Slashdot Mirror
Google's Schmidt Drew Up Draft Plan For Clinton In 2014 (itwire.com)
New submitter troublemaker_23 writes: Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, submitted a detailed draft to a key Clinton aide on April 15, 2014, outlining his ideas for a possible run for the presidency and stressing that "The key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them." The ideas, in an email released by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, were sent to Cheryl Mills, former deputy White House counsel to Bill Clinton. Mills forwarded it to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook and Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager David Plouffe. The email is one of a trove from Podesta's gmail account that was obtained by WikiLeaks. About two weeks prior to this, Podesta wrote to Mook that he had met Schmidt and that he (Schmidt) was keen to be the "top outside adviser." In the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt emphasized that what he was putting forward was a draft, writing, "Here are some comments and observations based on what we saw in the 2012 campaign. If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016." It was titled "Notes for a 2016 Democratic campaign." He divided his comments into categories such as size, structure and timing; location; the pieces of a campaign; the rules; and what he called the key things. With regard to size, structure and timing, Schmidt wrote: "Let's assume a total budget of about US$1.5 billion, with more than 5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers. The entire start-up ceases operation four days after 8 November 2016." As to location, he did not like the idea of using Washington DC as a base and was keen on low-paid workers. "The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hard-working and enthusiastic. It's important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees," he wrote. "DC is a poor choice as it's full of distractions and interruptions. Moving the location from DC elsewhere guarantees visitors have taken the time to travel and to help."
This plan of spying on voters and recording their life history is an excellent thing as long as it benefits a candidate with a (D) next to her name. It just shows that the Democrats are pro-science higher beings of pure energy that descended from a higher plane of existence for us to worship.
If Trump had done that he'd be worse than Hitler (again).
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
What the fuck happened to "Don't be evil" ?
This is a return to McCarthyism plain and simple.
Yes, don't pay attention to the emails of the lying crook Hillary!
Go chase that RUSSIAN SQUIRREL!!!!
It's RUSSIAN!!!!!
Gawd, how much more evidence do you need to figure out what the Democrat Party thinks of its voters? Screwing Bernie over wasn't enough?
And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.
Every time.
Obama was doing this in 2008, and the Republicans have their own big data operations, too.
Best Slashdot Co
Everyone is talking about this as if Eric Schmidt's involvement in this was somehow equivalent to Google being involved. Yes, Google is an ad company, and whatever else it may be, running for President is an ad campaign. I would hope Schmidt had some good experience with that. From what I can see the plan doesn't look appreciably different than what the Democrats fielded in 2012. Perhaps it's a little heavier on the profiling aspects, but there's no reason to believe they were talking about acquiring that data illicitly, or that anything actually happened as a result of this proposal. It looks like it would be an effective strategy. Maybe it's too effective or too intrusive to the point where we need some law prohibiting the mass collection of data, and maybe that would even be possible. At the moment however, there seems to be little reason to froth about this.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
A couple of observations:
1. Wait. I thought Republicans were the party of big business. Schmidt must have gotten confused, right?
2. Wait. He's wanting "low paid workers". I though the Democrats were all about paying more? And making sure women had pay equity with men, right? $15 minimum wage? I mean, he wants to pay above minimum wage, right?
You're the one who's been spoon-fed the party's agenda, as usual.
Do you have ESP?
Prior to the signing of the final draft of the American Constitution on the last day of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Franklin had a speech of his delivered, by James Wilson, because he was too ill at the time to deliver it himself. In the speech he protested the fallibility of the Constitution and of the document he said:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Keep in mind that Franklin probably didn't mean the people were criminal, only that some powerful segments of the population manipulating things to corrupt them, like reducing education, interfering with the press, sabotaging government functions so they are ineffective and many other things. Being a third party to these elections and effectively disinterested in the result I tend to wonder what damage is being done to the office of the President by the way the campaigns seem to tear each candidate into pieces and I wonder if that is the canary in the cage.
Franklin seems to have been able to predict this moment, and please don't take that as a criticism of your country, however isn't that a sign to look to the type of things Franklin was trying to warn everyone about back when the US constitution was framed?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Stop trying to justify propaganda and propagandists. Schmidt has used the platform to attempt to sway the election. The same thing Twitter and Facebook have done, as well as main stream media. People are sick of it, and we can see the game being played all over.
Google performing "Science" would require UNBIASED positioning, not purely biased in favor of Democrats. You can not by definition perform science with a one sided bias.
Google search for months has provided biased results in search results and pre-fetching strings. Typing in "How do I vote" showed "For Hillary" as the top search entry for months, and Donald Trump did not show in the search results even if you typed in "for Donald" or "for Trump".
I get it, you Progressive Leftists hate losing. You don't care that Donna Brazil is empty of morality and has no problem cheating as long as the candidate the party oligarchs wants is elected. The only reason she was fired from CNN was that she got caught, not that she was devoid of ethics. No problem with scum like Bob Creamer sending provocateurs to Sanders and Trump rallies because it makes their candidate look better and opponents look bad. That scumbag had 340+ visits to the White House and 50 visits with the President, and you refuse to question how much the President actually knows about the corruption. You have no problem with the Attorney General meeting a potential witness and husband of the subject of 18 separate USCs days before her Directory of the FBI decided not to allow prosecution of any charges, and have not demanded that the AG step down for malfeasance.
You don't have a problem with it, but a huge number of the Public does. We do not support corrupt oligarchs and have no illusions that we somehow benefit from them. Trump burning down a huge portion of a corrupt Government is a solid option at this point. The alternative is to have a civil war, which we should all agree would be very bad for all of us.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.