Hardball Tactics For The Geek Lobby 360
sfjoe writes: "The San Francisco Chronicle has this story on how to effectively make the point about online freedom of speech. In a nutshell, until a legislator gets slapped around (electorally-speaking) for kowtowing to the narrow corporate interests, nobody in Congress will take online civil liberties seriously. On the other hand if, for example, Senator Disney gets his balls whacked (electorally-speaking), monstrosities like the DMCA will start getting bottled up in congressional committees. The NRA has been doing this for years and it works."
NRA? (Score:1, Insightful)
How about the Brady Bill? Anyone remember that? Our Second Amendment rights are being chipped away every minute Congress is in session!
Would you being willing to Vote Geek? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the essence of the NRA, their membership votes guns, so the question is are there enough people to vote geek? (and pay a real membership fee)
Chris
Re:"Online Privacy" (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I do. Go back and re-read your US Constitution. Pay particular attention to 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has long been understood to be one of the unenumerated rights.
I'm begging.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Online Privacy" (Score:2, Insightful)
Put your $$$ to work for your rights (Score:5, Insightful)
If even 5% of the geeks who are appalled by the SSSCA/CBDTPA sent a small check to Disney's opponent, we could turn the election. If we include a quick note explaining the contribution, our message will be loud and clear. Formal lobbying groups, public education campaigns, and all the other trappings are nice to have, but the fundamental force comes from lots of people putting their money where their hearts are.
I think one key, however, is that Hollings must be vulnerable. If he has a token opponent, we should focus on someone else - key word being "one". Sending money to the opposing party, or to several candidates won't cut it at our level. Our pockets aren't deep enough, and we don't have enough of them.
Re:I'm begging.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The person whose cage we should be rattling is in California. Dianne Feinstein. I'm a Democrat, yet I don't vote for her. She's generally vulnerable on civil liberties issues. If we could threaten her seat, it would make a lot of people sit up and take notice.
Emphatically Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do It ! Please !
You would be amazed how good political muscle can work if applied this way.
Just take someone and (politically) string him up! And don't take Hollings - as much tempting he is as a target he's far east of seventy and probably doesn't need (or even maybe doesnt seek) another term in the Senate. Take one of his allies instead. Get one who's prominent enough to be associated with Hollings' legislation, one who is young enough to loose something when booted out of Congress (The Never Come Back), but too old already to just shrug it off and do something else. Preferably have him (or her) squeal all over the place.
In short, inflict maximum pain. Make the guy (or the lady) an example.
It's an old principle of Germanic Law: Justice has to be seen.
Preemptive post... (Score:2, Insightful)
Insert obvious anthrax analysis here.
There, now that all of that is out of the way, please continue with other more lucid points.
-Rothfuss
please (Score:2, Insightful)
"Geek" is just not a good word to describe this. Slashdot users use that word so often they forget *it means something totally different in the real world*. On slashdot, "geek" means "a person of an intellectual bent who is interested in science or computer esoterica, and open to internet subculture." That's JUST to slashdotters. To EVERYONE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE, geek means "geek". You know, a perjorative term for a person who thinks they're really intelligent but has no social skills.
This is a problem becuase the point of a geek lobby, or of the GeekPAC that they had those stories on a couple weeks ago, is to communicate to people who don't read slashdot and don't know what "source code" is and don't know what the slashdot definition of "geek" is. Thus, if a geek lobby cannot figure out how to communicate with "the norms" in their own language, it becomes absolutely pointless. Can ANYONE come up with a better name for this? Even "open source lobby" would be better, even though it doesn't quite cover the issues at hand, because it doesn't sound so.. geeky.
"Open Computing Lobby"?
"Computer End-user Forum"?
"Copyright Fair Use PAC"?
"Americans for Consumer Freedom"?
It doesn't matter. All i know is that in my dictionary, "geek" is defined as "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake". This is not how i want my political views being presented to society at large.
Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? (Score:2, Insightful)
Another thing that should happen is that more of us (and by "us" I mean the average slashdot reader - not mom and pop AOL) should actually seek office.
Sure, it's expensive, but somebody's got to bring down jackasses like Hollings, Feinstein, Daschle, Leahy, and Biden. Not to mention Jeffords..
The problem with this (Score:3, Insightful)
There is NO WAY IN HELL you can get geeks,dweebs,nerds and spaz's to agree on anything. Hell when it comes down to the wire the bulk of us are too damned lazy to even write a letter to our congressperson or a letter to the editor, let alone become an activist.
and then you try and get geeks to pay dues... Hell they wont pay for a slashdot subscription (Me included) what makes anyone believe that anyone would pay the $150.00 a year dues that would be required?
Campaign finance reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Get the special interest groups out of Washington!
If GeekPAC were to target a single Senator for removal with political adverstising, like the columnist suggests, it would violate the 60-day rule in the new laws.
Maybe those anti-Campaign Finance Reform people whining about free speech had a point after all. How does it feel to be a special interest?
The medium..... (Score:2, Insightful)
The answer to that question seems pretty obvious. The IT industry is getting pushed around because it isn't pushing back."
That's such a ridiculous answer. It isn't even an answer and more of a cop out. It's like saying X is getting beat up by Y because X isn't fighting back. It's not stating why this could and is happening.
Who imposes greater control over people? Computers or the actual medium (entertainment industry)? Computers are the messenger, but it's the message that people are affected by, and why the entertainment industry is a much more important asset. This is how the people are influenced and controlled.
A good book to read (if you haven't) is "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and ___.
And as a side note, I think today happens to be the first day of TV Turn off week: http://www.adbusters.org
His constituancy (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps he should move there and represent them.
Re:Would you being willing to Vote Geek? (Score:1, Insightful)
Fuck off.
Re:Excellent Point (Score:2, Insightful)
Sen. Hollings may be an attractive target, but he may not be a good target. A good target for a small organization is one who is vulnerable, and who has an opponent (in the primary or general election) that shares our views and is electable. A primary election is the best place to start because even if our target gets the nomination, if we make enough noise, we may be able to convince him/her that they need to re-examine their stance on issues that are important to us.
Picking a good issue is another vital piece to the equation. I am a strong advocate of privacy, but it is an issue that is up for debate as to how much are we entitled to have, and the benefits of trading some privacy for convenience/security/etc.
I believe corporate control over what we can do with our purchases (computers, movies, music, etc.) to be a much stronger issue to fight. Even people who have never touched a computer have likely taped an LP to listen to the music in their car, or taped a movie off of HBO for their personal video collection, or loaned a book to a friend. It is an issue that most people have had some relevant past experience that we can point out that will become illegal, and to avoid breaking the law will cost them money -- money that will go to rich corporations.
Leaving the US for a more geek-friendly country may seem like an option (and is has to me on more than one occasion) but it is not an option for most of us, and it doesn't do anything to help solve the problem. It may even just be a delaying tactic. because once the policies are implemented in the US there are strong forces (political and corporate) for getting those policies implemented internationally.
We have a couple of choices, in my view, give up, or do something concrete about it. The cure for becoming demoralized to to do something to raise your moral. What you or I would like to do may be outside our grasp for the moment, but doing something that is within our means is more than just a morale booster -- it is the right thing to do.
For me, what is in my means this month is:
1. Making a pledge to the AOTC and GeekPAC
2. Ordering replacements for the motherboards/CPUs that I own that are based on AMD cpus, and writing emails to AMD explaining why they have lost a customer.
3. Stop buying my wife's 5 DVDs a month at Best Buy, destroying my Best Buy credit card, and writing them to tell them how their position on Digital Rights Management prompted me to take this action.
4. Telling everyone I know that cares to listen what I have done, and why I have done it -- not as some ego-trip, chest-beating proclamation, but as a quiet, "this is what I believe and why, and what I am doing about it" statement.
None of these things are earth-shattering, but they are things that I can do.
Re:definitely (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer to that question seems pretty obvious. The IT industry is getting pushed around because it isn't pushing back. Unfortunately, GeekPAC's proposed approach promises to continue that sorry trend."
We've got it right here.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As corny as that sounds, look at what we're facing. The DMCA, the SSSCA, they exist for one reason: money. Being elected is a great way to get rich quickly, so these people will do anything they have to to ensure they're re-elected. Attacking people like Hollings with a million dollar+ annual budget would certainly make a point. The Senator from Disney would have one heck of a time getting elected if negative adds were running non-stop for the last few weeks before the next election. When you can take down the big boys, the small fish learn quickly to sit down and shut up, and do as they're told.
With all the high tech people that are out of work right now, I'm sure some must be reading this who have some sort of campaign/government experience who can set this up. Show me a responsible, organized effort to put a PAC together and I'll not only join and donate, I'll do everything I can to make sure other people do as well.
Re:definitely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Online Privacy" (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ninth Amendment [usconstitution.net] has to be the most underrated and most ignored by Congress (though the 10th comes close) Amendment that there is.
Laymans Terms:
Ninth Amendment: "We listed some rights explicitly. Even if we forgot to talk about the others, you've still got them."
Tenth Amendment: "If we didn't say the Feds could do something, then they can't. The States and the People can."
Welcome to the losing team (Score:5, Insightful)
Plotkin is right - the scheme of spraying small amounts of money around randomly is not going to work. As he points out, the winning strategy is deterrence - we make an example of one legislator, and thereby get the attention of the rest.
Ever watch a movie and find yourself wanting the bad guy to win, just because the good guy was such an ass? That's how I'm starting to feel about this "geeks vs. entertainment industry" war. I think I first felt this when geeks were protesting something (maybe the Microsoft EULA?) and a few of them showed up in Star Wars costumes. Naturally, that's what the media covered. This "GeekPAC" looks like a great way to shoot ourselves in the foot more publicly and more expensively than usual. These guys are about as competent to wage a political battle as the average lobbyist would be to admin a farm of web servers.
The core idea is sound, of course. If computing is going to survive, we have to start paying tribute to Congress. It's that simple. Doctors pay $700 a year to the AMA, essentially to ward of legislation that would destroy their profession.
I hope that the inevitable humiliating failure of this "GeekPAC" will not discourage geeks from seeking political representation.
Re:Finally, a realist. (Score:4, Insightful)
A single election here and there means nothing, when the sheer weight of all the rest add up over the years. And as I pointed out, you actually have a specific enumerated constitutional right on your side. Computer geeks don't have that.
Think about it this way, it applies to both situations. Even now, children are being taught, both directly, and indirectly how evil guns are, in school. Sure, you can teach them differently, and even though you may be correct in doing so, it pushes you to the fringe. The little kid goes into class, telling everyone how his daddy says that gun control is wrong, even unconstitutional. It pushes him to the fringe. Either he stops believing what daddy has told him (NRA loses), or he continues to believe it, the slightest bit more fanatical and at the fringes, than he was before (NRA loses). Lather, rinse, repeat. And it's a cumulative effect. As a whole, this nation distrusts guns, and trusts implicitly the politicians that tell them we need to ban guns. Have you ever been labeled a gun nut? If not, start telling people what you believe, that you're a card carrying NRA member. See if it doesn't happen. Of course, you could remain quiet. But then how does it help the cause?
Oh, and don't worry. The next step, is for them to demonize even those of you that have the sense to stay below the radar. In the next 10 years, expect gun control PR to suggest that you are all terrorists waiting to happen, simply because you believe these things, but are so secretive about it. That is, after all, the behavior of a terrorist mole, is it not? You're probably waiting for your chance to do another Okie City, is what. So, even staying quiet won't be a safe strategy.
My god, don't believe me if you don't want. But at least see that there is truth in this. Hell, tell your other NRA members... let them know about this. Maybe there is a strategy to combat this, but only if you start soon. I look at the chessboard, and I see that you're all about 6 moves from being checkmated.
Us computer geeks... well, we don't even have guns to shoot back with.
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain (Score:3, Insightful)
What's sad is that the bought and paid for nature of government in America is such an accepted fact nowadays. Apparently we finally woke up and smelled the coffee, but then all we did was order biscotti to go with it. Plotkin is suggesting throwing it right in some senator's face instead, and I think that's a hell of a good idea. I hope somebody at GeekPAC is listening to him.
Re:I'm begging.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the first thing we've got do do is to change our election system to something else where people can really vote their conscience instead of people voting such that "their vote can count".
Re:I'm begging.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Take one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead, to stem the tide, GeekPAC, or some other similar organization, needs to make an example out of someone in Congress, and do it quick. When the National Rifle Association, or the Christian Coalition or Emily's List, for that matter, want action on an issue, the strategists behind those well-run groups usually pick a smart fight with one or more of their key opponents. They target their resources to just those specific races, sometimes to just one race. Rather than give 200 politicians $1,000 each, the savviest PACs instead will spend $200,000 or more kicking the bejesus out of just one single office holder.
I say Diane Feinstein. She'd be a great one to be made an example because she's thought of as such a leader in Congress on this stuff.