An Obama presidency: Good, bad news for technology
When Barack Obama becomes president in January with a strongly Democratic Congress, he'll have the chance to push a technology policy that relies more on government subsidy and regulation than that of his immediate predecessor.
In Washington and Silicon Valley circles, betting has already begun on who will be the nation's first "chief technology officer." Could it be Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who conveniently endorsed Obama? Or Vint Cerf? If there's an opening for a Beltway type, perhaps ex-regulator Reed Hundt, who's been a proxy for the president-elect?
Obama wants the CTO to "ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century," plus protecting the security of .gov computer networks. That's a pretty tall task for one person, although there's some precedent; President Clinton handed much authority for Internet regulation to Ira Magaziner after his administration's health care debacle.
Any administration will find health care to be a massive project, especially one that likely will be distracted by the Iraq occupation and a recession. Enacting new government regulations aimed at health care records and their electronic storage is an obvious first step that's already been kicking around Congress for a while.
On copyright, the conventional thinking is that Democrats are more likely to align themselves with the recording and movie industries' wishes. That may not be the case here: it was John McCain who talked up more aggressive enforcement of copyright law domestically, while Obama said "we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation, and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated."
That is, of course, intentionally vague. Obama was also vague when we asked him whether he wants to amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to let Americans make a single backup copy of a DVD or computer game they legally purchase. He said only that he'd support it "in concept."
Internationally, though, Obama would not take an obviously different approach than the policies that the Bush administration has followed and that a McCain administration would have. His Web site says that "China fails to enforce U.S. copyrights and trademarks" and that additional international enforcement and standards are needed.
Congress and free trade
For technology firms, a substantial downside--and one that's difficult to overstate--is how hostile a solidly Democratic Congress and White House could be toward free trade.
Obama doesn't have the ideological bias toward free trade that Clinton had and is certain to face strong protectionist pressure from within his own party. After a handful of Democrats joined Republicans to approve the Central America Free Trade Agreement in 2005, the 15 dissidents were hounded by their own party and by labor activists. Only a rare politician would take that risk again.
Democrats' populist streak could hurt technology companies in other ways as well. Obama has promoted more aggressive antitrust actions, which could hurt Silicon Valley companies like Yahoo and Google that are already reeling from the scrutiny of a supposedly free-market Republican administration. Additionally, Obama has only promised to expand the H1-B visa program temporarily.
President-elect Barack Obama's Web site, post-election.
(Credit: BarackObama.com)More tax dollars diverted to universal broadband is a goal often promoted by the Democratic party, and Obama's CTO would at the very least influence how such a goal is met. The Obama campaign has enthusiastically called broadband access the way to a more perfect democracy, and Democratic members of Congress like Rep. Anna Eshoo of California have promoted the idea.
Eshoo's resolution, however, does little beyond call for more work to be done. Finding the funds to create wider broadband access could be a challenge; it would have to be paid for by higher taxes, reduced spending elsewhere, or running up the federal deficit.
Michael Powell, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said at a forum in September that it is unrealistic to entertain the "idea that there's money to get people to dig up streets and put in fiber. National broadband policy is probably going to have to be a lot more subtle."
Net neutrality is another open question. It was a striking difference between the two major party presidential candidates: Obama wanted new government regulation of the Internet, and McCain was skeptical. Some prominent technologists including Cisco Systems' Robert Pepper, Carnegie Mellon University's Dave Farber, and Internet founding father Bob Kahn are skeptical too.
Because politicians tend not to like to seek out trouble, a resolution will probably wait until a federal appeals court deals with Comcast's appeal of a related order by the FCC. Comcast claims the FCC does not have the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations and didn't even follow its own rules when levying them in the first place.
If the court sides with the FCC, it will sap energy from a push for extensive new Net neutrality laws; if the decision goes the other way, look for Congress to get involved. Net neutrality is, after all, the very first issue addressed in Obama's technology policy platform. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has talked up the idea, and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced related legislation last year.
CNET's Stephanie Condon co-authored this article.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
We all know how that turned out. If we are lucky, this will merely be the second term of the presidency of the worst president in US history, Jimmy Carter.
There is no alternative but to use every means at our disposal to work really hard prevent this usurper and American Stalin from imposing his instinctive Stalinist dicktats like supression of freedom of expression (Obambi's Hitler Youth are already talking about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"), and make sure he's handed a heavy defeat come 2012.
You have been suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and sour grapes for over 8 years now.
Concerns over Obambi's demonstrated instincts to crush any of the very few news outfits that don't tow his line, are very legitimate.
You weird acidic vitriol, and unique brand of historic revisionism are disgusting, and pathetic.
It cannot be underlined enough how false, diametrically opposed, and irrational your comments are in the face of reality.
Your weird acidic vitriol, and unique brand of historic revisionism are disgusting, and pathetic.
I love the irony of this whole election fraud thing... I mean honestly, who ever heard of the republicans stealing an election ;)
I will say this about Obama, he can at least speak in coherent sentences and he doesn't stumble over words with more than 3 syllables, which will greatly improve our world image. I'm sure over the last 4 - 8 years, the world has viewed us as a bunch of dimwitted idiots because we voted a dimwitted idiot as our leader.
Really now, how could Obama do a worse job than Bush? I mean you can only fail so bad, you can only fall so far. The only place left to go now is up!
"If you don't like it, you can always leave."
I hear Canada and Mexico are nice this time of year :)
So!
The Obambi supression of freedom of expression and "Fairness Doctrine" starts now does it?
Note to jazzmandan, this is not teh Soviet Union or communist North Korea...yet.
Obama is probably on of the greatest campaigners of all times. It was masterful how he built a campaign based on hatred (he was able to successfully link McCain to Bush and then focus that hatred -- masterful when you consider that Obama is more like Bush than McCain). Let's hope he makes a decent president.
Yup.
The Obambi Brown Shirts are for freedom of speech..so far as everything you say is 100% pro-Obambi.
If you dare to challange any of Obambi's insane left wing policies or associations with terrorists, then of course you need to be premantly shut up..for good.
Kinda reminds one of Joseph Stalin doesn't it?
It din't hurt that he raised by far more money than any candidate in history, outspent McCain by over 4:1, and had 99% of the media campaigning for him to boot (euqivalent to another $2 bilion at least of free campaign ads).
again, I don't agree with what he said, but I support his right to say it.
Umm, what ever happened to knowing what freedom of speech means? It means the government can't stifle your speech (with a few circumstances), but a company can easily ban a hate-spewing lunatic.
Do you not realize that Obama does represent hope for a generation? True hope that maybe we can get beyond the partisan bickering and do something good as a country. And feel free to keep repeating the same right wing attack points, that sure seemed to play well with the country. ha ha.
And as I reported to CNet, they obviously believe in censorship, as I cannot say sh*t on here of f*ck or whatever. They are a private company, and your free speech is not guaranteed while using their digital "facilities" they can censor you all they want, and should.
I will say that I am absolutely for free speech,whether it offends me or not, whether it is blatantly ignorant or not, but CNet does have every right to shut you the h*ll up. Read their acceptable use and forum rules, man...
The only difference between Osama bin Laden and William Ayers is that Ayers actually succeeded in bombing the Capitol building, whereas Osama failed when our brave heroes stopped that plane over PA.
Obambi is also on record as being a strong supporter of PLO/PFLP/Hamas (all these outfits endorsed Obambi). These are organizations, who?s avowed aim is to exterminate the Jews in Israel and drive them into the sea, not much different from Hitler?s aims.
As for Jimmy Carter, anyone who was actually working during Carter's regime, when mortgage rates were over 15% (its less than 5% under Bush today), inflation rates were over 15% (its less than 3% under Bush), unemployment was over 14%(less than 6.5% under Bush), knows that the Carter presidency was by far the worst in history.
Not to mention Carter sat down while the mad mullahs in Iran held US embassy staff hostage for a staggering 444 days.
I haven't even mentioned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that happened under Carter. Something that ultimately led to the Taliban and Bin Laden controlling Afghanistan, and ultimately to 9/11.
Why?
Because you don't know your history. One thing you do know tho, is how to try and supress any opposing views.
Now why don't you save yourself further embarassment and slink of where you crawled from?
As far as "mad mullahs" It was Reagan who shook hands with Afghan mujahedeens in 1983, calling them heroes, and telling them to fight for Islam, while financing and training Arab volonteers like Osama Bin Ladin and others to fight the Soviets. And it was George Bush (and his oil company) who received money from BinLadin's vamily and was their business associate for years. And the Republicans made a deal with Iranians to prevent them from releasing American hostages so Democrats would loose the election.
ACORN was VICTIM of fraud on the behalf of a group of lazy part time employee's, fake name registering happens all the time.
Im not gonna argue about Jimmy C, cuz he sucked... Choose your battles though, your still arguing points that have been debunked and repudiated.
factcheck.org <---- i'd start here, but feel free to do some actual research instead of just regurgitating what you've heard on the campaign trail, for the most part its just stretched truths or outright lies.
Theer is no point in actually arguing with the insane. Facts means nothing to them. Reality is a foggy dreamland to their eyes. There is no commonality from which to actually start a discussion. So there is nothing to do but to make quiet soothing noises and hope they eventually calm down or wander off.
Answer me this.
# 1. Who was president when the ayatoullah KHomeini and his mad men took over in Iran? Answer Jimmmy Carter
# 2. Who was president when the mad mullahs of Iran, held our embassy staff hostages and terrorized and abused them for 444 days. Answer : Jimmy Carter
# 3. Who was president when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, an event that set in motion, the sequence of events that ultimatlely led to to the Bin Laden and the Taliban taking over Afghnatistan, and ultimately to 9/11? Answer Jimmy Carter.
#4. When did we have the highest interest rates, highest mortage rates, highest unemployment rates, highest inflation rates by far, and the slowest economic growth rates by far in the last 28 years. Answer Under Jimmy Carter.
Obambi shows every sign of being the second term of the nightmaraish, failed Jimmy Carter administration. Obambi's insane high spending, high taxing plans(hwhen he allows the Bush tax cuts to run out) are guranteed to drive inflation andd ultimtately interest rates up.
Are you now going to deny that US embassy staff were held hostage for 444 days in Iran under the Jimmy Carter presidency?
Or that the Soviets invaded fghanistan when Carter was president?
Look, the internet is your friend. A simply internet serach will do the trick.
I am not going to do your work for you.
Secondly, Obama hasn't presided over the country yet. Therefore, you have no comparisons to anyone for him.
Lastly, it is moronic to blame 9/11 on Jimmy Carter. This really shows how desperate you are!! That's like someone blaming 9/11 on Bush since it happend on his watch, (while he sat with some second graders as if it wasn't important enough for him). I have no idea why I'm even responding to your ignorance. But it amazes me that people like you seem to think that you know everything, solve nothing, yet go around these boards pointing fingers. Then of course claim to be so loyal to this country and act in its best interests. LMAO
No he's not. That's an outright lie.
I just hope the Constellation program is not cancelled, as is reported by Obama that he will do. Historically, it would be a grave mistake not to expand and explore, and let China beat us to off-earth industry and exploration.
OBAMA: "I mentioned this earlier, I want to tell you that, you know, I know it's still being reported that we were talking about delaying some aspects of the Constellation program to pay for our early education program. I told my staff we're going to find an entirely different offset, because we've got to make sure that the money that's going into NASA for basic research and development continues to go there. That has been a top priority for us." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Titusville, FL, 8/2/08
As much as the Democrats went into overdrive on the Bush hating, there will be no scapegoat come January 21st, 2009.
The US by and large heard the promises, and liked what they heard from the left. Now it's time to deliver on 'em, and Heaven help the whole party if those promises aren't delivered upon.
/P
However they do have an opportunity to put their money where there mouth is. Will they scrap the DMCA, the Patriot Act, The Department of Homeland Insecurity, and a few other Rebublican Blunders before they get busy making the Democrat ones we are not looking forward too? Lets hope so. The worst case is keeping the worst ideas of both parties in place.
This bouncing from one party´s dominance to another is a clear sign that American voters are desperate for a meaningful improvement in the was the country is run. If the Democrats fail now, then the need for a third party becomes obvious. We need to put America First, not Israel, not Egypt, not France or Russia, but USA.
Actually, the DMCA should be listed as a Democrat blunder since it was Clinton who signed off on that one. Granted it's become more of an issue in the last few years, but it was signed into law Oct 28, 1998.
Patriot Act and Homeland Security, plus illegal wiretaps... all that you can blame on Bush and the republicans, but at least be fair and point the blame on the DMCA where it belongs... with Clinton.
Don't even get me started on NAFTA ;)
Fair enough on the DCMA. Early on Obama talked reform, but pulled that from his campaign site. We shall see.
Not exactly. While it is true that the Senate can still fall into a filibuster, thus preventing a bill from passing, the GOP simply cannot hold one against every bill that comes down the pike. Filibuster is an option that is only used in case of an (real or perceived) 'emergency'. You simply cannot suststain a series of them: It takes too long, requires lock-step solidarity (which the GOP does NOT have - I can name at least six right now who would happily break one), and it requires spending a truckload of political capital.
IOW, the Democrats can pass pretty much any bill they want.
This is their baby now - blame or credit falls on them, and over at least the next two years, whatever they do or fail to do? They no longer have the luxury of pointing a finger at Bush, the GOP, or anyone else, really.
/P
ummm..it was a Democratic congress that has kept passing these huge pork filled bills, caped by the gargantuan "bailout" bills amouting to close to $2 trillion already since they took over power,
You might have a word with Nancy Pelosi about that one.
That was Bush-Cheney all the way, chum.
You are half right. You forgoet Congress. Only they can declair war. Only they can fund them. The president can get us into a conflict, but congress has to support it for it to continue.
So chum, looks like as always, there is enough blame to paint the war red and blue.
2 trillion, thats an iffy figure at best, and last I knew of there was this crazy thing in our govt called checks and balances... pretty sure the administration could have done something about those 2 trillion...
but lets take a gamble here and say you're actually factually correct about something (which is quite a gamble based on your previous posts) so f'it, ill give you that 2 trillion, the question is then, werethef'ck did not only the 8 trillion go, but the SURPLUS we had coming into this adminstration...
Don't you people get it? It's a done deal - Obama is our next President.
Let's wait and monitor his progress when he is formally elected.
Perceptions can be changed, right?
:0)
He obviously focuses on the wrong and the past. All presidents have done right and wrong and anyone can make correct assertions -with an agenda- depending on which side of the fence you want to stand on.
Kwasiowusu stands where he stands and who cares? Those are his problems and his issues. Any president after bush has a chance to focus on the correct and the future.
.Obama won - suck it up!
I'd rather focus on issues, character and so on... to me, that's more important than who belongs to what party. I will vote for democrat or republican if I like where they stand. I'm not loyal to either party, and would love to actually see a 3rd party president get elected very soon.
1. 9/11 attacks: 444 Americans were held in Iran during Carter, but 5000 Americans were killed on US soil with Bush as a president! Which is worse?
2. Economic meltdown of the whole Financial system under BUSH is a total disaster.
3. Triple Deficit and National Debt: with BUSH as a president.
3. A disastrous war in IRAQ that started with a lie about WMD, and now has no victory on the horizon! WITH BUSH!
4. The Talibans are coming back, taking small cities and villages, while afghan soldiers and officers switching sides, just like during the late 1980ies before the Soviets had to withdrew. It is happening now with BUSH as a president!
So, Carter with all the problems of his presidency is a baby compared to Bush, who earned the not so honorary title of one of the worst and least popular presidents in American History.
2) The seeds of the meltdown were planted under prior administrations. That includes Clinton. Some of the blame can be pinned on appointees who are independant of the president. There is more than enough blame to go around. Trust me when I say that Obama will screw up enough things on his own (as a House member before and as President after) to earn his share of blame.
3) WMD were one of the reasons given. It wasn't the real reason. However anyone with an IQ and a Wisdom hitting at least "common" would have said "we have to assume they exis"t going into the war.
4)And now it will happen with Obama as president.
Carter is the best ex president we ever had. I can't say as much for his tenure as president. Bush's distinction is perhaps that he generated more rabid hate from folks such as your self than any other president. Given the rabid nature of the hate though, I'm not going to hold it against him. Now when someone who is rational makes a point, thats another thing.
What I hope as a people that we will remember in our expectations of President Obama, is not just that he has won, but what he his own choice chose to win. He has won the absolute most demanding job (when done well) and perhaps the greatest management challenge in the world of today. Much of which will be cleaning up the backward and failed neoconservative political and economic debris from Regan to now - that has culminated in, been underlined and punctuated by the last disasterous 8 years of G.W. Bush's failed and corrupt administration.
I can't agree with the comment that Carter was our worst president. I continue to admire Jimmy Carter as a world leader. I would agree he was not our best president decision wise, but he may well have been the best man thus far that was ever elected president. Any Carter failures in my opinion come even close to those of the Regan Bush's era. Carter's failures were generally caused more by his good intentions than uninformed errors or profiteering intentions by he and those around him. G.W. Bush's failures on the other hand are legion and not only caused by his personal avarice, manipulative and wholly deceitful administrative philosophy and the administration it shaped, but by his own remarkable personal level of deliberate, purposeful stupidity and arrogance. George W. Bush fulfilled completely adage that 'the most dangerous of men are the most stupid.' History will surely not only view G.W. Bush as America's worst president, but also as its most dangerous.
The wholly understated descriptive term - "multi-tasking" in the context of the Obama presidency, will move the definition of "multi-tasking" into an entirely new universe of complexity. A level of complexity never experienced by any previous president or world leader. We as a people need to keep our expectations in line with these challenges - both those current and future. In the my opinion it will be the expectations created by a brilliant campaign and an eloquently spoken need for change and hope by president Obama that will be both this president's and his people's greatest general challenge to manage.
We also need to remember the kinds of fatal liabilities and distractions that have been thrust upon previous, very bright, progressive American presidents in an effort for conservatives to maintain their status quo - or to actually move backward to a time in which and where they mistakenly believe they will be mentally more comfortable and capable of living. People like Mr. Kwasiowusu (5:32 AM comment: who has my pity - but not my sympathy) don't realize that they can't stop change. They don't conceive of the consequences of even trying to do so, any more than Bush did. Worse they don't accept that they can have responsible input in directing change forward, just not backward and thereby become a healthy part of change. These kinds of change fearing people will continue to organize themselves into more or less effective road blocks to progressive solutions to the problems that our country and the world face today. That is - unless each of us disassemble those roadblocks as they are begun to be assembled. We are coming out of a relatively brief period (it just seemed glacial) that history will look back upon as a comparative mini-Dark Age, where excessive conservative mentalities retarded necessary progress and once again threatened not only our species future, but it's very existence - just as in the past Dark Ages of history.
For the first time in this country's history, we have viable, undeniable and physical proof for the entire world to see. Evidence that the documents describing the concepts of freedom that the United States of America's founding fathers created for each of us - is functionally valid. That those documents are finally more than just selectively used, cherry picked phrases of idealistic words scrawled across ancient yellowed papers - residing not barely noticed in this country's museums, but still alive in the hearts minds, an now in the action of its voters. In what may be one of the greatest and most historic events of this nation, we the heirs of our forefathers dreams of a more perfect union have made those words of freedom, equality, opportunity and responsibility a living, breathing, reality in the election of President Barack Obama and I am prouder than ever to be an American.
Let me tackle your last statment. "For the first time in this country's history.." Nope. No meat there. We elected a president. Just like we have done since Washington. Nothing new there.
As for freedom. This alone is why I didn't like either candidate. Both were going to take away yet more of our freedoms. It was just a matter of which ones. You will hail this loss of freedom as progress. I will hail it as a failure to live up to the ideas of our founding fathers. The sames ones you are invoking in your rant.
IOW, The "right wing" control of both White House and Congress lasted exactly four - from January 2001 (When Bush took office) until January 2007, with a two year break (2003-2005) when the Democrats held the Senate by a slim majority.
Take off your blinkers, eh? I know your college prof is really into it, but you need to start thinking for yourself, man.
/P
Also, while the democrats now have control of two branches this doesn't mean that its time to break out the rubber stamps. Many of the new congressional members are Blue Dog Democrats and remain in opposition to some aspects of the more traditional liberal Democrat. I shouldn't even have to mention the small, but influential, Dixiecrat contingent in the Congress. Likewise, Obama is not a traditional Democrat as he seems to be mostly immune to the ravages of ideology and is more focused on pragmatic solutions.
Its easy to think of politics as Red versus Blue (more of a historical reference to Byzantium than Halo) but the realities are much more complex. Very very rarely has one party exercised complete control and absolute unity.
we can speculate all we want, but the END RESULT is what matters, and right now we don't know what Obama will be able to accomplish. just my two cents
@Kwasiowusu: chill out, i'm just as a hard-core republican like you, and i admit that i was very disappointed that McCain did not win. But what's done is done, we might be RIGHT about Obama or we might be WRONG. But until we see some actual results, like i've mentioned earlier. there's no way we can make a fair judgment of him.
I share the same Ideas and wish many others would as well.
This article was about Obama's technology plans. A couple of disheartened comments took it way off topic. If we can only learn our lessons from history (history, as in just yesterday). Look who won - the person who was able to stay on message.
He has yet to step foot in the office and is villified in the court of public opinion. Hero to some, Goat to others.
Time will tell.
Me, I'll wait and see what comes of it. Though I didn't vote for him, I like the guy, and I respect the way he pulled it off - he ran as a perfect centrist, and managed to neatly steal a lot of GOP planks, incorporating them into his own platform. He also comes off as a normal human being... kinda rare for a politician.
Meanwhile, this article's responses are a perfect evidence of how easily people are manipulated...
/P
AMEICANS SHOULD PAY FOR SINS THAT THEIR ANCESTORS HAD DONE TO SLAVES BY RAPING , KILLING THEM ETC.
HILLARY COULDN'T FOUND MONEY BUT THIS KENYAN BORN MUSLIM FOUND MONEY.
HOW?
AL-QAEDA PLOT ?
YOU ALL SHOULD NOT REJOICE ABOUT THIS, YOU SHOULD ALL FIND WHAT HAPPEND TO AMERICA TO GO DOWN TO SUCH A LOW LEVEL TO ELECT A KENYAN BORN MUSLIM AS THIER LEADER.
WHOLE WORLD MUSLIMS ARE ALL REJOICING BECAUSE GOD ALLAH WON THE BATTLE.
THERE IS A RUMOR THAT PORK WIL BE BANNED FROM US FROM JANUARY 20TH SHARIA LAW WIIL BE INTRODUCE .
WE ARE WAITING WHAT OSAMA BIN LADEN SAY'S ABOUT ELECTING BARAK HUSSAIN OSAMA A KENYAN BORN MUSLIM AS WORLDS TOP MOST POST( A COUSIN OF OSAMA BIN LADEN)
Don't you all realize that George Bush gave us the largest tax INCREASE in history and called it a tax cut. (He gave a 10 Trillion Dollar tax to the unborn.) No one in history has ever tried to reduce/defer taxes when going to war.
You are the one who is brainwashed and need professional help.
who send money?
osama bin laden and other muslims al over ?
all muslims are rejoicing over electing this kenyan born muslim as worlds number one post and idiots who voted doesn't know what they have done because they have been brain washed by this cunning muslim lawyer, (if they had brains)
Obama is Christian
He has no funding from bin laden and your generalization of muslims as extremist is quite offensive (i am not one btw)
Also, you seem to only have a 3rd grade education
kthxbye
. religion killed Jesus, if this really happened
. we now have the first black president of the US, congrats. in the year 08 the 44th president.
Leave him alone and let him do his job. Good luck.
- by HeretikSaint November 5, 2008 9:28 PM PST
- @Kwasiowusu
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (136 Comments)So!
The Obambi supression of freedom of expression and "Fairness Doctrine" starts now does it?
Note to jazzmandan, this is not teh Soviet Union or communist North Korea...yet.
Who is suppressing who? Obama has done nothing to suppress anyone yet. If you look at the Bush administration and then look at the Patriot Act you can the tell me who is suppressing who.