After the heady days of Vice Presidents inventing the Internet and the White House issuing Internet governance Green Papers, technology seems to have faded as an issue for Presidential platforms. Still, campaigns are savvy enough to focus on using the Web to market their candidacy and of course raise money. So I started to investigate the sites to see what position, if any, the candidates took on technology issues. A quick tour of the frontrunners revealed that many sites had a nod to energy policy (you know the drill, foreign oil and global warming are bad) as a key technology issue, but other technology issues were unaddressed. With all the attention on the Hill to YouTubeÂ and net neutrality, it seemed that candidates should have staked out more positions regarding technology policy.
I dug further and found that IT Consulting had a helpful articleÂ offering an overviewÂ of the technology positions ofÂ six candidates. It alsoÂ reviewedÂ eachÂ Web site’s functionality. But there are many more candidates, and there is the opportunity to probe where the candidates stand on a host of issues. So over summer I plan on writing a little bit about the candidates and where they seem to stand on technology issues. If nothing else, perhaps this project will start people asking that parties and candidates be clearer about technology issues such as net neutrality, Internet sales taxes, privacy, online speech, stem cell research, and so on. One small note: I liked the IT Consulting articleâ€™s istanbul escort bayan decision to review Web site functionality and istanbul escorts policy positions, so I will probably stick with that method. Nonetheless, if readers have suggestions as to other ways to approach the project, I am open to them.
My next post on Presidential Candidates and their technology policies will address a specific candidateâ€™s position. Hereâ€™s a teaser: the first candidate I will profile is not Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Edwards, or Obama. Someone else merits the pole position.