8 ms·

Hillary Clinton Announces Tech Plan

52 points by stryan 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago
> It proposes investments in computer science and engineering education . . . and attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees. These sound good in theory, but in effect they're an industry-specific labor subsidy. When the government "invests" in STEM education, what happens is that the companies that need to hire engineers save money both as a result of reduced training costs and as a by-product of increased supply driving down wages. It's worth keeping in mind that STEM education isn't necessarily a public good.[1] The benefits of education aimed at developing industry-specific skills accrues mostly to those in an employer-employee relationship. Under those circumstances, it's most economically efficient to force the employer and the employee--rather than the public--to bear the cost of that education. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
- seeingfurther 10y ago
  Isn't that a good thing? What would be some negative consequences?
  - arthulia 10y ago
    Wages going down and competition going up for people in the tech industry.
    - p4wnc6 10y ago
      I worry more about quality going down than either of those. Companies will amass huge armies of truly awful engineers and it will become a profession of attrition. Not to mention that we will motivate foreign students to study mostly only STEM and thus deprive ourselves of the diversity of thought and the artistic and critical labor output of foreign workers in non-STEM domains. Makes me think of Arcade Fire: "One day they will see it's long gone."
    - jordanb 10y ago
      Not just the tech industry too. There are plenty of areas of STEM which are totally saturated with smart effective highly educated people and the result is low wages and poor employment outcomes. Just look at chemistry or biology.
    - anthony_romeo 10y ago
      But fewer complaints of H1-B wage slavery (note: I'm exaggerating somewhat), which also suppresses salaries. Hard to say which is more significant an effect.
    - _greim_ 10y ago
      The tech industry isn't zero-sum though, even from just a purely selfish "can I get a job" POV. More talent in the pool will arguably make the industry bigger, rather than diluting the value of that talent. There's just so much room to grow.
  - ellisv 10y ago
    It favors companies that hire engineers (vs. those that don't) and may lower engineer wages. Whether or not these are negative depend on your view.
    - tremon 10y ago
      What's the negative view on "it favors companies that hire engineers over those that don't"?
      - arcanus 10y ago
        It is a market distortion. It favors the industry that is getting government support, taking away valuable resources from other industries that would do better in a free market. Practically, HN is pro-engineering, so we likely approve of such moves. Similar subsidies in other industries might not be viewed as favourably. Personally, I am not against it, because as someone who has many of his peers playing a zero-sum game in mathematical finance, I've seen some of the downsides the top talent being allocated where the free market desires them most.
        rayiner 10y ago
        It's not just a pro- versus anti-engineering issue. A lot of engineering fields are rigorous and difficult while not being very highly paid.[1] Part of the reason is the market distortion you point out: both on the demand side (e.g. aerospace is a heavily regulated industry with few opportunities to build "unicorns"), and on the supply side (e.g. the government invested heavily in churning out aerospace degrees during the Cold War). [1] I made more money out of school in software, with no relevant degree, than I would have in aerospace, with a B.S. in the field.
        tremon 10y ago
        Ah, in the "engineers vs other professions" sense. I was parsing it as "hiring vs non-hiring".
  - vec 10y ago
    The Econ 101 answer is that we'll have some number of people going into STEM fields would be more productive to the economy (and probably personally better off) as lawyers or cops or bakers or whatever. More realistically, it's likely to cause average salaries for engineers to decline somewhat as supply catches up to demand.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    I'd ask the manager of my local Starbucks, who has a PhD in Biology.
  - davidw 10y ago
    It's government trying to pick winners, which rarely works out that well. I think government should stick to basics like infrastructure, education and making sure everyone has decent health care; that kind of thing that companies are less suited for.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
  So? An increase in citizens trained in a highly intellectually demanding field and encouraging immigration of some of the best and brightest of other nations makes it more than worthwhile to pursue.
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago
    > So? So, the point of these programs isn't citizen enrichment. The point is job training. Consider: philosophy is also intellectually demanding, but I don't see "Philosophy for All" educational initiatives. I think a lot of people who oppose CS Ed investments are self-interested, but that doesn't mean there aren't genuine problems with government policies that tie themselves too closely to today's labor market. If we're not careful, "learn to code and you'll have a job" will be tomorrow's equivalent of "get a college degree and you'll have a job".
    - forgottenpass 10y ago
      If we're not careful, "learn to code and you'll have a job" will be tomorrow's equivalent of "get a college degree and you'll have a job". It already is. It's not a matter of if the bottom will drop out of STEM=JOBS, but a matter of when.
  - kylestlb 10y ago
    If this plan goes thru, maybe a university should undertake some sort of advanced accreditation process to be able to award green cards. I would hazard a guess that some universities (state unis?) aren't necessarily attracting the best and brightest. Anecdotal, but I took a few masters CS courses at an average state uni, and the foreign students had a similar academic rigor and aptitude as the general uni population for the most part, displayed through mean test and assignment scores. I could be totally wrong but it might be dangerous to assume we are attracting only the best and brightest, no? Seems like we are attracting anyone on the spectrum who can dole out some money to a university and get a stem degree.
    - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > These sound good in theory I disagree. > but in effect they're an industry-specific labor subsidy. What do you mean, "but in effect" -- that's clearly why they are being advocated. > When the government "invests" in STEM education, what happens is that the companies that need to hire engineers save money both as a result of reduced training costs and as a by-product of increased supply driving down wages. This is win-win (for domestic labor and capital [which is less tied to the domestic market], respectively) when you are training your citizens to take in-demand jobs. Its lose-win (on the same terms) when you are subsidizing and incentivizing foreign students to consume domestic educational resources to take in-demand jobs.
- kaitai 10y ago
  Agreed. People here are mostly thinking "brilliant computer scientist" or "will cure cancer," but many universities have degree programs that are revenue generators, requiring full tuition payments from students and attracting many foreign nationals, which may not be held to the same standards as other programs. These programs serve plenty of students from China and Saudi Arabia whose parents are making an investment in getting an American option for the their child or the family. This is a very rational decision, but I don't think that it serves US interests to give an automatic green card to a kid from (pardon my apparent condescension) Directional State U because his parents paid enough to get him to scrape through a master's in geology or CS. I'm at a big state U, mildly insulated from the pressures to develop a program at which anyone can succeed, but I have a lot of academic friends who have encountered significant pressure from administrations to keep pass rates high in revenue-generating STEM programs (many of them masters' programs). Attaching a green card to the diploma is a boon to these programs and some non-US students: all the incentives are there to just keep taking that full tuition and graduating students without working them too hard. Win-win, and it cuts down on the end-of-semester "I have to leave the country if I fail!" conversations, which I've had several times and are always unpleasant. These micro-level problems could lead to a flooding of the market with people whose educations just aren't that great. Coming from a family of immigrants, I'm all for making green card processes more efficient. Knowing America's education system, attaching a green card to diplomas of STEM graduates is pay-to-play and that's not cool.
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago
    > "brilliant computer scientist" or "will cure cancer," These are already covered by eb-2 anyways.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Nothing you said is restricted to STEM education. Do you favor eliminating subsidies for K-12 as well? If not, why not?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I think education occupies a range on the continuum between public and private goods. Basic literacy probably yields positive externalities, but specialized, employment-targeted skills mainly benefit the employee and employer. That said, I think K-12 could probably be 1-8 and yield similar positive externalities.
simonh 10y ago
Interesting. I expect a series of highly detailed policy announcements on complex issues from Hillary over the coming months. I'm guessing she's realised Trump will be completely out of his depth on anything like this and unable to respond effectively.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  If you expect highly detailed policy announcements to matter, you have a very poor model of the electorate.
- talmand 10y ago
  I suspect Hillary is out of her depth on the subject as well. Her advisors, on the other hand, may not. I see no reason Trump cannot hire advisors just as experienced in the field as Hillary.
  - sigmar 10y ago
    >I see no reason Trump cannot hire advisors just as experienced in the field as Hillary. The "he can get experts too" argument is fine, except for the fact he has publicly spoken out saying all experts are "terrible." >Referring to criticism that he could be better schooled on matters of foreign policy, Trump suggested he would do just as well, if not better than the current or past administrations without anyone providing input. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/donald-trump-foreign-policy-experts-221528 http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-...
    - defen 10y ago
      How is that different than Obama claiming he knew more about policies on any particular issue than his policy directors? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81895_Page2.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81895_Page2.html People who run for president by definition have huge egos, it's not limited to Trump.
      - 10y ago
davidcollantes 10y ago
Where can one find the source for the tech plan? Is it on her website somewhere? I have not been able to find it.
- therobot24 10y ago
  i posted a link + comments in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12001367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12001367
sz4kerto 10y ago
So you can host your email server at home. /s
- treehau5 10y ago
  Alternative headline: "FBI Suspect Announces Tech Plan"
MrZongle2 10y ago
I realize that Clinton -- like any candidate -- has a platoon of advisers for a wide variety of topics, and it is these people (rather than the candidate) who comes up with the proposed policy. But I can't help but immediately think that this was the candidate who disregarded the sound advice of the IT and security professionals in the State Department and had an entirely different bunch of people set up a faulty alternative email service for her own convenience. And then I wonder how much of a rosy "tech plan" will also be so casually discarded when it becomes inconvenient.
- thecolorblue 10y ago
  > ...faulty alternative email service... Do you have a source for this? It was my impression that nothing was out of the ordinary about her email server, and the rules around it were vague.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    Well, here's one for starters: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a... Edit: here's a second: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-scandal-state-dept-disabled-its-own-security-systems-to-accommodate-hillary/ http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-... I was under the impression that the rules around it were not vague, but as Secretary of State she was essentially given an exemption (or people chose to look the other way) because nobody wanted to rock the boat. The issue of classified email (whether marked or not) on the server is another one entirely. And the rules are crystal clear in that regard.
    - thecolorblue 10y ago
      Thank you for the links. I am, admittedly, not well informed.
  - ccvannorman 10y ago
    How did you get that impression? (This is why democracy is hard) Here is a well sourced and concise explanation of why Hillary's actions around email were unforgivable. [1] [1] https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email-setup-da8966760f7d#.94r4tu4dq https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email...
jordanb 10y ago
> attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees. HAH! I knew this was going to be in there. Of course it's a gigantic bailout to the universities. STEM grad programs are already full of foreign nationals trying to get a slot in the advanced degree H1-B track. This would absolutely turbocharge that: buy a degree from whatever fourth rate American university for $xxx,xxx and value is less in the degree than the golden ticket that comes attached.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  America has an amazing ability to attract the most high-quality immigrants, and an even more amazing ability to screw this up. Just give a green card to whomever can get a sufficiently high SAT score. This would start an insanely powerful brain drain in America's favour.
  - basch 10y ago
    can you imagine if countries had tried this instead of eugenics?
  - crudbug 10y ago
    I have seen Asian students going to some third-level schools here and riding the job market with multi-level consulting scam ladder. Having an "Elite University Group" based upon research work/ NSF funding, can surely help in determining both, the right university pool and attractive STEM talent.
  - defen 10y ago
    You don't think sufficiently motivated groups have figured out how to cheat on the SAT? http://www.barrons.com/articles/sat-integrity-falls-victim-to-china-cheating-scandal-1453713163 http://www.barrons.com/articles/sat-integrity-falls-victim-t... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/11/16/the-six-step-sat-cheating-operation-in-asia-and-how-to-stop-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/11/...
    - 10y ago
kelukelugames 10y ago
Here is a link to the source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11997844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11997844
hasenj 10y ago
Trump said something to the same effect in his campaign launching book (Crippled America) where he lamented how the US makes it easy for illegal immigrants but difficult for honest people who studied and graduated in American universities but then have to go back to their home countries because the US doesn't want them to stay.
- Eyas 10y ago
  It is kind of difficult with Trump because he has actually said everything. In a complete system of logic, you will find an argument made in support of every good idea out there (but also, every bad idea out there). In the case of Trump and tech immigration, he had argued for H1-B/green card reform for skilled workers, as you have said, and against it, see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/28/donald-trump/donald-trump-didnt-realize-his-own-website-called-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/...
  - hasenj 10y ago
    The thing with his position on allowing university graduates to stay and work in the US is that he only said it in the book. I've never seen him say it in a public speech, which makes sense given that the majority of his audience seems to have been blue collar workers who would not be so thrilled with the idea of immigrant students taking well paying jobs while they and their children are stuck in a rut.
basch 10y ago
there is no reason to link to usatoday over the actual post, i move to replace the link https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/2...
- arcanus 10y ago
  Good catch. In fact, after a quick glance, the original post appears more informative than the usatoday. I 2nd the motion.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
basch 10y ago
2 things to remember. 1) "Fix Copyright" probably means TPP 2) Hillary uses a blackberry because she doesnt know how to use a computer http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-email-inquiry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/hillary-clinto... nor does she password protect her own computer http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/shocking-deposition-hillary-clueless-on-using-computer-emails/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/shocking-deposition-hillar...
- basch 10y ago
  well im getting downvoted for this, BUT my point was Hillary clearly didnt write this laundry list, it seems like almost a time cube esque wishlist of every tech initiative possible. It just comes off as political word salad, so different news aggregators can bite quote it, like throwing paint at the wall. "Hillary is committed to increasing the security of our government networks, making it harder for hackers to gain unauthorized access." Really?
intrasight 10y ago
>attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees This should be for all accredited degree programs. Attaching it to specific degrees is going to have all kinds of unintended consequences.
tootie 10y ago
Has she said anything about continuing the expansion of 18F or other government digital services?
mindslight 10y ago
> Hillary rejects the false choice between privacy interests and keeping Americans safe. She was a proponent of the USA Freedom Act, and she supports Senator Mark Warner and Representative Mike McCaul’s idea for a national commission on digital security and encryption. This commission will work with the technology and public safety communities to address the needs of law enforcement, protect the privacy and security of all Americans that use technology, assess how innovation might point to new policy approaches, and advance our larger national security and global competitiveness interests. Unsurprisingly, it's more Orwellian garbage. To these "people", what's done at airports is security, even though it manifestly makes everyone less safe by separating us from our luggage, unpacking and displaying our stuff for all to see, stripping us of our tools, and creating a perfect chokepoint for the scene of their next 24 hour tragedy. It's not surprising that captains of the private surveillance industry endorsed these policies, but individuals would have to be fools to think this means anything besides more regressive information totalitarianism. (also, "Doesn't she look tired?")

52 points by stryan 10y ago

> It proposes investments in computer science and engineering education . . . and attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees. These sound good in theory, but in effect they're an industry-specific labor subsidy. When the government "invests" in STEM education, what happens is that the companies that need to hire engineers save money both as a result of reduced training costs and as a by-product of increased supply driving down wages. It's worth keeping in mind that STEM education isn't necessarily a public good.[1] The benefits of education aimed at developing industry-specific skills accrues mostly to those in an employer-employee relationship. Under those circumstances, it's most economically efficient to force the employer and the employee--rather than the public--to bear the cost of that education. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

seeingfurther 10y ago
Isn't that a good thing? What would be some negative consequences?
- arthulia 10y ago
  Wages going down and competition going up for people in the tech industry.
  - p4wnc6 10y ago
    I worry more about quality going down than either of those. Companies will amass huge armies of truly awful engineers and it will become a profession of attrition. Not to mention that we will motivate foreign students to study mostly only STEM and thus deprive ourselves of the diversity of thought and the artistic and critical labor output of foreign workers in non-STEM domains. Makes me think of Arcade Fire: "One day they will see it's long gone."
  - jordanb 10y ago
    Not just the tech industry too. There are plenty of areas of STEM which are totally saturated with smart effective highly educated people and the result is low wages and poor employment outcomes. Just look at chemistry or biology.
  - anthony_romeo 10y ago
    But fewer complaints of H1-B wage slavery (note: I'm exaggerating somewhat), which also suppresses salaries. Hard to say which is more significant an effect.
  - _greim_ 10y ago
    The tech industry isn't zero-sum though, even from just a purely selfish "can I get a job" POV. More talent in the pool will arguably make the industry bigger, rather than diluting the value of that talent. There's just so much room to grow.
- ellisv 10y ago
  It favors companies that hire engineers (vs. those that don't) and may lower engineer wages. Whether or not these are negative depend on your view.
  - tremon 10y ago
    What's the negative view on "it favors companies that hire engineers over those that don't"?
    - arcanus 10y ago
      It is a market distortion. It favors the industry that is getting government support, taking away valuable resources from other industries that would do better in a free market. Practically, HN is pro-engineering, so we likely approve of such moves. Similar subsidies in other industries might not be viewed as favourably. Personally, I am not against it, because as someone who has many of his peers playing a zero-sum game in mathematical finance, I've seen some of the downsides the top talent being allocated where the free market desires them most.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        It's not just a pro- versus anti-engineering issue. A lot of engineering fields are rigorous and difficult while not being very highly paid.[1] Part of the reason is the market distortion you point out: both on the demand side (e.g. aerospace is a heavily regulated industry with few opportunities to build "unicorns"), and on the supply side (e.g. the government invested heavily in churning out aerospace degrees during the Cold War). [1] I made more money out of school in software, with no relevant degree, than I would have in aerospace, with a B.S. in the field.
      - tremon 10y ago
        Ah, in the "engineers vs other professions" sense. I was parsing it as "hiring vs non-hiring".
- vec 10y ago
  The Econ 101 answer is that we'll have some number of people going into STEM fields would be more productive to the economy (and probably personally better off) as lawyers or cops or bakers or whatever. More realistically, it's likely to cause average salaries for engineers to decline somewhat as supply catches up to demand.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Spooky23 10y ago
  I'd ask the manager of my local Starbucks, who has a PhD in Biology.
- davidw 10y ago
  It's government trying to pick winners, which rarely works out that well. I think government should stick to basics like infrastructure, education and making sure everyone has decent health care; that kind of thing that companies are less suited for.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
So? An increase in citizens trained in a highly intellectually demanding field and encouraging immigration of some of the best and brightest of other nations makes it more than worthwhile to pursue.
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  > So? So, the point of these programs isn't citizen enrichment. The point is job training. Consider: philosophy is also intellectually demanding, but I don't see "Philosophy for All" educational initiatives. I think a lot of people who oppose CS Ed investments are self-interested, but that doesn't mean there aren't genuine problems with government policies that tie themselves too closely to today's labor market. If we're not careful, "learn to code and you'll have a job" will be tomorrow's equivalent of "get a college degree and you'll have a job".
  - forgottenpass 10y ago
    If we're not careful, "learn to code and you'll have a job" will be tomorrow's equivalent of "get a college degree and you'll have a job". It already is. It's not a matter of if the bottom will drop out of STEM=JOBS, but a matter of when.
- kylestlb 10y ago
  If this plan goes thru, maybe a university should undertake some sort of advanced accreditation process to be able to award green cards. I would hazard a guess that some universities (state unis?) aren't necessarily attracting the best and brightest. Anecdotal, but I took a few masters CS courses at an average state uni, and the foreign students had a similar academic rigor and aptitude as the general uni population for the most part, displayed through mean test and assignment scores. I could be totally wrong but it might be dangerous to assume we are attracting only the best and brightest, no? Seems like we are attracting anyone on the spectrum who can dole out some money to a university and get a stem degree.
  - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
dragonwriter 10y ago
> These sound good in theory I disagree. > but in effect they're an industry-specific labor subsidy. What do you mean, "but in effect" -- that's clearly why they are being advocated. > When the government "invests" in STEM education, what happens is that the companies that need to hire engineers save money both as a result of reduced training costs and as a by-product of increased supply driving down wages. This is win-win (for domestic labor and capital [which is less tied to the domestic market], respectively) when you are training your citizens to take in-demand jobs. Its lose-win (on the same terms) when you are subsidizing and incentivizing foreign students to consume domestic educational resources to take in-demand jobs.
kaitai 10y ago
Agreed. People here are mostly thinking "brilliant computer scientist" or "will cure cancer," but many universities have degree programs that are revenue generators, requiring full tuition payments from students and attracting many foreign nationals, which may not be held to the same standards as other programs. These programs serve plenty of students from China and Saudi Arabia whose parents are making an investment in getting an American option for the their child or the family. This is a very rational decision, but I don't think that it serves US interests to give an automatic green card to a kid from (pardon my apparent condescension) Directional State U because his parents paid enough to get him to scrape through a master's in geology or CS. I'm at a big state U, mildly insulated from the pressures to develop a program at which anyone can succeed, but I have a lot of academic friends who have encountered significant pressure from administrations to keep pass rates high in revenue-generating STEM programs (many of them masters' programs). Attaching a green card to the diploma is a boon to these programs and some non-US students: all the incentives are there to just keep taking that full tuition and graduating students without working them too hard. Win-win, and it cuts down on the end-of-semester "I have to leave the country if I fail!" conversations, which I've had several times and are always unpleasant. These micro-level problems could lead to a flooding of the market with people whose educations just aren't that great. Coming from a family of immigrants, I'm all for making green card processes more efficient. Knowing America's education system, attaching a green card to diplomas of STEM graduates is pay-to-play and that's not cool.
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  > "brilliant computer scientist" or "will cure cancer," These are already covered by eb-2 anyways.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Nothing you said is restricted to STEM education. Do you favor eliminating subsidies for K-12 as well? If not, why not?
- rayiner 10y ago
  I think education occupies a range on the continuum between public and private goods. Basic literacy probably yields positive externalities, but specialized, employment-targeted skills mainly benefit the employee and employer. That said, I think K-12 could probably be 1-8 and yield similar positive externalities.

simonh 10y ago

Interesting. I expect a series of highly detailed policy announcements on complex issues from Hillary over the coming months. I'm guessing she's realised Trump will be completely out of his depth on anything like this and unable to respond effectively.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
If you expect highly detailed policy announcements to matter, you have a very poor model of the electorate.
talmand 10y ago
I suspect Hillary is out of her depth on the subject as well. Her advisors, on the other hand, may not. I see no reason Trump cannot hire advisors just as experienced in the field as Hillary.
- sigmar 10y ago
  >I see no reason Trump cannot hire advisors just as experienced in the field as Hillary. The "he can get experts too" argument is fine, except for the fact he has publicly spoken out saying all experts are "terrible." >Referring to criticism that he could be better schooled on matters of foreign policy, Trump suggested he would do just as well, if not better than the current or past administrations without anyone providing input. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/donald-trump-foreign-policy-experts-221528 http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-...
  - defen 10y ago
    How is that different than Obama claiming he knew more about policies on any particular issue than his policy directors? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81895_Page2.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81895_Page2.html People who run for president by definition have huge egos, it's not limited to Trump.
    - 10y ago

davidcollantes 10y ago

Where can one find the source for the tech plan? Is it on her website somewhere? I have not been able to find it.

therobot24 10y ago
i posted a link + comments in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12001367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12001367

sz4kerto 10y ago

So you can host your email server at home. /s

treehau5 10y ago
Alternative headline: "FBI Suspect Announces Tech Plan"

MrZongle2 10y ago

I realize that Clinton -- like any candidate -- has a platoon of advisers for a wide variety of topics, and it is these people (rather than the candidate) who comes up with the proposed policy. But I can't help but immediately think that this was the candidate who disregarded the sound advice of the IT and security professionals in the State Department and had an entirely different bunch of people set up a faulty alternative email service for her own convenience. And then I wonder how much of a rosy "tech plan" will also be so casually discarded when it becomes inconvenient.

thecolorblue 10y ago
> ...faulty alternative email service... Do you have a source for this? It was my impression that nothing was out of the ordinary about her email server, and the rules around it were vague.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  Well, here's one for starters: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a... Edit: here's a second: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-scandal-state-dept-disabled-its-own-security-systems-to-accommodate-hillary/ http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-e-mail-... I was under the impression that the rules around it were not vague, but as Secretary of State she was essentially given an exemption (or people chose to look the other way) because nobody wanted to rock the boat. The issue of classified email (whether marked or not) on the server is another one entirely. And the rules are crystal clear in that regard.
  - thecolorblue 10y ago
    Thank you for the links. I am, admittedly, not well informed.
- ccvannorman 10y ago
  How did you get that impression? (This is why democracy is hard) Here is a well sourced and concise explanation of why Hillary's actions around email were unforgivable. [1] [1] https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email-setup-da8966760f7d#.94r4tu4dq https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/12-red-flags-in-clintons-email...

jordanb 10y ago

> attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees. HAH! I knew this was going to be in there. Of course it's a gigantic bailout to the universities. STEM grad programs are already full of foreign nationals trying to get a slot in the advanced degree H1-B track. This would absolutely turbocharge that: buy a degree from whatever fourth rate American university for $xxx,xxx and value is less in the degree than the golden ticket that comes attached.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
America has an amazing ability to attract the most high-quality immigrants, and an even more amazing ability to screw this up. Just give a green card to whomever can get a sufficiently high SAT score. This would start an insanely powerful brain drain in America's favour.
- basch 10y ago
  can you imagine if countries had tried this instead of eugenics?
- crudbug 10y ago
  I have seen Asian students going to some third-level schools here and riding the job market with multi-level consulting scam ladder. Having an "Elite University Group" based upon research work/ NSF funding, can surely help in determining both, the right university pool and attractive STEM talent.
- defen 10y ago
  You don't think sufficiently motivated groups have figured out how to cheat on the SAT? http://www.barrons.com/articles/sat-integrity-falls-victim-to-china-cheating-scandal-1453713163 http://www.barrons.com/articles/sat-integrity-falls-victim-t... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/11/16/the-six-step-sat-cheating-operation-in-asia-and-how-to-stop-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/11/...
  - 10y ago

kelukelugames 10y ago

Here is a link to the source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11997844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11997844

hasenj 10y ago

Trump said something to the same effect in his campaign launching book (Crippled America) where he lamented how the US makes it easy for illegal immigrants but difficult for honest people who studied and graduated in American universities but then have to go back to their home countries because the US doesn't want them to stay.

Eyas 10y ago
It is kind of difficult with Trump because he has actually said everything. In a complete system of logic, you will find an argument made in support of every good idea out there (but also, every bad idea out there). In the case of Trump and tech immigration, he had argued for H1-B/green card reform for skilled workers, as you have said, and against it, see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/28/donald-trump/donald-trump-didnt-realize-his-own-website-called-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/...
- hasenj 10y ago
  The thing with his position on allowing university graduates to stay and work in the US is that he only said it in the book. I've never seen him say it in a public speech, which makes sense given that the majority of his audience seems to have been blue collar workers who would not be so thrilled with the idea of immigrant students taking well paying jobs while they and their children are stuck in a rut.

basch 10y ago

there is no reason to link to usatoday over the actual post, i move to replace the link https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/2...

arcanus 10y ago
Good catch. In fact, after a quick glance, the original post appears more informative than the usatoday. I 2nd the motion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

basch 10y ago

2 things to remember. 1) "Fix Copyright" probably means TPP 2) Hillary uses a blackberry because she doesnt know how to use a computer http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-email-inquiry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/hillary-clinto... nor does she password protect her own computer http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/shocking-deposition-hillary-clueless-on-using-computer-emails/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/shocking-deposition-hillar...

basch 10y ago
well im getting downvoted for this, BUT my point was Hillary clearly didnt write this laundry list, it seems like almost a time cube esque wishlist of every tech initiative possible. It just comes off as political word salad, so different news aggregators can bite quote it, like throwing paint at the wall. "Hillary is committed to increasing the security of our government networks, making it harder for hackers to gain unauthorized access." Really?

intrasight 10y ago

>attaching a green card to the diplomas of foreign-born students earning STEM degrees This should be for all accredited degree programs. Attaching it to specific degrees is going to have all kinds of unintended consequences.

tootie 10y ago

Has she said anything about continuing the expansion of 18F or other government digital services?

mindslight 10y ago

> Hillary rejects the false choice between privacy interests and keeping Americans safe. She was a proponent of the USA Freedom Act, and she supports Senator Mark Warner and Representative Mike McCaul’s idea for a national commission on digital security and encryption. This commission will work with the technology and public safety communities to address the needs of law enforcement, protect the privacy and security of all Americans that use technology, assess how innovation might point to new policy approaches, and advance our larger national security and global competitiveness interests. Unsurprisingly, it's more Orwellian garbage. To these "people", what's done at airports is security, even though it manifestly makes everyone less safe by separating us from our luggage, unpacking and displaying our stuff for all to see, stripping us of our tools, and creating a perfect chokepoint for the scene of their next 24 hour tragedy. It's not surprising that captains of the private surveillance industry endorsed these policies, but individuals would have to be fools to think this means anything besides more regressive information totalitarianism. (also, "Doesn't she look tired?")