Must Read: Galaxy Note 8.0 tablet: Beating the iPad mini (review)

Topic: Government US

Joe Biden loves RIAA, DRM; hates encryption, George Bush

Summary: Does Joe Biden have more in common with Metallica's Lars Ulrich than Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg?CNET colleague Declan McCullagh has a superb analysis of Dem.

Andrew Nusca

By for The ToyBox |

Joe BidenDoes Joe Biden have more in common with Metallica's Lars Ulrich than Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg?

CNET colleague Declan McCullagh has a superb analysis of Dem. vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, who has an interesting (read: depressing) voting history when it comes to tech issues.

In McCullagh's own words: "By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP."

McCullagh takes a look at Biden's stance on privacy, copyright, P2P networks, Net neutrality and more. Needless to say, "skepticism" is a key word.

What do you think, readers? How will this year's candidates impact the way you vote? Tell us in TalkBack.

Topics: Government US, Browser, Government, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

57 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • Are You Ready????

    To have your privacy taken away? For some joker to place more power with the RIAA and MPAA than your own persons.

    Anyone to push corporate initiatives to be funded by the tax payers should not be in office.

    For this reason, I would like to clean out D.C. Alas, I don't feel that is in the cards though.
    nucrash
    Reply Vote

  • RE: Joe Biden loves RIAA, DRM; hates encryption, George Bush

    for long term privacy issues, court has more importance than legislature. As a result the choice of Attorney Genral, and of US Supreme Court justices has more impact than the choice of a vice president.
    s_souche
    Reply Vote

  • How about actually doing some journalism and comparing everyone.

    Hell you could actually hold the article till mccain picks someone, then compare.
    Been_Done_Before
    Reply Vote

    • Everyone thinks McCain will find Pawlenty to be his #2.

      Talk about bu8ilding bridges... or letting them crumble?
      HypnoToad
      Reply Vote

  • DRM is legitimate to a point, what's wrong with encryption, and so what?

    Maybe the IT folks behind Biden can ensure nothing he sends is encrypted. :D

    I won't deny there's a need for DRM, but the DMCA hasn't exactly helped much either...
    HypnoToad
    Reply Vote

  • What you forgot to say

    is that Biden loves the money he gets from RIAA, and the companies that love DRM.

    Probably also Biden has never had to put up with DRM too. That's one thing I liked from "All the President's Men" the characters that Jack, and James protrayed accually got to MEET with a couple who really had to struggle with life. If these congressmen, and CEOs had to be on the bread-lines, they'd see the real world.

    - Kc
    kcredden2
    Reply Vote

  • DRM has it's place

    When dealing with a product that is in development or confidential, DRM is really nice to have. If a product spent 18 months in development and I passed it to a manufacturer only to have it copied and passed along to a competitor, I would be extremely upset. However, if I as a consumer purchased an item and had to connect to the internet to use that item, or had to run the chance of that item no longer being valid when a "Plays for Sure" server shuts down, I might be a bit miffed.

    DRM isn't bad, but use of DRM in the consumer market is.
    nucrash
    Reply Vote

    • Biden server corporate masters first...

      No current presidential candidate can really be trusted. They serve corporate interests above anything else.

      Until lobbying money can be banned, this problem will never go away.
      DonRupertBitByte
      Reply Vote

      • Biden serves corporate masters first...

        Grammatical error...ugh.

        No current presidential candidate can really be trusted. They serve corporate interests above anything else.

        Until lobbying money can be banned, this problem will never go away.
        DonRupertBitByte
        Reply Vote

        • Maybe you forgot.

          Bideen does serve corporate masters first, the public second if he cares about them at all except when running for something.
          deowll
          Reply Vote

      • Screw banning

        I don't mind Corporations sinking their money back into the government. Much like anything in life, like saying "no" to a two year old, they only learn how to obtain what they want through covert means. A better method would be to open up lobbying, but make sure that everything is published in the open and that any hidden funding to be slapped down with an almighty fist. Then we would learn who is in whose pocket and who to actually vote for. Otherwise, we might as well have the entire Gates family donate the max that an individual can to a campaign. When you start using those larger Kennedy families, that's quite a few people.
        nucrash
        Reply Vote

    • Even corporate though, it isn't effective.

      Anyone who really wants a copy is going to get a copy. The same thing that makes it useless in the consumer world (at helping prevent piracy, it does help rebuys for the non technical, it's main reason for existing) makes it ineffective in the corporate world.

      Our company puts big "Strictly Private" on the copy, and all the confidentiality agreements (we don't share without one, even on bids) has financial penalties that make our shared information much more secure than DRM.

      TripleII
      TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
      Reply Vote

  • Funny thing...

    Are we finally waking up to the fact that it is not Republicans who are against personal freedom? The Dems are the ones who propose more taxation, more social programs (read: lock-in to the treadmill), and basically evermore regulation of every type of enterprise, making it difficult to embark on a new endeavor. Where is the freedom in all that?

    I've said it before, will say it again: the more radical the Dems continue to get, the worse they blow their cover. Liberalism will be seen for what it is: a sham that takes away personal freedom.
    techboy_z
    Reply Vote

    • Fuddy thing

      Take your pick: 8 liberal years of Clinton or 8 Conservative
      years of Bush?

      Clinton: Greatest economic growth in history, Bush
      mediocre economic growth

      Clinton: Huge IT expansion, Bush huge IT export of jobs

      Clinton: You want personal freedom? He banned banning
      gays and lesbians in the military, Bush, don't be marrying
      someone of the same sex and by the way, can we stop
      abortion?

      Clinton/Gore (you know, the guy who invented the
      internet?) Bush: Let's listen in on your phone calls, watch
      email, etc.

      C'mon, it isn't the liberals that want to stop your personal
      freedom. And there won't be any tax increases, just the
      tax cuts will be allowed to expire for the 5% of the people
      who make more than a quarter million dollars a year. If
      Obama gets elected and he gets a Democratic Congress,
      my parents won't have to pay income tax on their social
      security income anymore!!
      mlindl
      Reply Vote

      • Here's an idea...

        Vote 3rd party and get some one that hasn't been bought and paid for before the Primaries.
        nucrash
        Reply Vote

      • Two good candidates for brain hemisphere exchange

        See "Gulliver's Travels" (Part 3: "A Voyage to Laputa").

        Hope you live through the operation.
        John L. Ries
        Reply Vote

      • You are either buying (or selling) the company line.

        Tax increases are universal. You can find out how much more you will be paying with Obama's publicly stated plans.

        The current cap on SS contributions goes away.
        http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/obama_biglaw_and_taxesor_obama_1.php
        [B]But the real hidden tax is that Obama plans to end the social-security tax cap. Right now, you may notice, sometime during the summer or early fall, your take-home pay suddenly goes up because they stop deducting FICA. Current law caps social security taxes: in 2008, the cap is at $102,000. Obama proposes to abolish this. That mid-summer bump will be no more: add about several thousand dollars to your annual tax bill.[/B]

        You can test this yourself using the spreadsheet created here.
        http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/ny_to_147k_more_about_barack_o.php

        The Barack campaign does not dispute that it is accurate, but throws out arguments such as "might not remove" or "may create a donut-hole", etc.

        Seriously, as soon as household income goes above 102K (which would be smack in the middle of middle class), you will start paying more directly to SS. See, that isn't technically a "tax increase".

        I have not been enamored with all that Bush has done, but anyone who thinks that Barack is not very liberal and will increase taxes (honestly, I would much much prefer Clinton to Obama) is dreaming.

        TripleII
        TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
        Reply Vote

        • Unfortunately...

          what you've got now is a number of tax codes that are inherently unfair. Both to the rich and to the poor. FICA is one that targets the poor since they will pay a higher percentage of their income towards FICA than someone of more means. As you pointed out, they only collect FICA on the first $102,000 of someones income. That means if they made $1 million in taxable payroll income, $898,000 of that doesn't get any FICA tax at all. How is that fair to the guy who makes exactly $102,000 or less and gets FICA tax on every single cent of their income? I say let's split the difference... Get rid of the inheritance tax and get rid of the FICA cap. What we can't do is just start cutting taxes all over the place when our country is stuck some kind of deficit-spending eutopia. Pay off the debt, then we can talk about cutting taxes some more. It used to be that sacrifice in this country wasn't looked upon as such a burden, but rather an opportunity to make things better. Of course, that was back when we had slaves to do most of the real work for us...
          jasonp@...
          Reply Vote

          • The reason only the first $100k is taxed

            ...is because the original intent was for people to "pay in" their own retirement accounts, which they would then drain once retired. Since there is a cap on how much money they take out, the logic has been that there should also therefore be a cap on how much any one person has to pay in.

            That WAS the theory, but socialists (er, Democrats) don't see the world that way.
            riredale
            Reply Vote

          • The only flaw in that theory...

            is that you're always a generation behind. I know there are an awful lot of "conservatives" who look at Social Security as this evil socialist program. These same people usually don't see the need for consumer protection or employee protection laws. They somehow think that business will throw off centuries of being completely incapable of self-regulation. Social Security was developed to keep our country from becoming just another third-world country where our older citizens are expected to die shortly after their ability to provide an income wanes. What our government has recognized time and time again is that while our society provides far greater opportunity for success than maybe any other society on the planet, it is very far from perfect. I find it funny to hear "conservatives" complain about the government doing nothing to bring down the price of oil from one side of their mouth while bashing "socialists" for Social Security. Sounds like they only want government to act in the best interests of Americans if they are in that group being directly helped. This is one reason why the republican brand is so tarnished...they only stand for something if they think they have something to gain directly. "For the good of the country" just isn't good enough.
            jasonp@...
            Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close