Source/Link

Update: Quick word, as commenters have noted the original Obama plan still exists at the bottom of the Web site page with the original language in PDF form under the title of being just Senator Obamas plan. I dont know why they dropped language on the site itself to reflect the Obama/Biden plan and the campaign has never returned my calls or e-mail requests for information in the past and dont seem likely to do so now. Still I am looking for information on if the new language is in addition to or supercedes the original plan.

The Obama campaign has made a number of changes to its Science, Technology & Innovation position page that now reflects the position of both the Senator and his running-mate Joe Biden. A Slashdot submitter summed up some of these changes by saying the following:

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.

You can see all the changes by viewing this link.
http://versionista.com/diff/JAS9LMr5qU7q8BSroV8KzQ/

I am including a few of the things I found of note:

1) While the page still states Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Now missing is the following firm explanation of what that means to the Senator:

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 Internets 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.

2) In the section Protecting children online now missing from the Obama plan is the following:

An Obama administration will encourage the creation of Public Media 2.0., the next generation of public media that will create the Sesame Street of the Digital Age and other video and interactive programming that educates and informs. Obama will support the transition of existing public broadcasting entities and help renew their founding vision in the digital world.

Obama will work to give parents the tools to prevent reception of programming that they find offensive on television and on digital media. Obama will encourage improvements to the existing voluntary rating system, exploiting new technologies like tagging and filtering, so that parents can better understand what content their children will see, and have the tools to respond. Private entities like Common Sense Media are pursuing a sanity not censorship approach, which can serve as a model for how to use technology to empower parents without offending the First Amendment.

Obama will encourage industry not to show inappropriate adult-oriented commercial advertising during childrens programming.
On the Internet, Obama will require that parents have the option of receiving parental controls software that not only blocks objectionable Internet content but also prevents children from revealing personal information through their home computer.

Senator Obama has dropped his statement of support for Public Media 2.0. While the statement still says an Obama administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment, he no longer outlines what those tools might be or whether it will be the government supplying them. He has also dropped mention of stopping the showing of adult-oriented commercial advertising during childrens programming and requiring parents be given internet control software.

3) What was once a multi-bulleted position on safeguarding privacy, is now a two sentence statement that states Obama & Biden will give privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy but provides little information on what those protections will be, how they will be enforced or implemented.

For privacy watchers this sudden change, in the wake of Obamas flip on FISA will no doubt be disheartening.

Finally, an addition was made to Obamas record on these issues. What I find interesting is that there is no statement about Bidens record on technology.

"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..."

The Obamites want change, and they get it. Obama changes every few months. Why, after proposing $1 trillion in new spending last spring, now he has proclaimed a desire to cut goverment programs as a "fiscal conservative." He was agains FISA before he voted for it. He wanted to tax the rich, but recently admitted that would not happen right away because of the economy.

The way things are going, I expect any day now he will convert to Christianity from his "Muslim faith." ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw ) LOL

If you don't like his tech policy, wait a few days, it will change. Because we all want change. All the change, all the time. Anything, as long as it is change.

Actually, I think Obama is sincere about wanting change. The change in our pockets, our bank accounts, stock portfolios. Because he'll be so much better at spending it than us stupid dumbass citizens.

Who has a stock portfolio these days?
101K perhaps?

" If you don't like his tech policy, wait a few days, it will change. Because we all want change. All the change, all the time. Anything, as long as it is change. "

Why don't we ask Mr Lessig about
Changing policies, while we're at it.


Lessig’s ‘Free Culture’ Now Available with DRM

http://torrentfreak.com/download-for-free-or-buy-drm-version-080928/

Seems like lots of folks like to change
their minds. Let's look at the reasons
before we jump on someones ass.

Says Lessig here ..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/24/lessig_blesses_drm/

" "We applaud Sun's efforts to rally the community around the development of open-source, royalty-free DRM standards that support 'fair use' and that don't block the development of Creative Commons ideals," says Lessig. "

The point is ...
Sometimes we HAVE to comrpomise to
get anything done at all.
Sometimes, we have to change our
'view' based on new information, or
changing culture.
Many reasons exist for adjusting a
stance on ANY subject.

Anyone going to jump down Lessigs' throat
for his 'adjustment' ?

Riiight, he's not running for president though.

It doesn't matter.
A good LEADER needs to take in a lot
of info, and possibly, adjust accordingly.

This is called compromise.
It's still better than 'My way is right
because God says so', regardless of
what anyone else in the country may
think of it. "

The last 8 years have been, "My way,
don't like it .. tough shit. "

I am just a little sick of that.

And I'm just a little sick of both Democrats AND Republicans.

Strike out "just a little"! (I must been having brain fog to say "just a little".)

"Actually, I think Obama is sincere about wanting change. The change in our pockets, our bank accounts, stock portfolios. Because he'll be so much better at spending it than us stupid dumbass citizens. "

I find this hilarious when one considers how much money McCain will take out of our pockets and put it into the hands of Big Business, or rich people.

"And I'm just a little sick of both Democrats AND Republicans."

Me too. Both sides are full of liars. Republicans more so this year than Democrats. Does anyone actually fall for the "Change" platform McCain is running on? Does he really think American's are that stupid??

That's why the ONLY solution to America's problems is to VOTE for anything that IS NOT A DEMOCRAT or IS NOT A REPUBLICAN.

MEET THE NEW BOSS.

SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.

" That's why the ONLY solution to America's problems is to VOTE for anything that IS NOT A DEMOCRAT or IS NOT A REPUBLICAN. "

So, another variation on the theme ..
" They're all crooks so why bother "?

If all are politicians are liars, than
why is the guy you support different,
after all, he is a politician too, albeit
from a third party ... still a politician.

So then , why not tell me what's GOOD about the person ( politician ) you support . Tell me what makes him better,
why I can trust him more than any
other politician.
Tell me what makes 'Your Guy' not a liar
etc..

It's all about what you are willing to
believe and who you are willing to
believe in, and if they are ALL
liars, well, we are all suckers.

Just a sucker for someone else.

" That's why the ONLY solution to America's problems is to VOTE for anything that IS NOT A DEMOCRAT or IS NOT A REPUBLICAN. "

Nope.
The only solution is to remove the
Us vs Them, Black or white, with us
or against us mentality which is one
of the essences of human nature, as
well as the ability of power to corrupt.

It's too bad, but it's a bit late for that
to happen.

"Does anyone actually fall for the "Change" platform McCain is running on? Does he really think American's are that stupid?? "
Considering the American people put a B-grade actor in the White house for 8 years and put Bush Jr back in there for another 4 it is not a case of Mccain thinking American's are that stupid it is a case of KNOWING we are that stupid.

Intelligent people are so jaded that many don't vote but then moan when the candidate that gets in an office demonstrates less brains than Reagan's old co star Bonzo the Chimp.

Yes, I know that with the mudslinging that come election time the choice does tend to look like 'Ok, which of these two dysfunctional yo yos do I think will do the least damage.' but if you don't vote or worse vote for somebody who has as much chance of winning as you do the lottery then you have given up all right to whine when the candidate that did get the job turns out to be a cross between Private Snafu and Captain Fubar.

" but if you don't vote or worse vote for somebody who has as much chance of winning as you do the lottery then you have given up all right to whine when the candidate that did get the job turns out to be a cross between Private Snafu and Captain Fubar. "

People should vote for who they think is
the best choice. Be it R D or third party.
At least they vote their conscience, not
voting according to a stupid rigged
'Poll' so they can say they were ont the
'winning' side.

If the crap keeps up, third party will
eventually become viable.
More people will refuse to believe the
'Third Party can't win' line.
It may eventually happen.
If this time around is worse than the
last .. sooner than you think.

" Yes, I know that with the mudslinging that come election time the choice does tend to look like 'Ok, which of these two dysfunctional yo yos do I think will do the least damage.' but if you don't vote or worse vote for somebody who has as much chance of winning "

A guarantee, if the third party candidate
has a shot, the mud will be just as thick
on them.

That's the fucking trouble.

I STILL haven't heard one person say
why the candidate THEY support is
good. Why THEIR candidate is more
likely to be honest, what policies they
have that are better, why their ideas
are more sound .. etc ..
Just more BS on how they are all
crap. No wonder so many are disgusted
with the process. It's so bad that when
a candidate actually seems to create
enthusiasm and interest, it is spun as
a bad thing. WTF ??

Tell me what's GOOD about your guy,
i'll give it an objective ear.
Keep telling me suck stories, i'll just
tell you to F' Off.

"So, another variation on the theme ..
" They're all crooks so why bother "?"

NO. Why bother would imply that you wouldn't vote at all. The reason a third party might be more honest and might be more trustworthy than a D or R is because the third party won't have as many purse strings attached.

The problem is the quality of the candidates, pre-primary. Not enough good people run for high offices.
Maybe they know they won't get the support of the purse strings INeedAlover talks about, and thus won't have much of a chance to win?

I too feel that third party emphasis is the way to go, if there's to be any hope at all.

" might be more trustworthy than a D or R is because the third party won't have as many purse strings attached. "

I'm seeing mostly wealthy business
men and or women as third party
candidates.
I have no reason to think that they
would be less corporately owned than
D or R, Other than they are not D or
R. Just different Coporate controls.

What is GOOD about the candidate
you support, specifically, that makes
them more believable, more trust
worthy, than any one else ?
What makes your guy GOOD ?

"What is GOOD about the candidate
you support, specifically, that makes
them more believable, more trust
worthy, than any one else?
What makes your guy GOOD?"

What if the known bad plus other (potential) bad in each candidate outweighs the good on the other end of their balance scales? In that case, I cannot approach such a situation optimistically; I'm not voting for anyone who would not be a good leader of our nation. I wish most people felt that way.

"What if the known bad plus other (potential) bad in each candidate outweighs the good on the other end of their balance scales? In that case, I cannot approach such a situation optimistically; I'm not voting for anyone who would not be a good leader of our nation. I wish most people felt that way."

So far, it seems to be a matter of trying to decide which one is likely to do the least harm for the next 4 more years.

For those who voted for Bush, you only have yourselves to blame for this BS were in now.