The Presidents Technical Advisor

T.Hobbes writes "There's an interview with the president's advisor on technology, Floyd Kvamme, at news.com. Some of it is just general political pr, though he does touch on (and dodge, at times) touchy tech issues (privacy, copyright, censorware, carnivore, ..). " He doesn't seem to be as mentally broken as the man he advises. But (and I know you liberatarians will scream) his stance on to many issues is that "The Industry Will Sort it Out". Of course they will. And then we will all have to go start a new planet just to prevent the the glorious self regulated industry from implanting chips in our asses to know where we are, what we are doing, and with who.

Comments

politics

[Trepidity]

Taco, your extreme bias and general incomprehension of political issues is getting a bit annoying. It's ok to be completely ignorant about politics, but not when you constantly talk about them on a large site that purports to disseminate "news."

Oh, and while I'm not a big fan of Mr. Bush's and usually vote Democrat, I'm glad he won this election - I shudder to think of what it'd be like if Joseph "ban movies and music" Liebermann and Tipper "parental advisory label" Gore had any power.

corporate control

[Jamie Zawinski]

Corperations are made of people who are remarkable like you and I, and run by people who actually grew up pretty much the same as you did..

Yes, corporations are people, just like you and me! From Adbusters' history of the corporation :

President Abraham Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the republic is destroyed." [...]

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

So by virtue of this VC being Bush's advisor, all the corporate ``persons'' his company funded get to have lunch with the president every day. But non-billionaire ``persons'' made of flesh and blood will never be heard.

"`I have great access,' said Kvamme."

hmm

[Phil-14]

I know it's your habit to knock Bush, but were things really that much better when it was a pretend liberal (Clinton) pushing things like Carnivore and the Clipper Chip? I'd rather have someone with a hands-off approach than an administration that was looking into giving the Clipper Chip Backdoors to China so they'd have incentive to use it too... all the governments ganging up on all the citizens?

What an informed guy! I'm so impressed!

[Jonathan]

Gotta love this quote from the interview.

Napster believes there is a legal precedent that has something to do with how radio...I guess when radio started to play songs, they had exactly the same problem. So this thing was set up. I can't even remember what the acronym is...this organization that now keeps track of which disc jockey plays which song

I thought this guy was supposed to *advise* Dubya -- not sound just like him!

Re:You'd prefer to be ruled by corporations?

[Jonathan]

>With companies, you can avoid doing business >with them.

It is the goal of all corporations to make themselves so ubiquitous so as to make avoiding them impossible. Take a look at Microsoft -- in their own words they want "Windows Everywhere".

>...whereas a corrupt government can *control* >the judicial system,

And corporations can't? Money controls everything ultimately, and many corps already have more money than some nations.

Gawd.

[Gray]

So, in your future, it's a big facist goverment which keeps corperations out of our asses? That's *so* much better..

Nothing like more laws to solve a problem..

Oddly, I'm a democrat, but this kind of thinking is so luddite.. Corperations are made of people who are remarkable like you and I, and run by people who actually grew up pretty much the same as you did.. Don't hate me for what you can't do..

Re:Gawd.

[rho]

My question to you is this: We can change the draft laws. We can get rid of the entire government. But the guys with all the money still have all the money. What do we do when *they* hold a gun to us and tell us to defend their property?

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. It's tempting to think of money and markets as a big pie -- i.e. if I have a big piece, you have a smaller piece. However, the reality is non-intuitive.

You can create new wealth at any time, without taking from somebody else.

But to answer your question (What do we do when *they* hold a gun to us and tell us to defend their property?) We point a gun right back at 'em! Please tell me the last time Proctor & Gamble (or GM, if you prefer) made you go to war? (I mean directly, not "They bought senators who voted for the war")
"Beware by whom you are called sane."

Re:Gawd.

[Katravax]

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this issue... which is worse, big government or big business? Frankly, as anti-government as I am, I'm starting to think that big business is worse. The main reason is that because corporations have "personhood" under the law, but no one has to pay the price of any wrong they do. Also, these "persons" can afford the best lawyers and the best politicians to get their way. So they have the rights of normal people, but none of the responsibility, and the money to do pretty much anything they want. There's also no way to really attack them, because the corporation can just vanish, and the money it generated can go toward another different corporation with none of the liabilities of the first. Of course it's more complicated than all that, but bottom line is, a corporation is like a super-person... they're too difficult to stop when they're doing something wrong.

Government, on the other hand, is fairly easy to attack should that become necessary. Look at the number of revolutions going on at any given time for proof. They may not all succeed, but at least there are visible targets that once removed, will stop doing whatever it was that drove people to revolt in the first place. Laws can be rewritten and policies changed. In other words, I believe it's easier to dispose of a corrupt government than a corrupt giant business should the need arise.The main difference between them, in addition to one being easier to destroy, is that it is legal for government to have armed enforcers that actually kill you (police, military, etc). Businesses do the same with security guards, etc., but note that in this case, the guard as a person would be responsible for any killing they do in defense of the company, as opposed to the government that ordered the killing on the part of the military or police.

I haven't thought everything through (obviously), but bottom line, in my opinion, don't reject the original comment from a couple posts ago that we may need government to protect us from business. Businesses may be run by "ordinary people" like us, but they don't have the same liability for their actions like we do if those actions are carried out as corporate behavior rather than individual behavior. I think it boils down to which one is easier to make stop doing what it's doing that's causing problems.

Re:Gawd.

[LaminatorX]

YES!

"The main reason is that because corporations have "personhood" under the law, but no one has to pay the price of any wrong they do. Also, these "persons" can afford the best lawyers and the best politicians to get their way."

Corperations serve to shield the shareholders from the wrongs that are done on their behalf. If we got a group of people together and gassed a town in India, we would be extradited and jailed. When Union Carbide does it, the get a nice big tax write-off, err fine.

If our gas-gang were sued by the Indian government, we would all loose everything we have. The U/C shareholders would only have their stock devalued. The corperate veil is the ultimate tool of plutocratic supremacy. These pseudo-persons dilute the decision-making process so widely that the "normal" people involve can all feel like it's not their fault, or plausably deny knowlege or whatever. This is by design! This is how people who would not normally hurt anyone have turned blind eyes to every form of exploitation from slavery to unsafe SUV's.

Governments have this problem also, but there is at least some accountability. If we as citizens folow an imperialist dictator, we will suffer the inevitable wars and sorrows that would bring. As much of a sham as govt accountability is when barely half of us vote and 90% of those votes are for the entrenched interests/parties, corperations are far worse.

Noone ever voted for a chemical company, or signed a referendum on holding adjusted$ wages stagnant since the seventies while exexutive salaries go through the roof. Marketing infests our very minds. People describe themselves as "consumers" without a hint of irony or shame. If the government used the kind of marketing that businesses do, it'd be positively Orwellian.

STFU Taco

[AntiBasic]

He doesn't seem to be as mentally broken as the man he advises.

Ok Bush may be stupid, he flunked out of college once. But I never see you bash Al Gump who flunked out of college twice.

You're just another one of those conformist rebels who love to hate capitalism yet love the life it is providing you. You hate capitalists but love capital.

Re:STFU Taco

[jacobito]

So we're measuring intelligence with grades? I've been measuring Bush's intelligence by his ability to compose a coherent thought extemporaneously, and by my measure, he's failing....

Rob, get a clue about libertarians!

[browser_war_pow]

That is exactly what we want. We want the "industry to sort it out!" As for your ignorant rant about planting chips in the hind quarters of the population, as a libertarian I just want to know one thing.... what corporation will legally be able to do that? Yeah that's right Rob, no corporation can legally do that, that is an initiation of force. We don't tolerate that, that is what the government is here to stop. Corporations cannot legally force you to do that. But oh wait, you're a Gore supporter that means that anything that corporations do that you don't like is a fundamental violation of your "rights." Don't criticize Bush for being ignorant about politics if you confuse liberals with libertarians. Liberals want active intervention, not us. The only exception to that is spam and only because it is theft of someone's resources.

And for those of you that think the government has all the makings of being the great champion of privacy remember that it started the war on drugs, and created wiretapping

You'd prefer to be ruled by corporations?

[Von Rex]

So, in your future, it's a big facist goverment which keeps corperations out of our asses? That's *so* much better..

It's infinitely better. The government must at least follow the pretense of examination by a free press. Ultimately we get a chance to throw them all out if we don't like what we're doing.

Contrast that with corporations, which are accountable only to their shareholders. If you're not one of them, you're shit out of luck.

Government also has to weigh the total good of the people when it makes policy. This includes public health and the environment. A corporation isn't bound to consider any of these things. They'll cheerfully put more mercury in your food if it makes them an extra dollar. You'd really prefer to put your fate in the hands of such people?

If you're one of these "free market is all" people, perhaps you should consider the United States of America as a corporation where we're all shareholders.

I'm not bashing business. It's a businessman's job to maximize profit. But it's the government's job to make sure that the population as a whole isn't screwed by corporations, because the government is the only institution which has the power and resources to stop a corporation which is out of line.

We can argue about the yardstick a government should use when considering intervention in a corporation's affairs if you wish, but don't try to tell me that government shouldn't have the controlling interest here. I'd much rather be ruled by politicians, even ones I despise like George Bush, than be ruled by GE, Ford, Coke, etc.

And the matter gets even worse when you consider multinational corporations. Would you expect a foreign corp to look out for your interests better your own elected representives?

Individuals are answerable to the government, and we call that "the rule of law". Yet when someone says that corporations should answer to the goverment too, people like yourself gleefully throw themselves down the slippery slope and start tossing around words like "fascism". It's tiresome, it's contrary to your own interests, and it sure as hell isn't "insightful".

"The Industry Will Sort it Out"

[legLess]

We've already given industry the chance to "sort it out themselves," and it wasn't exactly paradise. In England, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, there were no real restrictions on the behaviour of industry. Ever heard of chimney sweeps?

Contrary to what you've seen in Mary Poppins, chimney sweeps were not happy little boys and girls singing in the streets. They were sold to chimney sweeping companies by their poor parents for less than a month's wages. Older, bigger kids couldn't fit in chimneys, so they had to use little ones (often as young as 2). If a child got stuck inside a chimney they'd just turn the furnace on. Children were cheap, and the poor kept having more. Don't believe me? Here's one source; a Google search turns up more.

This is industry unchecked: a machine with no regard for humanity. Corporations are smarter now, but don't believe for a second that they're any more concerned about human welfare. Nor are they obligated to be. Only one organization has a publicly and legally recognized obligation in this arena, and that's a government.

Most reading this in the US had an opportunity to vote several months ago. Maybe half of you did. If you don't like the President's technical advisor, get off your ass and vote next time

question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes

Way off base

[shanek]

And then we will all have to go start a new planet just to prevent the the glorious self regulated industry from implanting chips in our asses to know where we are, what we are doing, and with who.

Taco, corporations cannot force anything on an unwilling person. Only the force of law can do that.

We complain about the problems "big corporations" are causing by trying to prohibit P2P sharing, DeCSS, etc., yet the thing that makes this possible--the DMCA--was an act of Congress.

Big corporations can intrude on our rights only if the government passes laws allowing them to, or giving them loopholes to wriggle through so that they can get away with it. The solution is to elect a Libertarian government. Libertarians would remove the laws that enable them to do harm while restoring the barriers preventing them from inflicting force or fraud on the public.

I've got yer ass-chipping right here, pal.

[Vassily Overveight]

So the eeevil corporations want to chip our asses, huh? Well, here's a great example of our kind and benevolent government doing exactly that. Here's the relevant part:

But there's a darker side. Several government agencies are claiming that the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act lets them use this technology to track you legally, without a warrant or even probable cause, in what it deems "emergencies." Do you trust these clowns?

They're talking about a requirement that phone companies be able to geolocate wireless phones, not just to find you when your car has run off the road, but for 'tracking' purposes. Now who's doing the ass-chipping?

"I'm for the people."

[hyrdra]

All through the interview I got the general feeling this guy doesn't know anything about any of the major issues in the tech world right now. Don't confuse this with avoidance, because it's complete ignorance.

He may hold two engineering degrees, but he stumbled over all the major questions in the interview, without adding any information either way and basically not saying anything.

Like my Grandfather always said, politicains are all the same, they say: "Some people are for [it] and some are against [it], and I'm for the people.". Absolutly nothing.

I guess you have to realize politics is a profession, and to keep your job you gotta have the most people that like you...so don't do anything. Don't agree, disagree, and when an interviewing asks you questions, go into rhetorical mode. This will keep people on either side happy because you're technically not for the other guy, and people like me who realize what's going on (e.g. 1%) just don't know what to think.

This guy also seems to think just by providing power to an industry you're going to get results. Someone should explain the difference between an economic industry and a vacuume cleaner to him. Industries need monitoring, they need guidance just like a three year old around a cookie jar. You can't let an industry self-regulate...this is what's happening in California right now, which ironically doesn't even have power.

I also love the fact he thinks privacy isn't important and giving up some of our privacy can be a good thing. Well, it can be good in that it saves lives and it saves money, but it also decreases the value of human life as set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But what is the inverse? Does such a system of complete non-privacy impact the citizens as having privacy at the cost of loss of information? People will always be killed and people will always kill people. It's the human way. We're violent and destructive. You can try to buffer all that by spying on everyone on the off-chance they might do something in hopes of preventing it, but at what cost overall. You have to look at the big picture and not just one output.

I hope we get a tech advisor who at least does more than read the news paper clippings on the subject he is advising the nation in. Maybe someone with real interest in something who is not just doing the job because the country's been good to him, someone who has a vested interest in the safe progression of technology in such a way as to benefit people and not just corporations. We need someone who recognizes people are and own the country, not large corporations and ideas should be the medium of transaction, not money. Here's hoping for a better future ~

Rob

[Patrick McRotch]

"then we will all have to go start a new planet just to prevent the the glorious self regulated industry from implanting chips in our asses to know where we are, what we are doing, and with who."

Rob, why would they need to put a chip in your ass to know what you're doing? What exactly ARE you doing? Oh and the last sentence should read "with whom".