Election 2022: Where the would-be leaders of the free world stand on tech
Ballot 2016: Where the would-be leaders of the free world stand on tech
The two American political parties are in search of a new leader — the Democrats for someone who can reinvigorate a cynical and promise-weary electorate, the Republicans for one who can recast the party as one that fosters positive progress, rather than just opposes negative progress.
There are bigger, sexier issues than tech — financial reform, immigration, the War on Terror — but in a general sense, every modern candidate has to have a bombardment of positions on tech-related problems. These topics are of great importance to an increasingly big proportion of the population, especially younger people who are psychologically equipped to understand how seemingly abstruse new issues stand in for more traditional ones, similar free oral communication and economic competitiveness.
The Issues
Surveillance/Encryption: Where does the candidate stand up on modernistic NSA surveillance policy, equally well as the related but separate outcome of cryptographic backdoors? Annotation that backdoors would be legally mandated weaknesses in encryption schemes, theoretically exploitable but to the government and then that investigators could get at information when they are in possession of an individualized warrant. That makes information technology distinct from dragnet, warrantless surveillance, and it's why some candidates are divided on these seemingly related issues.
Internet Neutrality/Free speech: Do you support legally mandated net neutrality? With Championship Ii now in effect in the United states, this is a less-important outcome, but an anti-neutrality President could as well practise a lot to disengage this progress. Meanwhile, the fight to protect online free spoken language in the face of corporate- and social justice-minded censors continues.
Copyright/TPP: Intellectual property constabulary could be i of the most economically important areas of policy over the next few decades, and the next President will almost certainly take to accost it. The Trans Pacific Partnership is a broad-ranging trade deal that many believe will weaken intellectual property law.
Climate change/Free energy:Only Republican candidates question man-made climatic change, but fifty-fifty they mostly have big plans for the American free energy sector. A candidate's beliefs virtually climate change runway pretty much directly with how they see the future of renewable energy.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton
Clinton basically defines the Democratic status quo; she is an institution candidate downwardly to her toes. As such, while she has decent liberal bona fides overall, we can also see a basic unwillingness to stone the boat too hard. Clinton is a very pragmatic candidate, then it'south not enough to effigy out what she thinks, but besides what she thinks will movement her calendar forward. If giving up on a tech upshot over here can get her a win on some other issue over there, there'due south every reason to think she might take that deal. She doesn't see compromise as a dirty word — and if you're a fundamentalist on these tech bug, that could be a bad matter.
Surveillance/Encryption: Clinton makes statements nigh protecting the rights of Americans, but in general she refuses to brand any real condemnation of invasive surveillance. She voted for the Patriot Act multiple times, and for the slightly toned-down Freedom Act which followed. She's said that CISA, the Cyber Information Sharing Act, "didn't make it enough," and her recent statements on the field of study are incredibly vague. On Snowden, she's clear plenty: He's a thief, he aided the enemy, and he should be brought to trial. Again, she is an establishment candidate, and it's unlikely she'd accept abroad too many tools that the NSA told her it needed.
On encryption, Clinton wants an "urgent dialog" on encryption, just will not make whatever potent statement either in favor of privacy or the needs of law enforcement. Whatever she believes, she probably sees it as besides controversial to bring up. The question is whether that's because she's for cryptographic backdoors, which would be controversial, or against, which would be controversial, as well.
Net Neutrality/Free speech: She's for it. Not much nuance here — net neutrality has become a pretty entrenched partisan consequence and then as the anointed Democrat, Hillary has a no-nonsense take on net neutrality. She'southward too always had an odd human relationship with free speech, having formerly been a big proponent of censoring video games and today of battling online harassment through censorship.
Copyright/TPP: On the TPP, she'southward gone from being an outspoken supporter, to being evasive, to being outright against it. So, she's against the TPP at present — but not necessarily due to digital rights problems. Her reasons for converting have much more to do with her beliefs about its affect on the labor market. On copyright and intellectual holding, she was notably mum while in the Senate, despite that her co-New York Senator Chuck Schumer held the outcome dear. She recently made an off-hand annotate that patents should be suspended until companies pay all their United states of america taxes — but that'south hardly a reform of the cadre logic of copyright. Again, Clinton is not a more often than not revolutionary candidate, and then if she gets into office information technology'due south unlikely she'll cause a big upheaval she'due south yet to hint at. Real intellectual property reform would be that big upheaval, and then it's probably non coming.
Climatic change/Energy:Clinton has characteristically reasonable and achievable goals when information technology comes to combating climate modify — which will either inspire y'all or not, depending on how alarmed you lot want your politicians to be interim on this issue. She's put out a plan for the US to generate a third of its energy from renewables by 2027, and theoretically wants to remove fossil fuels entirely past 2050, though that'due south lacking confidence compared with someone similar O'Malley. She's also positioned herself as a big friend to solar power development. She was i of the people responsible for the success (and thus responsible for the eventual failure) of the Copenhagen climate acme, which is widely viewed as partially due to lacking US enthusiasm for a deal.
Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders is all near money: big banks, taxes, and the redistribution of wealth. As such, tech bug don't define him, and his positions are often implied rather than explicitly stated. We know Bernie's against rampant government surveillance considering of course he is, but the fact is that he doesn't talk about it all that much. And while he may be energetic, he's all the same 74 years sometime; his team has probable tried to steer him away from tech bug so he can avoid seeming like a dislocated old coot. It's as well worth noting that Sanders has somehow managed to make himself a critic of NASA through his focus on domestic (Earthly) issues first. It's a scrap thin for a presidential candidate, just hither's what nosotros can glean about Sanders' tech stances from the statements he has made.
Surveillance/Encryption: Sanders voted against the The states Freedom Act, also as the Patriot Act before it, and he has been a reliable critic of dragnet surveillance. On the issue of warrants and eves-dropping, the logic of which oasis't changed too much with the progress of applied science, Sanders has articulate views: He wants the regime to have to go warrants to collect information nearly Americans, and he wants the NSA to get back and delete the information they've already nerveless. No waffling here. On Snowden, he says he "doesn't care" but, similar Clinton, he has also said that he would prosecute the whistleblower if given the gamble.
On encryption, and the prospect of regime-mandated backdoors, there's virtually no concrete information. When the topic came up at the most contempo Democratic fence, he just went on nigh how much the government and private corporations know about yous — which I hope is a dodge, and not a argument that he doesn't know the difference between backdoors and the general privacy debate. In general, backdoors are a tough issue for older candidates, because information technology'due south viscerally difficult to accept that civil rights could completely trump law enforcement's abilities.
Net Neutrality/Gratis spoken communication: Like Clinton, Sanders is strong on cyberspace neutrality. As to other issues, similar online censorship, information technology's unclear.
Copyright/TPP: If you don't like the TPP, thank Sanders — it's nearly certainly the threat posed by his candidacy that pushed the Clinton entrada to turn against the bargain. He's been an outspoken opponent for every bit long as he'south known nearly the thing, mostly because he thinks information technology volition do good large corporations. As to intellectual holding, over again, his purity as a candidate makes him a flake irksome on this. Our only real inroad to understanding his thinking on this would be through his thoughts on pharmaceuticals: He wants Americans to be able to import less expensive, off-make drugs. Nosotros can only assume that the patent reform that would be necessary to allow this would attain much further than simply the pharmaceutical manufacture. On artistic and digital property rights, it'due south unclear.
Climatic change/Energy: Sanders has a lot to say about climate change, but it'south all pretty full general. He'southward gotten a couple of prissy greenified endorsements, all the same. Specifically, Sanders says he'll eliminate tax breaks and institute new emissions taxes that will encourage fossil fuel companies to transition toward green technologies. Climate alter isn't Sanders' big thing, just he'southward been explicit almost bowing to those who know more than him, and about non shying away when those advisers (including the world scientific customs) tell him that big changes are needed.
Martin O'Malley
I'1000 non breaking any new ground past pointing out that O'Malley is the increasingly awkward 3rd wheel of this Democratic race. Nonetheless, he's also probably the near tech-focused candidate in either party — not that it seems to be helping him also much. Every bit Governor of Maryland, he made a proper name for himself every bit a re-architect who would be hard-nosed when necessary, but compassionate when possible, and that has come to a large extent through investment in infrastructure. He's generally quite outspoken about the demand to modernize authorities through tech, and to protect rights as they take new digital forms. But how does that philosophy play out, issue by effect?
Surveillance/Encryption: O'Malley has been an outspoken critic of mass surveillance and the NSA in general in contempo years, having voted against the Patriot Act and its derivations. He has solid credentials on well-nigh privacy issues, though he has joined Clinton in condemning Snowden. When it comes to enforcing cryptographic backdoors for police, however, things get less clear. Little wonder O'Malley was the partial inspiration forThe Wire's Tommy Carcetti — his answer to the backdoor question at the near recent Democratic argue was brilliant political double-speak: "I believe whether it'southward a back door or a forepart door that the American principle of law should still hold that our federal government should accept to get a warrant, whether they want to come through the back door or your front door." Annotation that the issue of encryption backdoors is all well-nigh coming in the back door with a warrant — then while it seems he was standing upwardly for liberty, he was in reality saying that he is in favor of cryptographic backdoors. Expert to know.
Net Neutrality/Free speech: As with the other Democratic candidates, this is adequately uncontroversial. Coming out strongly for neutrality won't evoke a charge of being "soft on [whatsoever]" past a Republican come the real race, and and so at that place'due south no need to equivocate. He has been quite involved in the campaign to utilise the law to end online bullying, however, which puts him at odds with some free speech groups.
Copyright/TPP: O'Malley is against the TPP, and has made quite a bit of political hay out of the effect of the surreptitious negotiations that led to its provisions. In that location's not much information about his wider beliefs well-nigh intellectual property and the digital economic system, but since he's generally ever talking about the importance of rapid innovation and his love of the collaborative tech space, it would be pretty surprising if he didn't at least partially oppose the creep of conservative intellectual property reform. But, we really don't know, specifically.
Climate change/Energy: Welcome to O'Malley'south wheelhouse. He wants to transition the United States to a one-hundred-percent light-green energy sector over the next 30-twoscore years. That's technically the same goal as Clinton, but rather than just mentioning it, O'Malley has made it a centerpiece of his entrada. He has the nearly detailed plans for revamping the free energy sector, and he says all the right things to convince environmentalists he truly believes that the future of the nation, and the globe, is on the line.
Republicans
Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz would accept been considered the far-right bourgeois candidate, if not for Donald Trump (at to the lowest degree for many of the latter's positions). The institution wanted Rubio, Walker, or Bush-league to boss, and figured Cruz would be simply some other in the line of too-correct-for-the-White-Business firm bourgeois runners. Nonetheless, on a spectrum where Trump defines the right farthermost, Cruz ends up seeming well-nigh centrist. On tech issues, however, he's about as i-dimensional as Republicans come.
Surveillance/Encryption: Cruz voted for The states Patriot and Freedom Acts, and spends a good portion of his campaign time attacking Democrats for being soft on terror, and soft on security. He has attacked Marco Rubio for failing to back up the Usa Liberty Human action, arguing that it was a good affair considering it expanded NSA powers, rather than limiting them. He went and then far as to say that, nether the new provisions, the NSA has access to many times more than American telephone numbers than e'er before — which may very well have been classified information. Whoops!
For Cruz, encryption isn't a bear on decision, and he doesn't and then much every bit dismiss the tech industry's many statements that strong encryption is necessary, every bit he ignores them. He'due south tough on security, thus he'south against backdoors. That those two things aren't nearly as connected as Republicans would like yous to believe is largely forgotten.
Net Neutrality/Free spoken communication: Cruz infamously chosen cyberspace neutrality the "Obamacare for the internet," which really isn't quite every bit nonsensical equally people call up — they're both initiatives that force private industry to make decisions those industries don't see as existence in their own financial best interests, because the services they provide are too fundamentally of import to society to allow purely self-interested conclusion making. Then, the metaphor works, a bit. Anyway, Cruz hates net neutrality, seeing it as authorities meddling, and is against basically any brake on the behavior of ISPs.
Copyright/TPP:This isn't really what Cruz likes to talk virtually — he's more virtually social conservatism and national security than which YouTube videos are illegal. But he did have a lot to say well-nigh the TPP — he'due south really against it, ostensibly for reasons of national security and immigration, though undoubtedly as well because it'southward simply something the Obama administration wants. This is some other place Cruz and Rubio take battled, as Rubio has expressed some basic willingness to consider the TPP, too known amongst conservatives equally ObamaTrade.
On copyright in general, there is the rather surprising fact (at least to me) that Cruz has actually won an intellectual property instance earlier the Supreme Court, dorsum when he was a lawyer. He certainly knows the law — he just doesn't necessarily think that the constabulary is good. He wants to brand intellectual property law more than robust, but in many cases that takes the form of protecting American IP from foreigners, rather than small-scale Americans from large ones. In general, this views are that copyright needs to protect the innovator and creator, rather than prioritize off-white employ and cultural relevance.
Climate change/Energy: Hoo-boy. And so, we're not dealing with a Trump or Carson level of delusion here, since Cruz does accept the elementary empirical fact that the world is warming. However, he does deny that in that location is sufficient evidence to say the the human race is at least largely responsible or this change — which of grade informs his ideas about how sure US and international industries ought to be operating in the future. His repeated clashes with the scientific customs are as well strident for him to entreatment to anyone who cares about real science — but non nearly strident enough to capture the totally anti-science Trump crowd. Equally to energy: fossil fuels, fossil fuels, fossil fuels. He would stop the ban on crude oil exports, amongst many other things, and quite probable opposite quite a bit of progress for renewables — though, his big beef with the Iowa "renewables" foyer is a scrap misleading, since corn ethanol isn't quite on a par with wind and other light-green techs in terms of its ecological consequence.
Marco Rubio
Surveillance/Encryption: To the moderate Republican, Rubio was supposed to be the chosen one. But Rubio seems to accept decided that digital security and NSA surveillance will be the upshot on which he stakes out his conservative credentials, and he's really gone for information technology in the recent by. He put forward maybe the near astonishing proposal in the history of the NSA contend — to make wide-ranging domestic spying a permanent facet of the government, negating the need to re-approve information technology at regular intervals. He voted against the United states of america Liberty Human activity, which followed on the defunct Patriot Human activity, but just because it wasn't invasive enough for his liking.
Rubio has been outspoken about the need to break cryptography in the name of the police force, often making the (rather legit) point that you can't venerate the warrant as the ultimate control on justice if warrants are beingness fabricated technologically irrelevant by encryption. Again, while he may be the chosen candidate for Reasonable Republicans, this is the area on which he has decided that the right shall define his position.
Cyberspace Neutrality/Gratuitous speech communication: Rubio wants to repeal "Obama's Net Neutrality takeover of the internet," and to remove any and all regulation of internet companies. The idea is that net neutrality volition hamper innovation and raise costs for internet users — which are, of form, the verbal same arguments being madein favor of net neutrality legislation.
Copyright/TPP: Rubio has historically supported TPP, which has made him unpopular with anti-Obama Republicansand pro-TPP Democrats. From the perspective of tech innovation, though, Rubio's opposition means little; it was a opinion based largely on the economical implications, rather than annihilation to do with digital rights protection. Rubio is a flake of a centrist candidate on this, having been willing to at least play ball by voting to keep the chat on the TPP, but the level of criticism he's been getting for that stance has probably changed it. Rubio has no strongly stated views on intellectual holding, specifically, but will almost certainly accept the party line if pressed.
Climatic change/Energy: Like Jeb Bush, Rubio is considered a fairly moderate candidate on this stuff — simply that's nonsense. He has said that climate science is real, but has also vote against a Senate subpoena that would have said that climatic change is at least partially homo-made in nature. Rubio believes that trying to address the real trouble of climate change could tank the US economy, and he's taken some particularly harsh criticism for waffling on climate change while hailing from Miami, one of the American cities that could be hitting hardest by rising sea levels. He wants to deregulate oil and gas, despite some nods toward renewables, again due to his solar-friendly Florida heritage.
Donald Trump
Heh. This one is tough, since Trump has never been elected to anything, and only ever run for baggy positions like President of the United States. What does he believe about the nuances of intellectual property law? Your guess is as good as mine, and it'south very possible he believes nothing at all. Making matters even more hard is that Trump will pick an issue or two (the TPP, some revenue enhancement rates) and make up one's mind that he's going to defy expectations, and accept a traditionally liberal stance, for non-traditional reasons. In any case, here'due south what nosotros can know about the Trumpster and his Trump-y ways, based on his statements in this and past bids to run the world.
Surveillance/Encryption: Edward Snowden is a "grandstander" and American security is locked to the efficacy of online spying. Donald doesn't have much to say on international politics — other than pointing out how much improve he would accept done in the Iran Nuclear Bargain — but on surveillance he knows what he believes: We need the NSA to be looking in on our lives, or those lives volition be in danger. Privacy? Don't be such a whiner.
Net Neutrality/Free speech: Donald (or, whoever tweets from his account) once said that, "Obama'south attack on the net is another summit down power grab. Internet neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Volition target the conservative media." That ways he'due south confronting. For the record, net neutrality is basically the exact opposite of the Fairness Doctrine, which explicitly tells corporations what sort of content they must broadcast.
Copyright/TPP: The Donald has odd views here. Yous'd think he would be dogmatically pro-free merchandise, but he's actually got an extremely protectionist view of economics — Trump is attempting to recast leftist views on trade as savvy American self-involvement. It all comes downwardly to the anti-immigration stance. Trump could never come out against intra-American competition, but can easily rally his supporters against international merchandise like that facilitated by the TPP. So, Donald is against the TPP — but not for any digitally based reason.
Allow'due south remember that Trump is the one who has trademarked the phrase "Make America Great Over again" — despite the fact that Ronald Reagan also used to have that as one of his slogans. Though he hasn't made too many specific statements about intellectual property, we tin can go ahead and assume that his positions are the opposite of all those of the EFF.
Climate change/Energy:Donald Trump is the only remaining candidate with significant back up, from either party, who totally denies the reality of climate change. Even Cruz doesn't go that far. Equally far energy policy, it's time to start throwing America's weight around, and that means doubling down on its natural resources.
Others
The Republican field is ridiculously huge this twelvemonth (although it's recently shrunk a chip), then here is a quick expect at another, less popular candidates that are worth noting on tech for some reason.
Rand Paul: Paul is an odd sort of liberal darling inside the Republican set, but on certain tech issues he is actually very conservative. He sees cyberspace neutrality as government meddling — a truthful observation, only hypocritical given Paul's support for other, long-continuing pieces of anti-competitiveness legislation.
Ben Carson: He denies climate alter. Non man-made climatic change, but climatic change overall. Only Trump has that kind of conservative gusto, but at to the lowest degree Trump is pop. To be fair, as a surgeon he did operate on infant brains. So give him some credit, I guess.
Jeb Bush: Despite the associations with his name, Bush-league is a fairly centrist Republican. He accepts man-fabricated climate alter is real, and even has a bit of a plan to fight it. Cool! Plus, as a totally irrelevant bated, Bush also wins All-time Joke of the Entrada, for his response upon learning that rapper Pitbull had gotten his name while en route to a pitbull fight: "Well, good affair yous weren't on the style to a cockfight."
Notably absent
What you won't hear much talk about in all this are things like autonomous war tech, cyber-state of war policy, or regime data security — because these topics haven't been the footing for a major disaster, withal. When an out-of-the-blue American cyber-attack is discovered and unexpectedly throws American diplomacy on its ear, or when we suddenly acquire that the first autonomous robots have finally taken to a real battlefield, information technology will past then be as well late to start those conversations. Tech issues are supposed to look forward, past definition, yet all the biggest right now take to practice with addressing the problems of the past.
Tech is a big role of this election. Nearly everybody has made some sort of reference to a major prior scientific advancement; whether it'southward the Manhattan Project or the moon landing, everybody seems to concur that it's time for a huge national push button toward… something. What's our big affair going to be? Digital security? Cancer research? Green energy?
We'll have to await and find out.
Cheque out our ExtremeTech Explains series for more in-depth coverage of today's hottest tech topics.
Source: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/221623-election-2016-where-the-would-be-leaders-of-the-free-world-stand-on-tech
Posted by: mcculloughhimper.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Election 2022: Where the would-be leaders of the free world stand on tech"
Post a Comment