McCain Releases Technology Platform

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "John McCain has finally released a technology platform. Most of it is the same old stuff; lower corporate taxes, protect children from porn, and avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.' Alas, in his view, helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy, while Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.' Ars Technica has a review of McCain's platform." A brief analysis is also available from Federal Computer Week. In addition to the technology policy, McCain has also released a paper describing his stance on security and privacy. We've previously contrasted his views with those of Barack Obama. Obama's technology policies are also available online.

Comments

John McCain on blogs

[jamie]

In 2006, John McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and took the opportunity to mock individual expression:

When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It's a pity that there wasn't a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

His contempt for citizens expressing their views is, presumably, why he introduced legislation that would basically have shut down comments on blogs and on sites like Slashdot. Under John McCain, if you are an individual blogger and you allow user comments or user profiles, you'd have to follow the same reporting rules as an ISP, but you'd be subject to even harsher penalties. The EFF called McCain's bill a "constitutionally dubious proposal ... made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations."

Re:John McCain on blogs

[jamie]

Sorry, but you just quoted McCain being facetious as though he were serious, meaning you didn't get the joke. It's funny. Laugh.

McCain used exaggerated language to humorous effect. That part's hard to miss.

What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech. Contrary to what career politicians would have us believe, there are things worth discussing beyond the pronouncements of our daily papers. There are wrongs to be called out and acts of courage to be heralded. We dredge up our politicians' histories, we compare and contrast, we insult and mourn and challenge not only our opponents' beliefs but our own. We're not polite, because unlike the self-righteous papers' hallowed halls of pretend-land, we talk the way real people talk. Sometimes we persuade, often not, but in large ways or small, we do learn from each other.

The blogosphere is democracy at its most raw, a ceaseless conversation about the way things are and ought to be, led not from the "top" but by whatever ordinary people want to talk about each day. It's political conversation that, for the first time in thousands of years, actually comes from the people. That worries the entrenched media who for decades have built up undeserved reputations as the arbiters of the news cycle, and the politicians whose unspoken agreements with the media got them where they are.

I've been a programmer for Slashdot for eight years now. I've spent much of that time writing code to quash abuse without censoring contributions, and support thoughtful comments while discouraging "omg roftl," because goddammit I believe there's something vital and important about what ordinary people have to say. I want to give those people a soapbox, and give their readers the tools to find the most interesting and thought-provoking comments. People with something to say don't need a lecture on prudence and humility from their betters, they need to be encouraged to stand up and join the conversation.

And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue. We're youngsters who show insufficient deference to the hard-won wisdom of our elders. Fuck that shit.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[bmajik]

Of Course. This _is_ the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" we're talking about, after all.

Surely you're familiar with the McCain-Feingold "incumbency protection act", who's aim is to create a dubious "protected class" of people for whom the 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type) still actually applies.

For everyone else (people who aren't "real journalists") -- no more 1st amendment rights for you, anytime an election is 6 months (or wahtever the bill says) away.

McCain Feingold is one of these ridiculous laws that, when examined, seems totally ridiculous and unconstitutional. As a practical matter, I don't think it has had a chilling effect on much of anything. As a theoretical matter, it's one of the reasons why libertarians don't like McCain.

In many ways the '08 Election is a reverse of the '04 Election. In 04 the Democrats were running a "he's not Bush" candidate, and to be frank that was Kerry's only real qualification.

McCain is someone who is neither pleasing to conservative republicans nor to libertarians who normally grudgingly fall into the republican camp. He's the "not Obama & not Clinton" vote. Almost everyone I've spoken with is much more interested in "not Obama" than "McCain".

Oddly enough, the fact that McCain is not squarely in the conservative/republican camp may make him an acceptable president. He obviously doesn't care about pissing off other republicans, and he obviously jumps off traditional conservative/republican dogma when it suits him. The reality of the senate voting record is that McCain has jumped across the aisle to get something done with the Democrats far more often than Obama has broken rank with the progressive agenda to get some reasonably-centerist legislation done by cooperating with Republicans.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[pudge]

What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech.

You are implying McCain believes people need to be "permitted" freedom of speech.

You are, of course, completely making that up. There is no truth to it. It's odd that you feel the need to lie about McCain; if he's so bad, why don't you just stick to truth?

The sad thing is that YOUR guy, Obama, has attacked "the blogosphere" at least as much as McCain, but you apparently ... don't care. He has blamed "blogs" and the Internet for "driving up" his negatives. How dare he attack this "democracy at its most raw!"

Come to think of it, you've done the same thing on MANY occasions.

The point, of course, is that it is one thing to attack certain expressions on the Internet, and another to condemn the Internet in general. You, Obama, and McCain have all criticized certain expressions, not the whole thing.

And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue.

No, he only criticizes SOME of the way they argue, such as pretending to be superior and making stuff up. And good for him. And good for you and Obama for doing the exact same thing.

Fuck that shit.

Fuck your overtly partisan hypocrisy.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[shadowbearer]

I find the contrast between Obama's tech page and McCain's interesting in that in Obama's he talks more about what should be done ... On that standpoint alone I would trust Obama more

Despite the fact that he's never actually DONE anything, and that he's already changed on many of the things he SAID he would do? :-)

Obama is at least paying attention; he had his technical stance up long, long ago. McCain waited until the point in the campaign where it was necessary to do so, and what he put up, as I noted, sounds more like a corporate resume than a reasonable, rational technology statement by a potential future leader of the most powerful country on the planet.

I am entirely non-partisan; while I think Obama is likely the more honest of the two

This befuddles me. I can't speak for YOU of course, but I wonder if the reason many people think this is because they believe that Obama "means well," so even if he goes back on something, well, he meant it at the time! And if McCain changes on something, well, he "obviously" was lying.

My non-partisan stance befuddles you, or ? ;)

  Does Obama "mean well"? I dunno, it's hard to tell, from a distance. I think he's a lot more honest about how he does feel about the issues, it doesn't feel - to me, yes - like he's playing the career game. McCain is, of course, a career professional.

  I'm being completely honest when I say I'm non-partisan, if you've read any of my posts over the years you'd see *I'm* being honest.

Jamie, that was one hell of a great rant

I don't believe I have ever thought a rant was good that was almost entirely based on fabrications.

You're entitled to form and hold your own opinions. For a little while longer, anyway.

  Your response is typical of the ones I get from many career republican voters. I find them just as amusing as the ones I get from the other end of the spectrum. Neither style of fanatic, in my opinion, has much of anything new to offer.

  I'm still voting for Kodos. ;)

Cheers,
SB

Protect children from porn

[4D6963]

I wonder how he'd go about doing that. Probably the same way they (most of the Republicans) go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence. Keeping children away from computers would probably work about as well.

That would be ironic if they preached using parental protection software, which by analogy could be compared to using a condom. Cue the "it's not the same thing" replies.

Re:Protect children from porn

[4D6963]

Keeping your dick in your pants has always been the best way to avoid STDs. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part. It seems people find it more difficult than it sounds and when they do what they thought they wouldn't do they don't have a clue how to stay as safe as possible.

Just look at the URLs :)

[jopsen]

I took a look around the different campaign sites it's clear McCain is EVIL!
Links at McCain site:
johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=3d8ee2ad-d7f2-4f3d-ad9f-ffe1b41ca178

Links a Obamas Site:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Clearly, McCain is using a Microsoft server and Obama is using mod_rewrite or similar technology... Probably a rather none-evil technology...

Also at validator.w3.org:
McCain has: 124 Errors, 44 warning(s)
Obama has: 8 Errors
I'd say this proofs McCain is evil!

My Scorecard

[davide marney]

My scorecard for the McCain platform. Rated on a uninflated A-F grading scale, where a "C" means the norm.

John McCain Supports Risk Capital For Investment In American Innovation

Grade: C. OK; nothing specific to the tech sector, though.

John McCain Will Not Tax Innovation By Keeping Capital Gains Taxes Low.

Grade: C. A good idea in general, but not of particular help to technology.

John McCain Will Reform And Make Permanent The R&D Tax Credit.

Grade: B. Good idea.

John McCain Will Lower the Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent To Retain Investment In U.S. Technologies.

Grade: C. Again, a good idea for the economy in general, but doesn't do anything to specifically address technology.

John McCain Will Allow First-Year Expensing Of New Equipment And Technology.

Grade: B. Good idea.

John McCain Will Ensure Technology And Innovation Is Not Hampered By Taxes On Internet Users.

Grade: C. OK, fine, but I'm not buying the rationale at all here. I think this is code for "no government regulation". A vast amount of bricks-and-mortar commerce has been moved onto the Internet. If we accept taxation of commerce, we should have no problem accepting taxation of it on the Internet.

John McCain Opposes Higher Taxes On Wireless Services.

Grade: C. OK, lower taxes, yeah, but what we are buying with our taxes in the first place?

America Must Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age.

Grade: B. Grants for higher ed are a good bargain for taxpayers.

Fill Critical Shortages Of Skilled Workers To Remain Competitive.

Grade: B. Good idea. More flexibility on H-1B visas will help.

John McCain Has Been A Long And Ardent Supporter Of Fair And Open World Trade.

Grade: C. Nice to know.

Competition Has Been A Great Strength For America -- Offering Opportunity, Low Prices, And Increased Choice For Our Citizens. Markets work best when there is robust competition.

Grade: D. McCain had a chance to address the real problems of non-competitiveness that plague the technology sector, and ducked.

John McCain Will Protect The Creative Industries From Piracy.

Grade: D. Another disappointment. The "creative industries" already have plenty of money, lawyers, lobbyists, and memberships in the exclusive clubs needed to get the protection they need. Who's giving the people the protection they need? Not the government, apparently.

John McCain Will Push For Greater Resources For The Patent Office.

Grade: C. Obviously needed; basic good management.

John McCain Will Pursue Protection Of Intellectual Property Around The Globe.

Grade: C. OK, fine; more good management.

Provide Alternative Approaches To Resolving Patent Challenges.

Grade: B. Some innovation here is long overdue. Good idea.

John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms.

Grade: B. Freedom is good, and additional attention in this area is needed to keep a level playing field.

When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts.

Grade: C. OK, that's the right pattern, but McCain seems to not get the fact that the tech sector really needs some tough love from the government right now. If regulation is not warranted now, when would it be?

John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

Grade: F. The telco marketplace is anything

Serious Question...

[RocketScientist]

There were two parts of the platform related by Ars Technica. The first part was increased copyright enforcement, and the second was patent reform.

The question's coming up, bear with me, some setup involved.

There are, basically, 3 industries that benefit from copyright: Music, Movies/TV, and Software. Copyright enforcement helps all 3, but (at least for short term profits) patent reform is not good for the software industry. So overall, this part of McCain's platform really only helps the Music and Movies/TV industries.

That's part 1 of the setup. Here's part 2:

The Music and Movies/TV industries are populated *mostly* by people who support Obama. Furthermore, the Christian Right in this country very much hates those two industries and would like to see them die in fires of hell for promoting vice. Oh, and the Christian Right hates the software industry, because all they do is make games full of murdering.

That's part 2. Here's the question:

Is there a reason that McCain's platform serves to (1) increase the profits of industries that hate him and give TONS of money to his opponent, and (2) Provides legal protection for industries that his primary voting base despises?

Re:Worthless ...

[fugue]

Why is it not OK for a presidential candidate to admit that he doesn't know something? I'm sick to death of people who think they have to pretend to know everything all the time.

Not that McCain is worth the electrons I just encoded his name with, but in my book he scored one point for being aware of his ignorance. Seems a nice change from Republican policy. And Democratic policy, for that matter, although they are on average approximately 23% less ignorant than Republicans...

Re:Worthless ...

[Wildclaw]

There is a huge presence of people on slashdot who value personal freedom and expression. These range mostly from economical libertarians to free thinking liberals.

Slashdot libertarians will often find a very nice support when it comes to issues of personal freedom but will be surprised when they don't get the same support on their economical ideas.

Democrats can do fine as long as they stay away from authoritarian baby sitting. Sure, libertarians will call any income redistribution authoritarian, but you can't please everyone.

Republicans can do ok, as long as they actually strive for a smaller goverment and don't promote war and other actions that are seen as authoritarian.

You can probably even get modded up promoting far left economics as long as you actually talk intelligently, like including suggestions on how to exploit the best part of the free market (scarce resource distribution efficency). However, if you want to promote authoritarian ruling you will get modded down pretty quickly. Which is why neither communism nor facism is popular here as both have come to symbolise authoritarian rule.

Do children actually need protection from porn?

[nasor]

Has it ever been scientifically demonstrated that porn is harmful for children? Just curious - if it has, I would be genuinely interested to heard about it.

Re:Do children actually need protection from porn?

[Reziac]

Good question. In my experience, *normal* children seem to have exactly one reaction to porn: they go "Eugh, gross!", gawk for a few moments (the same way anyone will when confronted with something they consider freaky), then quickly lose interest and go on to other normal childhood pursuits.

I'm wondering if the only "harm" from porn comes to children who are already psychologically abnormal (maybe liking porn at an early age predicts a tendency toward sexual abberations as an adult?), or are being sexually abused (so the porn looks more "normal" to them, rather than icky and gross).

Re:Worthless ...

[cayenne8]

"Of course, tech people (for the most part) don't vote Republican, so I guess McCain feels he has nothing to gain from a good tech policy and everything to gain from a tech policy that favors the big business folks who do vote Republican, so I'm not at all surprised."

Wow...are you really serious here? Where did you get this idea?

I'm guessing purely anecdotal, but, if that is the case, my experience would show the complete opposite. Most everyone I've ever worked with in the tech industry, tends to be quite conservative...and I'd guess they lean more towards the Republicans.

If you have links to stats speaking towards your position on this, please post....

Re:Worthless ...

[cduffy]

its funny that he stood by that man in silence those many years. either he tacitly agrees with wrights views or is a moral coward.

Oh, c'mon, now.

The church in question has been known for social progressivism long before Wright made the news, and if you read Obama's books, he talks about some of the issues he had with some of the other churches in Chicago and the leadership thereof; to put it bluntly, he may well have ended up with one of the best of a bad lot.

I grew up attending a church where several of the members of the Board of Elders were people with some of whose views I disagreed with pretty strongly (and disagree with even more strongly now; suffice to say that depending on who was speaking that week, it was either forgiveness-and-salvation or hellfire-and-brimstone... unless it was our small town's banker talking about biblical money management or our high school's history teacher talking about old testament prophecies and their fulfillment, both of whose sermons I thoroughly enjoyed -- I grew up attending a very interesting church); the thing that made that church fairly distinct was that we were encouraged to make our own decisions between the many and varying views of Christianity presented. Anyhow, I'm sure that someone with a video clip of some of our more... interesting... sermons could come up with a claim that I grew up listening to a contemporary of Fred Phelps and cast aspersions on my character by such means, and indeed I considered the board members who took those positions in their sermons good family friends despite (and we all worked together on such projects as building [yes, building a building from the lot up, with our own hands and tools] a battered women's shelter and cooking food for the hungry)... in short, my background is such that I understand very well that people are multifaceted, and just where Huckabee was coming from when he refused to be baited into attacking Obama for his relationship with Wright.

In closing, let me quote Huckabee himself:

Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, it's a very historic speech. I think that it was an important one, and one that he had to deliver. And he couldn't wait. The sooner he made it, maybe the quicker that this becomes less of the issue. Otherwise, it was the only thing that was the issue in his entire campaign. And I thought he handled it very, very well.

And he made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything around him that people may say or do. You just can't, whether it's me, whether it's Obama, or anybody else.

But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements. Now, the second story -- it's interesting to me that there are some people on the left that are having to be very uncomfortable with what [Jeremiah] Wright said when they were all over a Jerry Falwell or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago.

Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word-for-word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say, 'Well, I probably didn't mean to say it quite like that......'

And one other thing I think we've got to remember.

As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement' -- I grew up in a very segregated South.

And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you -- we've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie, you have to go to the back door to go into the r

Re:Worthless ...

[ScentCone]

leaving any kind of tactical decision to those with the experience to do so: the people serving in the armed forces

But there would BE no tactical decisions to make without strategic decisions about when, where, and why to get the military involved in the first place. Likewise, issues with strategic importance (such as the use of nukes) absolutely have to involve the specific command from the C-in-C. Obviously a smart president is going to defer to his commanders about what's possible, the best way to accomplish a given task, etc. But do you really want military people and only military people deciding when and how to escalate a conflict... when or whether to ship out a new carrier group from one ocean to another? The president would be a fool to ignore input from his commanders, but we'd all be crazy to allow the military to make all such decisions in a vacuum. And of course, you're not always going to be talking about a "declaring war" situation. The crazy jihaddist types have totally learned that lesson. One way to consternate your enemy is avoid giving them a geopolitically concentrated enemy that has any resemblance to historical nation-state foes. Those days are gone (Russia not withstanding).

Re:Worthless ...

[slash.duncan]

> I really wish there were a viable third party to vote for.

Your wish is your command. Seriously, while the rules are certainly stacked for a two-party system, the only thing keeping it that way is the widely held belief that voting for anyone else is throwing your vote away. If you believe that a your single vote counts at all, as you evidently do, then it should be self-evident that the only thing keeping third parties from mattering is the believe that they don't matter. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

And it's not entirely hopeless from a numbers perspective, either. While the system is indeed stacked to maintain two-party dominance and unfortunately many third party candidates do seem half crazy, it doesn't take an outright win or even getting a directly significant number of elected representatives of a particular party in ordered to get a change. Ross Perot could have made a difference and did for a short time, but didn't maintain the organization or do much of anything with what he had, so he lost it. At the state level, who would have thought Jesse Ventura could have done what he did? The dominant parties can and do adjust their positions to appeal to significant segments of voters, and should the defeatists change their mind and believe a third party candidate /can/ achieve something, they most certainly can, even if they don't get the position they were running for right away or indeed at all.

Me? I think I'm somewhat opposite you, in that there's a whole stack of reasons I couldn't vote McCain. I was cautiously supporting Obama earlier, and still expect him to win as long as he keeps the optimistic position (political analysts and historians note that it's extremely seldom that a pestimistic or negative candidate wins against a positive/optimistic one, and I believe Obama likely to win based on that alone), but I don't believe I can vote for him unless he adequately explains his anti-human-rights anti-law vote re warrantless wiretapping. Unless he reverses his position there or otherwise convinces me he had a decent reason for that vote, I'll likely vote third party if I can find someone I'm reasonably comfortable with, or write-in none-of-the-above, if not, simply because there's nothing better. However, not expecting them to win, even if they are crazy to some extent, I can probably find a third party to vote for in the hopes that it'll at least get enough votes to significantly influence things, and if they /do/ win, to shake things up, knowing there'll be enough resistance from the entrenched two-party system to keep things from getting much crazier than they already are, even in the unlikely event the possibly somewhat crazy third party candidate I'll likely vote for does win. That's pretty much what happened to Jesse Ventura, too -- the entrenched resistance kept him from going too far out, and unfortunately there wasn't enough depth there to provide a lasting change. But again, if one believes an individual vote makes any difference at all, as one must if they believe it's almost treasonous not to vote (a position I definitely sympathize with), then one must also believe that change is possible, should we quit prophesying and self-fulfilling the prophesy that it's not.