Hillary Clinton: My promises to America's tech industry Hillary Clinton today outlined her policies when it comes to tech – and they are surprisingly good. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee published a lengthy "Initiative on Technology & Innovation" on Tuesday covering a wide range of issues from education to net neutrality. Demonstrating the fact that she – and her …
it's not just the overt money. its the gigahours of positive spin and active propaganda which if paid for would bankrupt most nations, but since it's "given" for "free" it stays off of any sort of "campaign finance reform" limits.
If someone buys a prime time campaign slot for a million dollars, they spent a million dollars. but if the network places a "interview" asking all positive points and letting the pol bloviate for an hour, it's "free" but the content can be the same. Even so far as the "interview" spending most of its time airing campaign ads as "examples".
Now take Facebook, Google. Huffpo, and others, the ones that control the feed, modify the view, and hide behind "we're private companies so we do what we choose and suppress what we dislike" while also claiming "we're vital social resources so deserve government media protections". Constant 24/7 echo chamber of who they choose to support, or choose to destroy. The state of California already belongs to them, now it's time to buy the nation. With bundlers like Hsu and international money being scrutinized and therefore less effective, Silicon Valley's Pirates and slayers of competition and innovation are more valuable than ever.
Encryption: we will mandate that every lock on every domicile accept a skeleton key that only law enforcement can access. Every police station, state and federal agency in the country will have a copy, unlimited blanks and a copy machine. You are safe from abuse because You Can Trust Us, and criminals aren't smart enough to reverse engineer the skeleton key. Criminals cannot prevent us access because they have to obey the law and only buy locks that accept our keys.
If one is in any sort of free/private enterprise one does it in-spite of who is in government and in-spite of what happens in an election. Governments and the civil services generally hinder free enterprise and always seem to favour bureaucratic operations as they can understand these whereas the private risk takers and enterprises are a different breeds altogether. They seem to garner wealth as a bi-product as the enjoyment of being a free agent is the greater and the financial reward comes second.
If Mrs. Clinton weren't lying through her teeth (her native language, "the lie") I might think what she says has at least SOME merit. But like a broken clock, she's occasionally correct.
Now, when it comes to access to gummint data, what about her E-MAILS, particularly the ones she "lost" but were recently FOUND, and DEFINITELY related to government business.
And she obviously knows NOTHING about the internet, or technology. Her swiss-cheese security on the e-mail server is proof of THAT.
I wouldn't trust Mrs. Clinton if she did everything under watch of cameras. The practiced sleight-of-hand and illusions of honesty are just too much.
yeah g'head and downvote it. I don't care. Gumint needs to keep out of the internet anyway. All it can do is get in the way, and rob one person to pay another. Gummint doesn't "help" anyone. Claiming it CAN is just a big, fat, lie.
'And she obviously knows NOTHING about the internet, or technology. Her swiss-cheese security on the e-mail server is proof of THAT.'
True enough. However, your argument should emphasize her poor judgement in hiring 'professionals' to take on the project, cast doubt upon her character for her staff being afraid to say 'No', question her intelligence because she doesn't realize how important security is, or her age when she cannot operate a personal communications device that any 5 year old child has already mastered. So many avenues of attack that don't make you look like a trumpet.
Format a server with a cloth, indeed...
This post has been deleted by its author
Perhaps you're not aware, but our government designed, funded, and built the Internet. It was a DARPA project. Now maybe it can be argued that the Internet would have occurred even if they had not done all of that. But that is not how it happened. Our NSA even made TOR too. So score another big hit for our government and the seditious Internet.
But first, this could be promising
"She will also promote open-licensing arrangements for copyrighted material and data supported by federal grant funding, including in education, science, and other fields."
-- on to the crap
"People of all ages need continued access to a range of higher education and training opportunities—early career, mid-career, and even late-career—so that they can keep up with changes in technology and industry" -- What a fucking joke. Mid career and above technology workers should be making enough money that they're at the bottom of the list for government help. Frankly, if you haven't figured out how to keep up with changes in your field, you're in the wrong field.
"Employers also need a better mechanism for communicating to job seekers and educational institutions what sorts of skills and competencies they are looking for." -- Really? There's no possible way the US Federal government can help with this.
"Hillary’s College Compact dedicates $10 billion in federal funding to enable students to participate in promising new programs—such as nanodegrees, accelerated learning programs for computer coding, career and technical training, certificates for “specializations,” and online learning." -- I suppose this will go to funding 16 week 'boot camps' to learn ruby on rails.
Defer student loans -- So long as you open a business in the right neighborhood. Better to make non-federally backed student loans dischargable via bankruptcy, stop providing Federally backed student loans to those attending overpriced or under-performing institutions, or anything else to reduce the total cost of education rather than kicking the payments down the road.
"There is fierce global competition in the global tech economy. And there are many countries that would rather regulate than innovate, or who do not shy from closing off markets, forcing technology transfer from U.S. innovators, or even shutting down the internet." -- I owned and wore an RSA munitions t-shirt while Bill Clinton was President.
"Hillary will support efforts to strengthen cybersecurity, both for government networks and for the private sector." hahahahahahahaha
"When Hillary was Secretary of State, the United States led the world in safeguarding the free flow of information" -- Has to be a Pvt. Manning reference.
"Hillary will make it easier for the federal government to find, try, and buy innovative technology—including open source software." -- Useless until they drop the requirement that all software in use in production environments have a support contract.
"She will prioritize the enforcement of well-known cybersecurity standards, such as multi-factor authentication, as well as the mitigation of risks from known vulnerabilities." -- NIST/DISA requires all of this already. Federal agencies have 1 year or less to comply with all NIST directives.
2FA? Required for over 10 years.
Mitigation of risks from known vulns? Most have to remediated within 30 days.
The caps are on purpose and it is quoting her. Anyone who thinks she is qualified needs to go back and watch the Benghazi hearings. She acted more like a woman in a spousal argument than a Secretary of State. The worse part that I saw and I did not see all of it, was when she was asked about Ambassador Stevens request for more security for the embassy, her response was " he was such a kidder".
Ok she has some policy wonks who can write a paper and make her donors happy. Marco Rubio can do the same. Big Deal.
The current Silicon Valley executives sound more like Carly Fiorina than the people who founded the industry.
Perfect name.
So you've read the latest Benghazi report? The one that says the embassy requested more security, but the Congress (run by Republicans) said "NO"?
Read the transcript of what she said. Yes, you can spin it all kinds of ways, but in context, I think if someone had been asking you the same damn questions for six hours, you might get a little fed up.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
And just in case someone wants to accuse me of being a Hillarybot, I suggest you read my thoughts on the subject: http://oddbaldliberal.blogspot.com/2014/05/not-nearly-enough-crap.html
No... It was not congress that withheld the money. The executive branch has enough money for many, many lavish vacations but refused to provide security to the Ambassador. Had the commander in chief not skipped so many intelligence briefings he would have been aware of the security issues threatening the embassy and authorized a contingency plan to protect the embassy staff.
Benghazi was a failure due to incompetence by the President and the Secretary of State plain and simple.
Perhaps it's the £74Bn wiped off the FTSE that's stayed wiped off the FTSE (early stages it was about £120Bn) and the number of UK private pension owners who've just seen their pension pot shrink quite a lot. For the second time in 10 years. Maybe it won't take another 5 years to climb back, like it did last time.
Perhaps the Leave campaign expected that to happen and it was an "acceptable" loss. It think quite a few people would disagree on that.
Or maybe it's the £/$ exchange rate dropping to the worst value in 30 years? Still not to worry that'll attract more Americans, right?
Or the prospect set out by Leave supporting economist Patrick Minford that Britain will lose all mfg as it will no longer be "protected" by the EU. But he seemed to think the loss of about 2m jobs a price well worth paying as the UK will move (wholesale) into "Marketing" and "Design."
Hilariously the people who's jobs will be disappearing agreed with him, since a lot of them also voted to leave.
It looks like the British working class has managed to do something even Margaret Thatcher could not do.
Completely destroy itself.
But hay at least you've "Taken back control" as the Leave side banged on about over (and over, and over) again about in the TV debate.
Except, oh look, it seems you won't be.
No. that's not Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. That's Fact, Probability and Certainty.
Welcome to the future.
Sure - Because we should bloody well expect wayyy better outcomes from "freedom & democracy" than a Russian autocrat, should we not? Hillary have all the ambitions of the media version of Putin (projection?) without the restraints and the wits to use power wisely that Vladimir Putin clearly have.
We know that past performance is the best indicator of future performance. We also know that Putin in his entire career, even including the KGB part, has managed to kill fewer people than Hillary did through her disastrous and stupid warmongering. Logic therefore says that Putin is in some ways better for humanity than Hillary, who will continue to "regime change" and "humanitarian intervene" for exactly as long as that old gargoyle manages to live.
Wouldn't be better to avoid students have to make debts even before having a job? US will never have more good STEM-educated people as long as that education simply costs too much. It will mean US will have to import those people from countries where it is cheaper, even if often of lower level.
I'm not even advocating "free" education (people after all do pay taxes for it as well), just it can't cost so much most families can't afford it without a loan. Greedy loans already created the subprime crisis. Let people build the future without trying to exploit them. Everybody wins, otherwise everybody loses - even the greedy banker will see a Mumbai graduate in their chair, one day.
Believe it or not the fees in UK Universities (excluding Scotland!) are approaching those of the US, admittedly the repayment terms and interest in the US are more onerous. Western democracies generally need to wake up and stop profiteering in educating our future generations, education benefits not just them but the societies they live in.
This post has been deleted by its author
I've heard about Open Government and all. Obama made it his core platform. His governance was precisely the opposite. As opposed to what Hillary says at the moment, what she has actually done in the past suggests she will not follow through with most of this, except for the part about loosening visa restrictions.
"I've heard about Open Government and all. Obama made it his core platform. His governance was precisely the opposite."
The usual excuse is that once they reach the seat of power they get briefings and data access that demonstrates that their policies, created and drafted before they had that information, are now not practicable in their current form. But since the people who reach that ultimate top seat were already in slightly lower seats of power beforehand, it makes it pretty hard to believe that only that person in the top seat, of all the elected officials, is privy to that information. But still they all trot out the same excuse after every election and most people seem to believe it.
Politicians are famous for saying whatever the immediate listeners want to hear in an effort to garner their votes. It is unsurprising they will support polar-opposite positions depending on their audience. What is surprising is how coverage documenting such inconsistencies does not change voters' beliefs about the reliability of campaign promises made by such deceivers.
This is an amazing election. It is illogical to believe this can end well regardless of the outcome.
a sane adult realizes political promises aren't worth shite.
yet when a certain Party makes them, or they "sound good" people suddenly take them as Gospel Truth.
So opportunistic tool goes to tech land and promises tech stuff based on what her highly paid experts tell her is what tech land's richest people want.
Only thing to fear is political promises made to big money, as they are the only ones that come true. And they are NOT for the benefit of anyone but that big money, in fact are the exact opposite. Foreign, domestic, who cares?
A british tech newsfeed trying to put positive spin on Hillary? Seriously? I thought we kicked you guys out of our political process 200 years ago. I think last week showed the UK isn't really in a position to throw stones in political and social decisions.
(I'm not really angry, but I sure don't like Hillary)
I know you guys probably get the same spoon fed news the American public is digesting daily, but if you know what this woman has been doing since her re-introduction to DC politics back in 92, I doubt you would try to spin any positiveness in her direction. As cocked up as the last 8 years of American world "interaction" has been, if this woman is elected you can expect an even more accelerated downward spin of our country (in a counterclockwise motion, of course).
I know Brits think we are a bunch of rude, gun-toting arrogant meatheads over here, but honestly as a level-headed somewhat intelligent American I can say she scares me for the future of my country. Her willingness to sway in the wind depending on which way the money is blowing will lead us even further into corrupt corporate lead politics where voting has no influence and the only thing politicians are concerned about is not upsetting their corporate donors. Donald's no prom queen himself but we know EXACTLY where Hillary will lead us. It's just a shame no decent candidates showed up for this cycle (and really a shame that we haven't had a viable 3rd party since the late 1800s). Whig party anyone?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
