Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Bush's website referral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  2. Re:come on by fred+ugly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Kerry vs Encryption by crackshoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

    --
    Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
    1. Re:Kerry vs Encryption by Caseyscrib · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  4. am i the only one? by araczynski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    sigs suck
  5. Re:come on by Edax+Rarem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I hate my sig.
  6. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.