The candidate’s primary digital assistant explains HRC’s views on technology, economy and government. And why Trump is nowhere in this regard.
Hillary Clinton inspects 3D printers in Waterloo, Iowa. (Bloomberg / Getty Images)Hillary Clinton was not joking when she released her technology policy initiatives in June. It’s a gladly-won Gladstone bag of positions on issues revolving around consulting organizations, on digital democracy boards and in Backchannel columns by Susan Crawford-Same K-Tel record the most successful version of the technology policy. All were there. It’s correct High-speed access, international internet governance, immigration reform, orphan work, online privacy, the benefits of the gig economy, diverse workforce, STEM education, Network security, network neutrality, and US Digital Services. Are not to the Balkaniization of the internet, the digital divide and the shopping venue in patent lawsuit. In general, it is a deep dive into the Venn diagram the concept of overlap between Silicon Valley and Washington, DC In general, policy in favor of the progressive faction of the technological debate, embracing innovation when it interrupted. (Retelling the details: it goes against the law that requires cars to be sold through auto dealerships. Where’s Elon’s endorsement?) loved it, and the conventional tech policy elites are often surprised to say that how surprising– Incredibly amazing – clues.
Leading the document drawing team is Sara Solow, the candidate’s domestic policy advisor. She agreed to give us some context for Hillary Clinton’s technology policy – and also began to vent her anger over the obvious rival. shortcomings of a policy. Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.
Steven Levy: How do you come up with such a detailed and confusing technology policy? Sara Solow: Last June or July (2015), we put together a working group with a whole set of external experts and external advisors, and a host of stakeholders, to start helping us with collection of policy proposals and thoughts on technology, innovation and intellectual property. We have regular monthly meetings or phone calls and I’ve personally developed relationships with 30 outside experts, at least. It is a comprehensive collaborative process.
We had planned to roll out an innovation and technology plan several times a year – we thought maybe in January – but as we got more and more into the weeds, it became clear that we needed to spend time and full comprehensive planning, instead of going out of the gate with just something on broadband or something about digital security, and other things.
An overarching topic is that there is a large amount of skepticism or anxiety surrounding technological innovation, and whether it is really a good thing for the middle class and average skilled jobs in the country. this family or not. There are reports and data showing the mobility of workers as some sectors and jobs or job duties become more automated. So how do we solve this problem, and how do we harness the power of technology and innovation so that it is really what is generating shared economic growth?
Many of our conclusions have to do with human capital. In order to make technology and innovation truly effective for the economy, we must invest properly and commit ourselves to who we are so that they have the skills to make the best use of the power of technology. It’s not something you can find overnight.
Can you tell me who is on the team?
No, because it’s a secret. But there have been public reports that Alec Ross [who worked with Clinton in the State Department] and Jennifer Pahlka [the Code for America founder who was an Obama presidential fellow] is its coordinator or chair, and then Ben Scott [also from State] is a coordinator. Karen Kornbluh [who worked on Obama’s 2012 tech policy] has been very involved. Those are the people in my kitchen cabinets that I’ve been working with all the time. [Politico claims to have identified more of the group, though Solow disputes its accuracy.]