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...

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

Re:Showing his age...

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!"

lol mccain

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

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.

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

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

Does the President have to know about this stuff?

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

summary

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

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

Lessig

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

Re:Ultimaitely...

I bet both can even SPELL Technology.

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

Re:Broadband Access

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?

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

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...

Re:What about the 2nd?

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?

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?

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.