so...

I mean, is there really any doubt on which one is more "tech savvy"? If their ages don't make it completely obvious, look at Obama's website, his government transparency (available online), and his simple familiarity with the issues.

A 47 year old recent Constitutional law professor (universities tend to have a couple uses for the inter-tubes) whose campaign uses the Internet as its central tool vs a 72 year old guy who has been in the Legislature since 640K was enough for anyone?

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[sm62704 (957197)]

If their ages don't make it completely obvious

Spoken like a truly ignorant kid. Guys in their twenties come to me [kuro5hin.org] for advice on computers, kid. Can you write a battle tanks game in assembly and then hand-assemble it (without an assembler) and have it run, bug-free? I did.

And there are guys twenty and thirty years my senior, now retired, who used hollerith cards in their programming and make me look ignorant about computers.

You need to educate yourself. Your hatred of those with more experience than you limits your horizons and should be a great personal embarrassment to you.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[VeNoM0619 (1058216)]

The president should represent the average person of the United States of America.

So you're saying just pick someone off the street with poor knowledge of everything, someone who does repetitive physical labor day in and day out?

If the president is to have so much power, shouldn't he be knowledgeable about what he has power over? I don't want some average Joe coding my software. A president should be someone "special", if he is to be elected, he should be the role model of the average person, not the average person himself.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Rei (128717)]

I loved Jon Stewart's comments on allegations of elitism. To paraphrase:

"Doesn't "elite" mean "the best"? You applying for a position that, if you do a good enough job, people may carve your face into the side of a mountain. If you don't think you're better than us, why are you running?"

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[wytcld (179112)]

Someone who "compiles Linux" is average. Just as average as someone who rebuilds their car's engine, or does their own carpentry, or grows their own garden, or .... Most Americans have a few things they have at least a good amateur's expertise in, if not professional qualifications. And some of us have even mastered the arcane "./compile;make;make install".

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[revscat (35618)]

Bush/Cheney value loyalty far, far more than intelligence, expertise, or performance. They appointed a plague of loyal idiots.

Ultimaitely...

[neokushan (932374)]

Either one will be a lot more savvy in general than the current president. I bet both can even SPELL Technology.

Re:Ultimaitely...

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Either one will be a lot more savvy in general than the current president. I bet both can even SPELL Technology.

But can they locate it on a map?

Re:Ultimaitely...

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

I bet both can even SPELL Technology.

And I bet they can spell "ultimately", too!

summary

[bornyesterday (888994)]

Net neutrality:
McCain - let the markets handle it
Obama - legislate it

Broadband Availability:
McCain - increased access via competition
Obama - re-define 'broadband', move toward universal service, increase availability at schools & libraries

H1B visas:
McCain - increase the number of them
Obama - full immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their employers

Intellectual Property Protection:
McCain - gov't handles blatant abuses, works against protectionism
Obama - increase cooperation on international standards

Privacy:
McCain - immunity for companies that cooperated with warrentless wiretapping
Obama - expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals

At least we'll have a President

[MoodyLoner (76734)]

for whom "tech-savvy" isn't another term for "knows what order the crayons go back in the box".

Lessig

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well, Obamas people went directly to Lawrence Lessig for discussing tech policies. I think that says a lot.

Get to the real issues

[slashname3 (739398)]

The issues listed are so far down the list they should not be a factor. The Federal Governments job is to provide security for the country, not dabble in things that should be left to the states to decide. To much power has been given to the Federal Government. Why should the Feds have anything to do with anyone having access to broadband?

I think we are getting very close to the time when the government as it has become will need to be reset. Right now we have a two party system where we get pretty much the same no matter who is in power. They treat the population as a huge wallet that they extract money from. Then that money is paid to the lobbies and others that paid to get the officials elected. Sure there is some it spent to placate the masses, but bread and circuses only last so long.

The problem is we have no one to blame but ourselves. We created a system that has systematically evolved politicians into the sub-species that they have become. They are able to spew sound bites without ever doing anything concrete and are able to promise everyone exactly what they want to hear. At this point we are unable to elect someone that has the actual skills that are needed to lead this country the way it should be led. Once in power they will tax and spend just like they always have no matter who is in power.

Personally I think our only hope at the moment is to keep any single party from getting both congress and the White House at the same time. At least when they are held by different parties it prevents massive sweeping changes from being enacted. If a single party does control everything then it will be a sign that things are going to get really bad. There will be no stopping them from doing whatever they hell they want.

Regardless get ready for $10.00 a gallon gasoline and rampant inflation over the next four years. And I suspect we will start to see massive famines across the world and possibly in this country. And the endless debate that the other party caused all this.

Re:Broadband Access

[pclminion (145572)]

It costs $10,000 to run a cable or fiber to my house. If we're waiting for "market competition" to make it happen, then it will NEVER happen, because there is no way Comcast or Verizon would ever recoupe their investment. "Whiz to Coho" says they can't get a wireless signal at my house 'cause of all the trees, and HughesNet satellite internet sucks! My only hope is some sort of universal access initiative. But then, I was going to vote for Obama anyway.

I see... You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband. No thanks dude. You want to live in the woods? Great -- sometimes I want to as well. But I don't expect to get 3 megabits down out there, and I certainly don't expect other people to have to pay to make that happen.

In other words, get others to pay for it?

[Shivetya (243324)]

After reading your issue all I have to say is

You people suck.

Specifically, its people like you that give reason for this government to run us all over.

So, since you won't or cannot pay 10 grand its okay to let to government expend that money to connect your residence?

worse, you probably don't see the problem with it from the wording of your post.

The corporations are right not doing it, the government would be wrong to do so. When people put themselves into situations they should be responsible to get themselves out.

Selfish. Let me guess, I should pay for other people being fat, lazy, and drinking too?

Karma is good when you have so much to burn, but damn your type really pisses me off.

Re:Nothing to see here folks

[nickhart (1009937)]

Does that about sum it up?

Not quite. You forgot to add the vast sums of money to the equation.

Obama [opensecrets.org]: $4,022,006 (TV/Movies/Music) + $3,060,630 (Computers/Internet) = $7,082,636

McCain [opensecrets.org]: $636,046 (TV/Movies/Music) + $629,315 (Computers/Internet) = $1,265,361

Gee, I wonder who's going to be listening harder to what the RIAA, telcos and other technology sector players have to say...