As an active computer person, I rely heavly on my computer for both my job and personal life.
When a person metions the word "hacker" they assume the guy who breaks computers and steals data. This is false as the proper term is "cracker" like "safecracker".
The hacking community is composed of all the "computer geeks". Mainly programmer and people who tinker with technology. Often we are misunderstood.
However, Senator Biden's stance on technology is very low with the tech savvy. CNET rates him at 37.5% (http://news.cnet.com/2009-1040-6130830.html) mainly for his support for the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 2000 (DMCA), the Perform Act that has allowed the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to sue XM Radio, his support for the PATRIOT Act and Online censorship. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0)
Then there was the bill in 2002 that was backed by News Corp (FOX NEWS) that attempted to ban hardware hacking (http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071-946732.html), an important field in the hacker industry considering the guys at Apple, Microsoft, and Sony tell you "don't hack your X. Pay $20 for some program that allows you do to Y." Thanks to us, the hardware hackers, we can offer you it and then some for next to nothing. The large companies in the computer industry have also tried to convince Biden of their interpretation of Trusted Computing rather than the hacking industry's interpretation. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLoIcdIu_Kk to see what Trusted Computing is all about.).
The good news is Senators Biden, Obama, and McCaskill are in favor of Network Neutrality (http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatetally) where as Senators McCain, Stevens, and Lott are against it. (The last three have been in trouble for supporting corporate interest. Ted Stevens (or as we like to call him "Senator Tubes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8) ) was caught stealing monies thanks to the Internet legislation he lobbied against. And I don't think I need to recall the racist remarks of Trent Lott from a few years ago.)
What is Cowboy Johnny hiding other than the fact that his second wive IS his trophy wife, he owns atleat seven homes, and raised his campaign monies thanks to his friends at Exxon-Mobile? Clearly it is something big that could ruin his campaign that if posted on the Internet it would crush him.
Aside from all that, Senator Biden needs to stop supporting the MPAA, RIAA, and the NTCA (all three are anti-net-neutrality groups who use other issues like "priacy" or "protecting children from online predators" as excuses to make them look like heros when they are actually the opposite.) Anyone with Cable may also recall the anti-Network Neutrality ads that the NTCA aired last year claiming that "multimillion dollar tech companies from silicion valley would make million". As a Midwesterner doing a job that many people in Sillicon Valley (which for the record is San Jose, California and vincinity), I certainly am not making Millions of dollars and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't be using it to create a "tiered" internet that restricts the flow of free information.
Futhermore, I if I had that money, I would not use it to influence leaders on issues such as national security or survellance. ( http://www.eff.org/search?text=Biden )
The average non-tech-savvy person should give Seantor Biden a call before we let him work as VP.
Contact Senator Biden
Wilmington, DE (302) 573-6345
Milford, DE (302) 424-8090
Washington, DC (202) 224-5042
Tell him that before we let him become VP, he needs to stop supporting the MPAA, RIAA, NCTA, and Big Brother.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/print.php
Network Neutrality
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Senator Obama discusses Senators Snowe and Dorgan's legislation to protect network neutrality on the internet.
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
For a great video on Net Neutrality (no mention of Obama) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw
Snopes, the foremost debunker on the Internet, agrees: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/neutrality.asp
Here is a letter I wrote and posted on the "Save the Internet" blog and on the Huffington Post. Senator Kerry is seeking feedback on the importance of keeping the internet free of gateway fees which the large ISPs want to defray the cost of creating and maintaining the internet infrastructure.
As we shift from communication by paper to communication electronically a panoply of problems emerge, all of them devolving into questions of how to pay for the medium. Some problems center around getting the medium up to good mechanical quality and distribution. Others center around getting the medium accessible to all whether physically disabled, lacking in funds, or inadequately technologically or educationally prepared.
So the transition has a mechanical component, a cost-of-access component and an educational component.
Sadly, the traditional way to fund the solutions to those cost-of-access and mechanical components is burdened by a growing unwillingness of the better off public to pay for things that benefit the wider society. Clearly funding the infrastructure through the tax code would benefit the widest number of people.
Instead, the system has been invaded by gatekeepers, like Comcast and Verizon where I live, and polluted with pervasive advertising.
Indeed, the presence of these elements has a deeply negative impact on all our public communication whether it be internet, radio, television, or print. Turning to any vested interest for funding cannot but color the invested result.
So we encourage our government to come to grips in a populist way with the cost of this transition, not only the transition but also the result.
Using the basic principal of freedom of speech to keep access as wide and unfettered as imaginable seems to be a possible tack - especially aided by the fact that the internet is still interactive so the freedom has to run both ways i.e. from the gatekeepers and towards them. Just as we must permit them to splat ugly advertising all over the public airwaves, they must be required to permit us to use the airwaves to express our perspectives.
But providing for equal access when there is such an imbalance in the funding, and when economies of scale make it cost effective for a single company to manage the hardware and distribution networks, will require a carefully crafted set of legal guidelines.
For that reason the principal of Network Neutrality has come into existence.
We are all aware of the unfortunate impact money has on the welfare of the wider public. The New York Times, just today, released a massive study of its effect on the ethical spirits of a group of high ranking military officials - an effect with massive reverberations throughout our society and the world-wide economic system, not to mention on the Middle East. The prospect of becoming rich has led us to wager our entire culture on an energy source of limited quantity. Unless we can pry ourselves free of its clarion call, greed will motivate us to restrict basic resources like water and food to those who can pay. Already it has permitted us to pretend that we deserve to exploit the earth for our amusement without restraint or consideration of others for 35 years now.
Network Neutrality pales before these larger issues, but every step taken to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of the few accumulates and drives our society further away from the philosophy and practice of its originators.
So I write about this small step towards unrestricted equality of information access.
I hope my thoughts are of assistance to you as you prosecute this effort. Every effort to bring the influence of greed, power and disrespect under control can benefit our country.
The Information Age is coming to a close, and the Thought Revolution is dawning.
Throughout history there have been golden ages. There have been perfect junctures of time and place. These fleeting moments existed when all of the right ingredients converged into a singular fortuity. Combinations of factors like extended peace, inspired leadership, plentiful resources, geographic advantage or strong government led to rare dynamic bursts of cultural elevation.
I recently heard this summary of the core principles of the Obama Technology & Innovation Plan:
Open Government. Open Networks. Open Markets.
The plan is the most comprehensive and detailed tech & innovation plan put forward by any candidate. But also bold, and simple at its core. I liked the sharp summary and wanted to share it.
I was fortunate to chair the group that advised Senator Obama and the campaign on the tech & innovation plan - a large and hardworking group that generated terrific ideas, rooted in the great work that the Senator and his strong Senate staff have been doing in this area for quite some time.
The response to the plan has been great. One independent comment that stands out: "If even half of the proposals outlined here were to be implemented, it would fundamentally change the nature of our democracy for the better". That's why Barack Obama is running for President - fundamentally changing the country and the world for the better. A lot will have to happen on many fronts for that to occur, and Senator Obama has been addressing all the topics in compelling ways. He is a 21st century candidate who recognizes that technology will be a key part of the solution to better government, and a key part of the solution to so many of the specific issues that concern Americans: health care, energy, education, as well as job creation and economic growth.
Send copies of the plan to people you know, especially people interested in technology and innovation. Or better, send them to BarackObama.com where they can read the plan and also participate in the discussion on the site. The Senator wants the feedback - and (not a small thing) is using technology to generate the best thinking and best ideas to make the country a better place.
The latest buzz seems to be that Barack Obama and Ron Paul ought to be running mates, in one fashion or another. Let's do a comparison and see how that might work out.
Lobbyists Paul voted NO to H.R. 437, to require lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations, May 2007. Barack Obama has spoken out against such bundling.
