Inside Kerry and Bush's Technology Agendas

wbren writes "PC Magazine has posted an interview on its website shedding some light on the two major candidates' policies regarding privacy, The Patriot Act, outsourcing, Internet sales taxes, broadband taxes and other important tech-related issues. PC Magazine calls it an interview, but John Kerry was the only candidate to actually respond directly to the questions asked. Bush's camp referred PC Magazine to George Bush's website to find the answers. The result: detailed and informative responses from Kerry, and many missing responses from the Bush campaign due to lack of information provided by Bush's website."

Comments

Who Cares?

[NetPoser]

Who really cares what either think of technology. It's thier advisors that should be interviewed.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really cares what either think of technology. It's thier advisors that should be interviewed.

But who hires the advisors?

Re:Who Cares?

[aderusha]

you don't honestly think it was john kerry himself that answered those questions do you?

here's my favorite bush quote from the "interview": "We can't return to the days of false hope" (in reference to the war on terror). the message? fear good, hope bad. be afraid goddamnit, terrorists and the french are everywhere!

Bush's website referral

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, nobody would actually expect Dubya to answer the questions himself. Thinking's not his strong suit. Particularly when it comes to science.

Re:come on

[fred ugly]

Who came to any conclusions? The poster merely points out that Kerry provided specific, detailed answers while PC Mag was left scrounging for answers on Bush's website. Nowhere does anybody tell me which answers are better. That's entirely left up to me.

Kerry vs Encryption

[crackshoe]

Kerry was in favor of outlawing certain levels of encryption (and classifying encrpytion related stuff as munitions for export purposes (ironically enough, John Ashcroft was against limiting encryption at the same time, and squared off against kerry). Democrats are also notoriously pro-censorship (its for the children). I'm not saying the republicans are a bowl ofpeaches, but they get plenty of bad press here as it is (and have a terrible civil liberties record recentlly)

Re:Kerry vs Encryption

[Caseyscrib]

What is your position on COPA (Child Online Protection Act)?

Kerry: I supported the Child Online Protection Act in 1998 which would have made it illegal for commercial Web sites to make available sexually explicit content that is harmful to minors unless they restrict access to adults by using a credit-card or adult-access code. The courts have blocked enforcement of this statute. They have argued that there may be other ways, such as Internet filtering software, to protect minors from inappropriate material while ensuring that legitimate speech is not chilled or punished. Whatever the courts eventually decide, our nation must act to make the Internet safer for children by protecting them from harmful material in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment.

I think this answer is a good one, and I like that Kerry referenced the first ammendement in the last line. I get the impression that Kerry is saying, "Yes, I passed the bill because I wanted to protect your children, but the courts said it was unconstitutional, and I'm ok with that. However, I promise to find another method which the courts can agree with." I'm glad he's at least thinking about the first ammendment, which Bush has shown a total disregaurd for.

Re:Kerry vs Encryption

[justins]

Democrats are also notoriously pro-censorship (its for the children).

Really? The recent FCC hubub re:Janet Jackson seems to come from the republican side.

I think your statement would have been a lot more valid back in the day, when the democrats were strong in the south, since the south seems to be the source of all things censorship (okay, MOST). With the GOP being both very southern and very Christian lately, I imagine most censorship is going to come from that side.

I'm trying to think of some post-Tipper Gore-era democrats who were strongly pro-censorship and I can't.

am i the only one?

[araczynski]

...that thinks bush should be judged by what he HAS done in the last 4 years and not what he thinks he's going to do? HE'S HAD 4 YEARS to show me what kind of a president he's is/is going to be. I don't give one rat's ass as to what his promises are for the next 4 years, he's shown me everything i need already. since when is being a president of the USA a 4 year on the job training course, where you can then say, "umm, ok, i've been screwing up the last 4 years, NOW i'm gonna get serious" kiss my ass bush.

Presidential Questions

[cerebralsugar]

Questions about spyware, hackers... are these really things to burden the president with? Thats someone elses problem.

To be fair to Bush...

[dman123]

PC Mag: What is your position on taxing Internet sales and service?

Kerry: I was an original cosponsor of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This legislation, which was passed in 1998, placed a moratorium on Internet access taxes and "multiple or discriminatory" taxes on electronic commerce. I support Senate legislation (the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act) that would extend this moratorium.

Bush: (I couldn't find a specific comment on Internet sales taxes.)

I have to assume Kerry did not really answer the question asked about sales taxes on internet sales, not his answer regarding the tax on the access itself. If you let Kerry get away with this answer, then you have to credit Bush's "interview" for the following answer only two questions prior...

Do Not Tax Broadband Access. The federal ban on Internet-access taxes has expired - and some states have started taxing broadband access. The president supports banning Internet-access taxes and applying that ban to all forms of broadband access. The Congress needs to pass the Internet-access tax ban.

You'd think PC Mag would be able to tell the difference between sales taxes on internet sales and taxes on internet access.

All that being said, there is no way I would ever vote for Bush's reelection. If someone wants to vote for Bush based on faith and/or moral issues, there is no chance of changing that voter's mind.

Re:come on

[Edax Rarem]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, George W. Bush is all those things that you claim are "Bias"? (much like M$ Windoze is guilty of being a crappy OS)
Becuase folks tend to be hard on the president here doesn't mean that /. is biased. It means that folks on /. are hard on the president.
And rightly so, imo. If we, those that log on and debate our opinions about what we think is right and wrong, don't voice those opinions then we are just sheep. If you don't like the way a certain thread is going... LEAVE.

The fact the Bush didn't feel the need to answer most of the questions (or be interviewed for that matter) tells me that he just doesn't give a sh1t.
At least Kerry took the time to give a response to questions that some people might care about. And he did it without throwing jabs or 'waffling'. You may not agree with his answers, but at least he took the time _TO_ answer.
Obviously W doesn't feel the need to.

What a Jerk!

[GypC]

Can't take an hour away from being the President of the U.S. to answer questions for a journalistic pillar like PC Magazine?

If I were POTUS, magazine interviews would be my number one priority!

Should we take the Kerry responses seriously?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

It's true, Bush's responses were just excepts from his webpage or speeches or whatever. But Kerry's answers actually seemed TOO good--someone in the Kerry campaign who knew something about technology took the time to research each question and develop a decent answer. Now, that person probably DIDN't go on to brief Kerry about "Kerry's" answers in some computer magazine about issues Kerry has most likely never thought about and never will. Do you think the senator even knows what Spyware is? The answers name dropped specific court decisions and even grid computing.

Now, I'm a huge Kerry supporter, and to be honest I'm not even sure how a decent person could vote Bush--the candidate of bigotry, plutocracy, and jingoism. I'm a conservative, therefore I oppose all those plan to vote Kerry. But I don't take these Kerry answers seriously for even a moment. Neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush need to know what the hell Grid computing is. In fact, I think I'd be better off not knowing what it is as well. "Buzzword compliant" is not a complement.

These answers in the article...

[tickticker]

seem an appropriate reflection on the intelligence of our candidates.

Bush has no idea what's going on and can't answer our questions or uses "Your gonna die if you don't agree" answers.

Kerry has thoughful answers whether you agree with him or not, and you know he's intelligent enough to change his mind if confronted with appropriate facts.

--
This sig voted for daddy, but not jr

go on

[Doc Ruby]

Doubleplusgood example of rightwing "unbias": patch over the extreme difference between Bush's moronics and Kerry's thoughts, for parity. When invited by a major computer magazine to inform their readers about the policies specific to their subject, Bush blew it off completely, and Kerry answered straight. Only a severe rightwing bias could make Bush look even adequate in this telling scenario. Four more years of faithbased government might make Bush's disinterest in tech appropriate.

Re:Republicans vs. Free Speech

[KilobyteKnight]

Democrats are much less likely to promote censorship than Republicans are.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

Kerry has used his power and influence as a sitting Senator and a Presidential candidate to attempt to effect a ban on two books within the last few months. The swift boat book, and Kerry's own "The New Soldier" book. He fortunately failed on both accounts.

Democrats are proponents of politically correct speech. They want to outlaw what they view as "hate" speech. These two things are in my opinion the most insidious assaults on free speech.

Both Democrats and Republicans want the government to be able to control political speech during an election (Campaign Finance Reform).

Both sides like trying to silence opposing views. Both sides treat the Constitution like toilet paper.

The Democrats want to outlaw any speech which is unfavorable to them or their constitutes. The Republicans want to outlaw speech they consider immoral. Both claim they are protecting someone. Neither are.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Taxes are worse?

For me, specifically, they are- the shifting of federal responsibilities to the states has specifically, in my county, caused an increase in property taxes to keep the schools open (yes, I'm in Washington County, Oregon- the same metro area that was blasted in Doonesbury for the "Every Child Left Behind" policy) and that more than ate up any tax benefits I got from the Bush tax cuts. The same story is going on nationwide in any state that has a balanced budget requirement written into the state constitution. (California is a notable exception to this- they're borrowing under the Governator to the point that they're at Junk Bond status).

Abortion is worse?

According to census data, there were 1.3 million abortions in 2000. According to Priests For Life (admitedly a pro-life organization) there were 1.6 million abortions in 2003. Yep, I'd call that worse. (Hinted at in the Priests for Life report is that the ballooning numbers of the uninsured may have something to do with this- 12% of all abortions are done for economic reasons). And as you say:

OK, so maybe the economy is not red-hot, but considering that we went through the Enron/Worldcom scandal, terrorist attacks and war, it's doing alright.

If a real unemployment rate (including the large numbers of people who went straight from unemployment to disability) is correct- we're heading towards a major depression in employment.

I call bullshit on your assertion that you voted for Bush, because clearly you can't see that the issues that you supposedly voted for have actually improved.

Really, how? My taxes are more, and there are more abortions now than before, and I spent more than half of the last 4 years unemployed. Nope- I can't say that anything I voted for is better. I also seem to remember a campaign promise against nation building...