Obama Significantly Revises Technology Positions

method9455 writes "Barack Obama has edited his official website on many issues, including a huge revision on the technology page. Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important as it was a few months ago, and the swaths of detail have been removed and replaced with fairly vague rhetoric. Many technologists were alarmed with the choice of Joe Biden before, and now it appears their fears might have been well founded." Update: 09/22 18:07 GMT by T : Julian Sanchez of Ars Technica passed on a statement from an Obama campaign representative who points out that the changes in wording highlighted by Versionista aren't the whole story, and that more Obama tech-plan details are now available in a PDF, saying "there is absolutely no substantive change to our policy - folks who want more information can click to get our full plan."

All hail the new king, same as the old king.

When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

When are people going to learn to assess politicians and parties on their actions, rather than their promises? Those that might have really introduced change have already been weeded out. Vote for the puppet of your choice, folks.

Many have. Obama's tech-related voting record is certainly better than most candidates that come to mind. He's voted against telecom immunity, and FISA fairly vehemently in the past. Perhaps the vague language is merely a way to package both Biden/Obama's views into a single declaration? It was probably just a way to describe both of their technological goals without smearing their respective stances. Should that be the case, it's still the top of the ticket that calls the shots.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

The GP was correct, he voted against telecom immunity in the past. In addition, in the most recent vote, he voted against telecom immunity each time the subject came up (ie for all of the amendments that were aimed at removing telecom immunity from the FISA bill), but voted for the final FISA bill (which was about a lot more than telecom immunity.)

Whether the FISA bill was a good thing is open to question, I was disappointed in Obama voting for it myself, but it's a stretch to claim he supported the telecom immunity aspect of it when he supported all the attempts to remove telecom immunity from it.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

but it's a stretch to claim he supported the telecom immunity aspect of it when he supported all the attempts to remove telecom immunity from it.

How much more "for it" can you be than a YEA vote for a bill which contains it?

As a congress critter, if there is a part of a bill you don't like IT IS YOUR JOB TO VOTE AGAINST THE WHOLE THING!!!!

That's what the whole "checks and balances" thing is all about.

The immunity is unconstitutional (see ex post facto [wikipedia.org]) even without the 4th amendment violations.

Between FISA and the Patriot Act, why even have the 4th amendment any more?

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

The problem is that you can't vote on actions until after they've been taken.

Personally, I'm in favour of a nice, simple system where if a politician makes a promise before an election and then breaks it, a court can remove him or her from office. I imagine we'd soon see some changes in the way manifestos were presented, and perhaps those who are not just puppets and actually intend to act according to their stated principles would get a bit more recognition since voting for someone based on their campaign pledges would actually mean something. Those who just say whatever the current audience wants to hear but never really promise anything would stand out by a mile.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

I've also proposed this kind of system before (i.e. that a manifesto should be a legally-binding contract with the voters), but I suspect that the result would be candidates putting such fluffy terms in their pledges that the courts would never be able to determine whether they'd actually broken them or not.

Before New Labour (same as the old conservatives) came to power in the UK, they handed out 'pledge cards' with five election pledges on them. A very simple and powerful message. The Friday Night Armistice made a massive version of these, and each week in their first year crossed off the ones that they'd broken. It was depressing how quickly they all went away.

Democracy requires an informed electorate to function just as capitalism requires informed consumers. The same level of truth in advertising laws should apply.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

The "Contract with America" worked really well in the '94 elections, though.

Honestly, there are two reasons I can think of why politicians in the U.S. won't commit to anything:

1. If lobbyists know they are committed for/against what they are lobbying for, they won't shower the politician with contributions and "gifts."

2. Legislators often buy the votes of their colleagues by promising to vote for the colleague's legislation if their colleagues will vote for theirs.

And then we need to keep one other thing in mind: riders. Legislation that gets ONE vote often contains extra pieces of legislation that has nothing to do with the original legislation. This is why I agree with notion that the president should have a line-item veto power, and I feel that way regardless who is in office.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

Which is why I am voting 3rd party this election. I do not believe either major party candidate is worthy of my vote. Do I think the 3rd party types have any chance of winning? Not really, but if third party candidates took 20% or so of the vote away from major parties, it might force them to do a reality check.

Re:All hail the new king, same as the old king.

Which is yet another great example of why voting third party is not a "wasted" vote.

I'm sick of people telling me I'm wasting my votes (it won't be the first time I voted for a third party), and yet the same people whine about how bad the government is.

It's not just NN

They've cut out about half the content, and large chunks about what they'll do for kids.

Either they've had advice that they shouldn't be promising definite things (makes it harder to weasel out of stuff later) or they're just cutting down the page size for some reason.

Either way, bit of a non story.

Politician changes mind, big whoop.

Re:It's not just NN

The main page got changed, not the actual plan pdf, which is available at the bottom of the page, and is the exact same as the old page was.

It looks like they just cut down the word count for people who want to glance, and hid the details a layer under.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf

Re:It's not just NN

"Politician changes mind, big whoop."

Except he hasn't changed his mind, he has simply edited several points to make them more readable.

America vs Freedom

Every American election always reminds me of the phrase from Alien vs Predator.

"Whoever wins, we all lose." or something like that.

Net Neutrality Position Remains Unchanged

"Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Barack is completely behind net neutrality, where as McCain is not [tmcnet.com], but don't let the facts get in the way of the way you try and put FUD out there.

WTF?

Strangely it seems net neutrality is no longer as important

What the fuck are you talking about? It's THE VERY FIRST GODDAMN THING HE MENTIONS.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets

* Protect the Openness of the Internet

If you're a McCain supporter trying to weasel votes away on Slashdot, you need to say so.

Re:WTF?

If you look at method9455's user info, this submission is his/her only activity since registering, which is quite recently if you go by the user number (1368959). No doubt this is just another republican troll.

Concise speech, soundbites

It looks to me like they hired an editor to cut the wall of text down to size. The first huge cut under the heading "Protect the Openness of the Internet" kept the main point while eliminating a massive unnecessary explanation. Readers who are unfamiliar with net neutrality would have been turned off by the wall of text anyway. Also, notice that Versionista doesn't track when blocks of text move to different locations on the page. There are a few paragraphs that simply got moved to other sections. This is just a sensationalist headline that doesn't really belong here. It isn't a "position revision." It is an edit that takes a very lengthy page & cuts it down to a more digestible size. Yes, there's new content, and yes, there are revisions. But on the whole, it's nothing to get up in arms about.

I call bullshit

This post is pretty much pure bullshit.

If you look at the revisions, Obama has shortened some bullet points to make them more readable.

He still lists what he supports, but he does not going into massive detail in each one of them.

For instance, his current stance on network neutrality is now (emphasis mine):

"* Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."

Instead of:

"* # Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internetâ(TM)s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy. "

So instead of a massive (and unreadable) paragraph, it is now a very simple bullet point saying that Obama strongly supports network neutrality. How on earth is this "downplaying" network neutrality?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

They're all rich white men

You mean, except the one black guy, right?

Re:Vote with a bullet.

Ha, but you're forgetting one thing. Well two actually, he can dance [youtube.com] and he can jump [dummytv.com]! If that doesn't make him black, that makes him pretty fly for a rich white guy.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

Obama is just another lawyer

Could we please stop attacking lawyers just for being lawyers? Do civil rights attorneys bother you? Consumer rights attorneys? How about the lawyers who argued Brown v. Board of Education? How about Clarence Darrow (argued for the defense in the Scopes Trial)? What about John Adams (Founding Father)? What about Ray Beckerman (aka: NewYorkCountryLawyer [slashdot.org])?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

lives in suburbs - check

Um, Barack lives right here on the South Side of Chicago. And brother, let me tell you, this ain't the suburbs.

Also, he only became a "millionaire" in the past three years or so after writing a couple of best selling books. He only paid off his and his wife's student loans about five years ago.

He was never "just another lawyer". Ask any of his students from the UofC law school or the people at the community organization at which he worked, for about $29,000 per year.

Don't be a bozo.

Re:Vote with a bullet.

OMG! Green leafy vegetables! How did it come to this? How can someone who eats rabbit food be this close to the White House?

Re:Lobbiest money.

Yeah, if Harvard and the University of California count as big evil corporations. Refresh my memory, will you please, how many lobbyists work for John McCain [google.com] again?

Re:Lobbiest money.

Open Secrets shows Obama accepted far more money from the employees of large corporations than John McCain.

Fixed that for you.