Hillary Clinton Announces Tech Plan | Hacker News Reader

Hillary Clinton Announces Tech Plan

usatoday.com

52 pointsstryan96 comments

> 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.

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.

can you imagine if countries had tried this instead of eugenics?

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.

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-t...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/11/...

IQ scores are very stable across time. An IQ 140 immigrant would be worth the cost of several random tests. As this would cost vastly less than a largely-useless masters degree, I'm sure immigrants would be willing to pay for a harder-to-cheat test.

That is a pretty myopic thing to say. One of the biggest issues for the US higher ed system is that foreign students who receive an education here often can't stay or have to face ridiculous hurdles. In many thousands of cases, you are also wrong about buying the degree: research grants to universities fund those students' tuition and stipends, in exchange for good work.

Address the inflation of university budgets at the source of the problem. Rejecting highly educated, successful foreign nationals who we have already invested money in and who want to stay here and be productive in the workforce is one of the stupidest things this country currently does. Rejecting this proposal because you think it's a bailout for universities is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Currently foreign students have to weigh the possibility that they won't be able to stay against the cost of the program. And nonetheless American programs are absolutely full of foreign nationals and this is especially true of grad programs which gives one an H1-B priority.

If this program gets created universities will absolutely not have to address the inflation of their budgets because it'll be raining out of state tuition payers.

If, on the other hand, universities went back to educating mostly local kids with tax subsidies then they'd have to face a stark reckoning about their mushrooming budgets and we may have to have a national discussion about education funding. None of this sounds good to Hillary Clinton so instead she'll just try to open the sluice gates wider.

> In many thousands of cases, you are also wrong about buying the degree: research grants to universities fund those students' tuition and stipends, in exchange for good work.

I think your parent was primarily referring to masters programs, not phd programs.

FWIW I am pro-immigration in general, but I do worry about expensive diploma mill masters programs becoming a way for wealthy immigrants to buy preferential treatment. It's a legitimate concern with any "masters == green card" scheme.

That said, anyone who opposes such a scheme for Ph.D. students or for highly quality masters programs is insane.

Because we have such a serious of shortage of people with PHDs?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B9Hv9N6bi1w/V2WBuW96arI/AAAAAAAAE...

No, because as a nation we are actively investing in each funded Ph.D. we train.

If we have too many PhD's then we should decrease the number of PhD's the federal government funds. But as my original parent observed, paying hundreds of thousands to train someone just to kick them out of the country is silly.

(Also, I think downward pressure on PhD salaries has very little to do with over-supply, but that's for another article.)

> FWIW I am pro-immigration in general, but I do worry about expensive diploma mill masters programs becoming a way for wealthy immigrants to buy preferential treatment. It's a legitimate concern with any "masters == green card" scheme.

Of course the answer to that is probably to open things up more in general, so you're not creating these perverse incentives and special channels, but it's difficult to do that. People get incensed because they worked so hard to be born in the US and consequently don't think others should have the same opportunities.

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number...

> research grants to universities fund those students' tuition and stipends, in exchange for good work.

Maybe for PhD programs but I don't think that's that common for Masters.

As somebody that has gone through the whole process (MS, PhD, OPT, H1B, Green Card), granting green cards to diplomas of is a big mistake. While the current system adds some level of stress to the worker, I have yet to find (surely there are) a valid foreigner with some STEM degree that could not stay in the US if he wanted to. This is true for most "bad" students that I know. On the other hand, some students that trick the system (most of them, in my experience [1], chinese and indian) have had trouble to stay.

The current system gives you up to 29 months in OPT after a STEM degree (if I recall correctly, 12 + 17). During that time you can work towards H1B and Green Card; while H1B is tight with a employer, you can change employers with it. Now, if the Green Card is given to any STEM diploma, you will have a mass of unprepared, unethical students applying for and obtaining diplomas they don't deserve (because obtaining a diploma is not that difficult in the US). And I do believe this will create tensions later on with nationals.

[1] This is obviously biased. My experience in the university (and outside of it) is that there are networks that facilitate entry on universities, "success" in universities [2,3], and in interviews processes in companies. I have seen exams for the previous 10 years solved with detailed explanation; homeworks and all solutions for specific books solved, etc... with this only available to specific group. I have not seen this happening with people of other countries.

[2] http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/12/asia/china-education-agencies/

[3] http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/college-c...

This makes me want to cry when I think of all the scummy cheating students I went to college with and the way my school refused to deal with their behavior.

pretty much this. At my school it's an almost universal phenomenon among international students. They literally run a cheating cartel that shares completed labs, tests, and homework. They even have a guy that they buy to take their tests for them.

the school doesn't take cheating very seriously - one time a guy was on his phone looking up answers in the middle of a test. the professor told him to put it away, and he did. a few minutes later he takes his phone back out and is looking up answers again.

it really is despicable how light universities are on cheating

This hurts quite a bit because of the correlation it seems to be making between international students and cheating. I do agree that degrees should mean something, which means anyone benefiting from such 'cheating cartel' should not reap the fruits of being called a degree holder of an institution.

But a comment like this makes me wonder if this is how I am viewed as a non-citizen graduate of a 'good school' who performed well above average in their class. Credentials like a degree are never enough to prove someone's worth/skill, of course, but this comment seems to suggest I might be facing additional pressure to prove my worth because I'm foreign-born. I was not aware this might need to be something I should be cognizant of.

I actually thought of the one foreign student I knew that was a really hard worker when i wrote the original comment and almost decided not to write it. But I remembered seven scum-fucks to balance him out, and the group projects where I did all the work and their names went on the final product.

I love the idea of making it easy for highly skilled foreigners to job shop because it's in my interest that they are paid competitively. It also imports people who create value and bring in additional tax revenue.

I'm hesitant about the idea of merely tying green cards to STEM degrees because it does seem like the sort of incentive to yield unintended consequences. What sort of protections will there be to make sure universities don't water down their STEM programs?

However, calling this a gigantic bailout to universities is an obtuse way to characterize it. A bailout is when you provide financial assistance to a failed institution. That's not what's happening here. This is a program that would attach new value to a STEM degree from a US university. Universities would certainly experience a windfall as they will be able to charge a premium for STEM programs, but don't confuse windfalls with bailouts.

For it to be a golden ticket, someone has to hire them at a good salary. If the person went to 4th rate school and has no skills to compete in the job market, it's not really a golden ticket and not a drain on the economy as they don't qualify for a lot of things.

On the other hand, if the person is capable and can attract and sustain a lucrative career, they'll contribute to economy and taxes.

As someone else mentioned in this thread - having the ability to job hop for foreign workers prevents the exploitative wages from sticking and reduces incentives for companies to substitute for cost reduction. H1-B was originally "meant" (a.k.a. sold) to fill in labor gaps, not reduce costs...

> H1-B was originally meant to fill in labor gaps, not reduce costs...

No, the people involved in making the decision knew enough basic economic to recognize that "filling gaps in supply for commodity X" and "reducing the market-clearing cost of commodity X" are exactly the same thing.

It was sold as the former, because to general public that sounds better.

Good point, will edit.

> For it to be a golden ticket, someone has to hire them at a good salary. If the person went to 4th rate school and has no skills to compete in the job market, it's not really a golden ticket and not a drain on the economy as they don't qualify for a lot of things.

Right. The danger is not a flood of bozos, because a green card is no guarantee of a high salary job. The actual problem is that as soon as a U.S. degree comes with a green card, the schools in America will jack up the tuition for foreign students.

Two ways to solve this: we could offer the same deal for foreign schools, or require U.S. schools to charge the same tuition and fees to both foreign and domestic students.

> the schools in America will jack up the tuition for foreign students.

My understanding was out of state and international students have the same full tuition price. The difference is only in instate and out of state. Lots of wealthy people in the us pay full price at private schools. Colleges can't just increase tuition too much for international students, because there is no artificial cap on number of college seats. The college market will expand to handle more students.

Honestly, the only thing I'd change is to only do this for accredited universities, so people have to go through a real educational institution and not a degree mill like the University of Phoenix.

Other than that, this is brilliant. Not only would it get more smart people into the country, but it would also make it much harder for companies to exploit foreign-born workers. Under the current H-1B system, a company can say "you're going to work 12 hours a day every day for substandard pay, and if you complain or step even an inch out of line, you get to go back to your home country". Green cards would put a stop to this exploitation.

> Honestly, the only thing I'd change is to only do this for accredited universities, so people have to go through a real educational institution and not a degree mill like the University of Phoenix.

University of Phoenix is an accredited university.

Yeah, accredited by whom?

I hereby accredit the University of Phoenix. What now?

> 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

Isn't that a good thing? What would be some negative consequences?

Wages going down and competition going up for people in the tech industry.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

What's the negative view on "it favors companies that hire engineers over those that don't"?

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.

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.

Ah, in the "engineers vs other professions" sense. I was parsing it as "hiring vs non-hiring".

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.

I'd ask the manager of my local Starbucks, who has a PhD in Biology.

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.

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.

> 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".

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.

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.

Even if it were only one in a hundred foreign students that turned out to actually be exceptionally talented, taking them all is a drop in the bucket relative to overall incoming immigration, both legal and not. (Even if the ratio were one in a thousand, it would still not be all that bad; the STEM student population is not all that large.)

Moreover, even if most foreign born students in a STEM program were merely as good as native students, as you suggest, that still puts them intellectually and educationally well above the average citizen, let alone the average immigrant.

There is no way that it does not make sense to offer foreign STEM students green cards, so long as the university is reasonably accredited.

> 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.

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.

> "brilliant computer scientist" or "will cure cancer,"

These are already covered by eb-2 anyways.

Nothing you said is restricted to STEM education. Do you favor eliminating subsidies for K-12 as well? If not, why not?

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.

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-clinto... nor does she password protect her own computer http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/shocking-deposition-hillar...

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?

there is no reason to link to usatoday over the actual post, i move to replace the link

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/2...

Good catch. In fact, after a quick glance, the original post appears more informative than the usatoday. I 2nd the motion.

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.

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/...

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.

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.

If you expect highly detailed policy announcements to matter, you have a very poor model of the electorate.

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.

>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-...

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

People who run for president by definition have huge egos, it's not limited to Trump.

In context, that seems like a pretty self-aware comment he made when he was interviewing his political director[1] as a warning to the man of his own confidence. But I would agree, Presidential candidate always have a large ego. I was only offering up an example of Trump's mistrust of "all experts" (at least in terms of foreign policy).

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/11/17/battle-plans

Looking at Trump's comment in context, though, it's hard to argue against the claim that we've made "a mess" of the Middle East.

Just because he's publicly stated all experts are terrible doesn't mean he doesn't have them now nor will not in the future. If he didn't listen to other people and their opinions then I seriously doubt he would be where he is today. He's just letting his ego speak for him.

As for your quote, I could easily explain that is him saying he would do better than previous administrations without anyone providing input, before he seeks such input. He will do better without them, and he could do even better than that with them.

We're talking about Trump though. The time between his experts issuing a detailed complex policy document in his name and him completely contradicting it in public is likely to be measured in hours, not days.

Well, since you know so much of the man and how his teams work, I'll defer to your expertise.

I'm extrapolating from his repeated and persistent contradictions of himself, which are a matter of record.

HRC probably did not run it through the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. The #1 impediment for any kind of reform to legal immigration, because in their view it has to be comprehensive (read Amnesty). The legal immigration system is already hostage, and no amount of nuanced policy announcements by Hillary are not going to get a bill passed because even before Republicans she will face resistance from HCC, and with Amnesty, as long as Republican majority is there, its not going anywhere.

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.

> ...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.

Well, here's one for starters: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a...

Edit: here's a second: 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.

Thank you for the links. I am, admittedly, not well informed.

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...

Nothing in that article says anything positive or negative about the email server's setup or configuration. What value does it have in answering the GP's question about why the server was "faulty"?

No source needed. She used a non-government issued email server running out of her home. The server wasn't official and didn't meet the standard security requirements of the government.

Top Secret and Classified information was taken and stored on a private server. That right there is illegal, there's no two ways about it. She should be indicted.

Do some Googling.

Anyone who isn't Hillary Clinton would be in prison right now for doing what she did.

I'm not a particularly big fan of Hilary, but as far as I'm aware, this used to be pretty common among members of congress and senators, so you might have to broaden your criteria a bit.

I actually like Hillary, and think she'll be a good president.

But she pretty obviously committed a felony.

Like Colin Powell?

I agree with the parent poster: anyone.

I held a clearance for 20 years. If I (or anybody else who wasn't well-connected) had pulled this stunt, I'd be in prison right now. And I would have likely been detained in a cell until trial. This was made abundantly clear in the annual security refresher training and briefings that all cleared personnel undergo, in addition to the original ones you receive upon being cleared.

I say this not to specifically knock Clinton. Whether it was Powell, Petraeus, Clinton or any other individual: the law is unjust if not applied equally to all. There have always been people in power who have skirted the law, but it is especially galling that these days those individuals don't seem particularly concerned about hiding that fact, and their supporters can so casually excuse it.

I understand the sentiment, I just don't understand the facts. People keep saying "if anyone but Clinton did this they'd be in prison", but there's a bunch of people who used private servers and had email reclassified and they're not in prison. Karl Rove used RNC servers, although it sounds like the email was all archived with the White House; that doesn't seem to address the initial security concerns though.

Forgive me for being dense, I just really don't understand how the first statement (these actions would put anyone else in jail) can be true with the number of counterexamples (people who did similar things, aren't in jail, aren't Clinton). I'm a mathematician. I'm stuck. So is it about being well-connected, as MrZongle2's most proximate comment says, or is it about being Clinton?

"Forgive me for being dense, I just really don't understand how the first statement (these actions would put anyone else in jail) can be true with the number of counterexamples (people who did similar things, aren't in jail, aren't Clinton)."

IMO, if others broke the law, they should be in prison as well. The fact that they aren't and the fact that many people want to laugh this issue away as being trivial, is appalling.

There are very clear regulations covering the handling and dissemination of classified information. Removing the "SECRET" header doesn't make them less secret; in fact, exactly who can declassify classified information is covered pretty thoroughly in regulations as well.

The ambiguity is not the law itself, it is in the enforcement. That a candidate for the top elected position in a branch tasked with enforcement of the law is under investigation should be a huge concern.

>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.

As opposed to Donald Trump, who is known for his IT security savvy and who would obviously never bend or break the rules for his personal benefit...

"As opposed to Donald Trump, who is known for his IT security savvy and who would obviously never bend or break the rules for his personal benefit..."

Well 1) two wrongs don't make a right, 2) we're talking about Clinton, specifically, since the story is about her announced tech plan and 3) as far as I know, no IT-related investigations have been launched against Trump.

But besides all that....uh, good point?

>1) two wrongs don't make a right

true

> 2) we're talking about Clinton, specifically, since the story is about her announced tech plan

also her technical incompetence and willingness to ignore advice and regulations when it's convenient. I don't think it's out of line to point out those propensities in Trump as well.

> 3) as far as I know, no IT-related investigations have been launched against Trump.

No, but he has been sued numerous times over his business dealings, and elsewhere in this thread it's pointed out that he considers all experts to be "terrible."

>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.

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

Alternative headline: "FBI Suspect Announces Tech Plan"

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

i posted a link + comments in another thread

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12001367

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

Here is a link to the source.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11997844

> 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?")

Reply on news.ycombinator.com