The issue of hacking is again entering the spotlight when the Russians are accused of hacking into the American presidential election 'data' raising a controversial point whether the Russian hacking helped Trump to win the election. Obama condemned the Russian hacking and on 12-29-2016, Barack Obama announced tough measures against Moscow, including the expulsion of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds in the U.S. However, the President-elect, Mr. Trump, is expressing a different tone regarding the hacking as shown in the headlines of news media below.
 
“Doubts Russia involved in hacking United States election” (DW.com) - US President-elect Donald Trump once again said Russia was not involved in hacking the US presidential election. Trump also said he was open to meeting with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. 

“Questions claim of Russian hacking: 'I know things others don't'” (The Guardian) - President-elect warns reporters on New Year’s Eve against being quick to pin blame on Moscow for the hacking of Democratic party emails. “President-elect Donald Trump on 12-28-2016 suggested that the United States and Russia lay to rest the controversy over Moscow's computer hacking of Democratic Party computers”, saying, "We ought to get on with our lives." (Fortune) - Trump has cast doubt on the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian hackers took information from Democratic Party computers and that of individuals and posted them online to help Trump win the election. Regardless how much hacking and what effect the hacking might have on the 2016 US presidential election, we, the Americans and our government should be concerned about potential 'data' hacking in our lives, simply because hacking has become a way of life in modern digital living.
 
Over the Christmas and New Year, One of the popular gifts is the personal assistant product, a second generation product named Echo Dot offered by Amazon.com. Similar products in this category include Google Home, Siri and other Internet of Things using intelligent voice recognition interface such as voice command in the car or global positioning system (GPS) guidance products.  Shelly Palmer, a consumer technology product analyst, wrote an article on LinkedIn regarding these products and people's willingness to yield privacy 'data' to gain convenience as exhibited in various interfaces to tech product and apps. Palmer was concerned about "(our) willing suspension of privacy (exposing data)" in our digital and online lives. Our digital life is ever expanding by products like Echo Dot which automatically listens and records your voice communication and interacts with the Internet cloud. Palmer did raise a legitimate point which deserves further discussion.
 
Data exposure is more vulnerable when data communication is done over wireless and using the Internet cloud. Echo Dot uses seven-microphone to listen and a 360 degree speaker system that uses far-field voice recognition powered by the Amazon Alexa voice service/assistant. The second generation Echo Dot is certainly an improvement over the Echo in far-field voice recognition and in price reduction. The shrink in size with the Bluetooth speaker is also appealing. The Echo Dot listens for its 'wake' word (Alexa, Amazon, or Echo) then follows voice commands or answers questions, plays music, and gives you news, weather, traffic, sports results, and other things, including accessing many third party applications like Fitbit, Uber, Domino's Pizza, and Capitol One. So Echo Dot is a user friendly device but its convenience does cause its owner to yield his or her privacy data which may be of concern.
 
The "willing suspense of privacy" demanded in products like Echo Dot not only causing users to give up our data (location, viewing, purchasing or search history) for our online experience but also exposing our normally unmonitored physical activities, such as movements of people and devices and mumblings and private conversations. This is because that Echo Dot listens and records 60 seconds of sound (and voice) data constantly for command recognition and service execution purposes. The Echo Dot of course can transmit this data to the Internet cloud or wherever it is directed to send to. Just this capability alone, one can easily imagine a hacker hacking into the Echo Dot and receive the 'privacy data' that otherwise should be maintained privately. It is not a question how hackers can hack your privacy data, it is a question whether your privacy data is worthy of hacking.
 
From 'privacy data' security point of view, one can certainly take precaution to protect it but generally one will sacrifice to some degree on ‘convenience’, for example, adding another layer of hardware device to control over intelligent voice interface or switching off the auto-listening mode until the user wanting to turn the Echo Dot on trading off convenience for security. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that there is always a certain amount of trade-off between 'intelligence', 'convenience' and 'security'. To prevent hackers to succeed, one must be consciously aware that 'Hacking Is Easier and More Dangerous to the Cooperating Victims'.  One cannot be so lax regarding data security to the point of being cooperating with hackers. Products like Echo Dot certainly offer the consumers convenience to cooperate with hackers. Users must be aware and on the look-out for hackers.
 
Returning to the Russian hacking into the US presidential election case discussed above, we must first call the attention of the owners of ‘data’ to take a serious attitude and approach in protecting 'data security'. The Democratic Party is to blame for having its servers hacked. Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for her ‘work’ (national security) emails is such a lax attitude regarding protection of data security, both herself and the State Department are guilty of negligence at least in protecting national security information. As for Russians’ hacking, Obama’s expelling of 35 Russian diplomats is a belated reaction to the hacking event but it still serves a purpose, more as a warning to ourselves than a punishment to the Russians. Putin did not take any retaliating step to expel Americans from Moscow, one for showing a friendly gesture to Trump and the other for keeping Americans to spend money in Russia. Yes, we have to accept that hacking is a way of life in international affairs and we must be on the look-out. “United States and Russia lay to rest the controversy over Moscow's computer hacking of Democratic Party computers.” may be a reasonable diplomatic statement to make by the US President-elect but a serious attitude and approach about protecting ‘national data security’ must be taken by the new President when assuming the White House.     
 

President-Elect Trump has almost completed his cabinet appointments with Rex W. Tillerman, another 'Yiwanren' (A Chinese term for people worth above one hundred million is an unique term having no equivalent vocabulary in English, that id between a millionaire and billionaire) named as his Secretary of State. Taking a quick view of Trump's appointees, you may get a feeling that he is organizing a rich men's club with names like Wilbur Ross (Secretary of Commerce), Betsy Devos (Secretary of Education) and Linda McMahon (Small Business Administration) all worth more than a billion dollars and many more millionaires. On a closer look, we find that Trump's cabinet does not have all gold fixtures like his Trump Tower cabinets. There are at least five members (out of 20 announced appointees), Mike Pence (VP), Jim Mattis (Secretary of Defense), John Kelly (Secretary of Homeland Security), Mike Pompeo (CIA Director)  and Reince Priebus (White House Chief of Staff) with publicly reported net worth less than a million. In addition, there were no published net worth data on Scott Pruitt (Environmental Protection Agency) and Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor), so it is fair to chuck off the idea that Trump is going to run the country like a billionaire filling his top posts all with other billionaires.
 
Trump has always been cherishing his self-made billions and he is certainly proud to be called a billionaire; in his Presidential bid, he has recognized that the U.S. is broke and poor and prioritized his goal to fix the nation's finances. So, it is not surprising that he surrounds himself with experienced wealthy individuals capable of making money to fulfill his mandate to make America great again - really - rich again. Trump seems to believe that people with experience in building personal wealth will have better idea to make America rich again. But Trump also understands the value of being thrift to build wealth; this can be seen from his remarks calling the administration to reduce waste including his criticism of the billionaire dollar price tag Boeing has estimated for a new US Air Force One. Based on this light, we will review Trump's cabinet appointments and assess whether his team will collectively accomplish his mandate - to fix America's ills and make her rich again.
 
Trump's Vice President Pick of Mike Pence was a good move which helped significantly in getting him elected. Pence not a millionaire but had a proud record being the Governor of Indiana building a growing economy with a balanced budget, low taxes and conservative principles. So it is understandable that Pence has been trusted by Trump as his right-hand man to serve the chairmanship of his transition team replacing Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey tarnished by the Bridgegate scandal. Christie had over staffed the transition team with lobbyists which Trump recognized and smartly removed them. Trump’s transition team led by Pence is sizable having 13 vice chair expanded from original six and a 21-person executive committee including Donald, Jr., Ivanka (and husband Jared Kushner) and Eric Trump. Seven of the thirty four members in the transition team have been appointed with a cabinet position, they are Ben Carson (Secretary of Housing), Jeff Session (Attorney General), K.T. McFarland (Deputy National Security Advisor), Steve Mnunchin (Secretary of the Treasury), Steve Bannon in addition to Michael Flynn and Reince Priebus mentioned above. The much talked about names in the transition team, Chris Christi, Newt Gingerich and Rudy Giuliani did not receive any appointment.
 
Trump seems to rely on experienced business people to fix the financial problems of the U.S. Let’s look the following appointees: Steven Mnuchin was Trump campaign’s finance chairman, a former Goldman Sachs banker and an investor with experience in turning around a failed mortgage company with aggressive foreclosure measure; he is a proponent of cutting corporate taxes, now named as the secretary of the Treasury. Wilbur Ross, a billionaire, made his name in restructuring steel and textile corporations; he is the architect of ‘America First’ trade vision, now named as the Secretary of Commerce. Linda Mc Mahon, another billionaire, made fame and fortune in sports entertainment (World Wrestling Entertainment); she is a proponent for cutting red tape, now named head of the Small Business Administration. Rick Perry, twice Presidential candidate and former Texas Governor had experience with alternative energy in Texas; In his book, Fed Up!, he criticizes federal government taking too much sovereignty and wealth from the states, now named Secretary of Energy. It is interesting to see whether this team can create or bring industries back to the U.S. producing jobs for Americans and obtain a trade surplus.
 
On national security and defense, Trump has shown his distrust of the ‘old ways of doing things’, thus his appointments have a mix of new and experienced people. His choice of Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, Chief Executive of Exxon, made extensive travel and contacts overseas, especially having a rapport with Putin; he is a proponent to improve relationship with Russia and playing Russia card against China, now heading the State Department with no government experience. One must note though Trump has appointed Terry Brandstad, Governor of Iowa, as the Ambassador to China before announcing Tillerson’s appointment. This may suggest that Trump simply would like to use people who are familiar with the leaders of China and Russia to deal with them but not necessarily able to pre-meditate a strategy of playing one against the other. Trump appoints Jim Mattis, as Secretary of Defense, a career military man with war experience in the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq; he is known as a strategist and critical of the past Administration’s Middle East strategy. Trump also tapped Michael Flynn, a retired army general and former director of intelligence briefly under Obama administration, as his National Security Advisor; he is famous for the chant, ‘lock her up’, and is firm against terrorists and Iran nuclear threat. Trump’s Chief Strategist, Steve Brannon, a banker with naval officer background, made a fortune producing the Seinfeld sit-com; Brannon is a nationalist with anti-immigration view. Mike Pompeo, a Congressman sitting on the intelligence committee, is picked as the Director of CIA; he is also a vocal critic of Obama Administration. John Kelly, a retired general, lost his son to a roadside bomb in Afghanistan is Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security. It will be interesting to see how this group of people with military background will shape up a strategy of national security and defense.
 
With limited space here, we will not comment on the other appointments so far including Scott Pruitt, Head of Environmental Protection Agency, Andre Puzder, Secretary of Labor, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, Tom Price, Secretary of Health, Ben Carson, Secretary of Housing, Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation, Betsy Devos, Secretary of Education, Nikki Haley, Ambassador to UN and Reince Priebus, Chief of Staff, except to say that we expect the experienced Secretary Chao will do fine and the new ones must climb a fast learning curve to deal with our domestic issues.
 
Ifay Chang. Ph.D. Producer/Host, Community Education - Scrammble Game Show, Weekly TV Columnist, www.us-chinaforum.org . Trustee, Somers Central School District
 

Abstract

The title question is perhaps far more relevant to Trump taking the helm in 2017. As a business man, he is used to taking risk, sometimes gambling  or bluffing a little and lots of negotiations mixed with calculated decisions. This background will not go away when he takes the office at theWhite House whether he lives there or not. He must focus on bigger issues confronting his office, stimulating the economy, creating jobs and building world relations leading to win-win situation not a zero-sum business game. His people must do their jobs with the understanding their super negotiator boss is watching and expecting them to not only make good deals for America but also be aware of the consequences – people’s lives more than their money are at the stake.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
If this question is posted to political science students as an essay topic, I am sure one would receive dozens of beautiful essays with convincing arguments not only to arrive at a conclusion on Yeh and/or Nay as an answer but also to follow a thought process starting on any of the underlined, capitalized and/or quotation-marked words in the title. The authors are right to come up with different arguments and conclusions simply because Must must be confined with circumstances and what actions and their consequences may be as well as how significant ‘changes’ are expected. Furthermore, an author may first focus on the word PRESIDENT, what kind of personality he has, what kind of political situation he is in, whether he is mandated with a ‘change’ mission, and why and what ‘changes’ he has promised to make for his or her people. This article is taking such a thought process - Must really depends on many factors - to argue and draw conclusion for the title topic.
 
First, we are talking about the President-elect of the 45th US Presidency, Donald Trump. Trump won the election against many odds and won a surprise victory with an unorthodox campaign. Trump is a businessman and not a politician, certainly not an insider of the political establishment as proven by the fact he was opposed by his own Republican Party to run for the presidency. He had to plead to the silent majority to get elected. He had to find his mandates in the campaign and the election process. He did it but in a way very much deviated from the 'norm' which you may even say 'strange' in an elite-controlled politically correct environment. He not only fought the two major parties but also battled with the mainstream media. His victory was a strange phenomenon to the traditional political pundits, pollsters and activists; in reality, Trump recognized the hidden voice of the silent majority muffled by the political correctness. By defying political correctness with his own style of rough language, he resonated with the silent majority and rode with the growing movement to victory. 
 
Trump had certain intuition but he learned a lot on the campaign rallies and trails. He made many outlandish statements and promises testing the voters. He amplified them when he received warm responses from the cheering crowd. He toned them down if he found them hitting the wrong chord. Tough stand against illegal immigrants (stand remains firm, but wall can be a fence even a virtual wall) and repealing Obamacare (repeal but reserve the right to define 'changes' later) are two examples. Tax cuts were proposed as his basic political (and business) philosophy but everyone knows that tax cuts require the entire Congress and Senate to cooperate. With both the Senate and the House in control by the Republican Party, President Trump may have an easier time to fulfill his tax-cut mandate without taking too much 'strange' actions to circumvent the Congress. He might just have enough credit earned from his presidential election and a surprising sweeping victory of his Party to make the Congress work for him on tax policies. Similarly it goes with his domestic job creation plans, a cooperating Congress can be expected. 
 
Appointing Elaine Chao as the Secretary of Transportation is probably Trump's easiest decision in cabinet appointment. Elaine married to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky and served as two-term Labor Secretary in President George W. Bush's cabinet and as Deputy Secretary of Transportation in the President George H. W. Bush's cabinet. Stated in the public record, under her leadership, the U.S. Department of Labor undertook regulatory and legislative reforms in protecting the health, safety, wages, and retirement security of U.S. workers by recovering record levels of back wages and monetary recoveries for pension plans, and obtaining record financial settlements for discrimination by federal contractors. She also restructured departmental programs and modernized regulations. We expect Elaine will be doing a fine job in getting America great again in transportation if Trump can get her a decent budget.
 
On foreign affairs, the title question is far more relevant to Trump taking the helm in 2017. As a business man, he is used to taking risk, sometimes gambling a little (although he did not amass his fortune from gambling in his casinos but from building real estate), and lots of negotiations mixed with calculated decisions and bluffs. This background will not go away when he takes the White House whether he sleeps there or not. However, in foreign affairs, the stakes are far higher and cannot be just measured by money in dollar, sterling, euro or renminbi. Human lives are at stake and nations are at stake; the U.S. President must take deliberate decisions to avoid devastating consequences. It is not a win or lose situation in the bidding for a business contract, strictly measurable in dollars which are recoverable as Trump has proven in his business life. In foreign affairs, mistakes are not always recoverable; in fact, more likely irreparable, they may not only cost the Presidency or election (as we recall Benghazi) but also destroy lives, moreover in a severe conflict destroying countries or the world. Thus, in foreign affairs, the President must take considerate and safe decisions for the sake of mankind not just for his own country. 
 
Recently, while Trump is preparing to take on his responsibilities, he has been diligent in meeting with people and conversing with foreign leaders. In a number of events such as receiving Abe Shinzo and taking a call from Taiwan's leader Tsai Yin Wen, Trump did it his ways that the State Department regarded them 'strange' violating the normal diplomatic protocol. Since he is not yet sworn in as the President and he needs every opportunity to hone his skills in diplomacy, I think he is testing the water smartly with matters he knew he could get away before taking office. Appointing the Secretary of State is really his most challenging task. Again, he took his time interviewing or considering at least a dozen candidates; sure he will be benefited by this process by picking everyone's brains and their world views. He can also use this process to mend fences and reward his loyal supporters while formulating his central view on foreign affairs.
 
One thing concerns not only his critics with a watchful eye is when Trump takes on his job he must realize that the campaign must be ended in order to start managing the day-to-day business as the commander-in-chief. He will not have time to tweet freely anymore. He must forget about things such as bluffing Boeing to make a good deal on Air Force One (although it is a smart thing to say that we want Boeing to make money but not that much government money on a couple of Presidential planes) but focus on bigger issues confronting his office, stimulating the economy, creating jobs and building world relations leading to win-win situation since zero-sum business principle in contract bidding is not the best way of dealing with foreign affairs. Let the people do their jobs with the understanding their big boss is a super business negotiator watching and expecting them to make good deals for America but also be aware of the consequences – people’s lives more than their money are at the stake.