Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws About Technology 214
snydeq writes "As the world gets more and more technical, we can't let Luddites decide the fate of dangerous legislation like SOPA, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. 'Very few politicians get technology. Many actually seem proud that they don't use the Internet or even email, like it's some kind of badge of honor that they've kept their heads in the sand for so long. These are the same people who will vote on noxious legislation like SOPA, openly dismissing the concerns and facts presented by those who know the technology intimately. The best quote from the SOPA debates: "We're operating on the Internet without any doctors or nurses on the room." That is precisely correct,' Venezia writes. 'The best we can do for the short term is to throw everything we can behind legislation to reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment. From 1974 through 1995, this small group with a tiny budget served as an impartial, nonpartisan advisory to the U.S. Congress on all matters technological.'"
Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
This simple act underscored a problem possibly bigger than SOPA: the fact that as with far too many of our elected officials, technology legislation isn't even on his radar.
I don't think you understand SOPA. SOPA isn't a problem with Technology. It's not going to physically break the backbone routers we need for the internet. It's not going to present technological challenges. What it's going to do that is a problem is rape free speech [eff.org], make user-generated content (like what I'm doing right now) nearly impossible and on par with China's arcane policies [nytimes.com] as well as a number of other things. It threatens uploading content, it threatens internal networks, it threatens open source software, it threatens DNS, DNSSEC and internet security. And the worst part is that it's going to be completely ineffective at what it aims to do!
You don't need to understand technology to read the pieces on how this is a direct assault on free speech. Screw their understanding of technology, frame this piece of shit legislation as a direct assault on basic civil liberties! Let them chisel into stone memos about their dry cleaning, who cares if they don't use e-mail. Just make sure they understand that this is first and foremost diametrically opposed to free speech when you simply consider the internet as a means of communication and expression!
The best we can do for the short term is to throw everything we can behind legislation to reinstate the OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). From 1974 through 1995, this small group with a tiny budget served as an impartial, nonpartisan advisory to the U.S. Congress on all matters technological.
Another government office or agency? Man, don't we have enough of that bullshit as it is? I think you're deflecting and focusing on something that will sidetrack us from getting this crap shut down. Call your representative and senators and tell them that you feel that your First Amendment Rights are being threatened by H.R. 3261 and forget trying to lecture them about how DNSSEC works.
You want to effectively stop this? Here's a commercial I'd like to see Google air on national TV:
*woman sits behind bars with a look of remorse on her face*
Woman: I uploaded a video less than half a minute long of my toddler dancing to music on Youtube [arstechnica.com].
*clip of cute toddler jamming out to some pop music plays*
Woman: The video went viral. Then I received a letter in the mail from lawyers saying I owed them the cost of that song for every view. Instead of just taking it down, I'm now in a criminal lawsuit facing bankruptcy and jail time. Please call your representative to stop SOPA and prevent this from happening to thousands of people.
Fight fire with fire, 15 second ad. Let's see it, Google.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which networks will air this? All those ones that don't support SOPA?
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, SOPA will stop you doing this. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws regarding acceptance of advertising - the networks will do all they can to find loopholes, but they can't explicitly block it for being anti-SOPA if the person pays for the ad and follows certain rules and regulations.
Let's generalize: (Score:3, Funny)
"Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws"
Because history shows they consistently do it WRONG.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False dichotomy, you left out another option: nobody making laws.
Not that I believe this would work better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's generalize: (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't say having no laws, I said making no laws. We already have plenty of laws, so if from now on nobody made them.
Re:Let's generalize: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course they were the "founding fathers" who never did any wrong. I remain amazed by how often the anachronistic laws set by a group of largely uneducated men over 200 years ago are defended as being untouchable.
Greetings and Salutations...
Hum, I take it you mean the Constitution of the U.S.? If so...exactly what clauses from this would you erase? And...more importantly, how would you justify your decision?
To put it simply enough that it is clear (I hope)...the Constitution is vital to the structure of the country and its government because it clearly defines and limits the powers of the Federal Government has over its citize
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah screw those founding fathers with their freedom of expression nonsense. We will much better off when the major corporations dictate what we can, and cannot, say.
Re: (Score:3)
I remain amazed by how often the anachronistic laws set by a group of largely uneducated men over 200 years ago...
You mean like Thomas Jefferson? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Which networks will air this? All those ones that don't support SOPA?
All those that would accept a big fat paycheck and run the ad for Google's dough before caring about whether or not SOPA would pass. So probably all of them.
Just because you have the money doesn't mean the network will take your ad.
e.g.
ManCrunch SuperBowl Ad REJECTED: Gay Dating Site Ad Denied By CBS (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/mancrunch-superbowl-ad-ga_n_440773.html
Affairs Site Ashley Madison Super Bowl Ad Rejected By Fox
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/ashley-madison-super-bowl-rejected-fox_n_811512.html
FOX Sports Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring John 3:16
http://www.christianpost.com/news/fox-sports-rejects-super-bowl-ad-featuring-
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because that ad is just ham fisted crap. Now if Google tried to pay CBS to run this [youtube.com] instead, I would wager CBS would say no... because the ad points out CBS is guilty of distributing filesharing software and encouraging users to pirate music with it. The very thing CBS claims to be against, they did themselves. The very thing that the SCOTUS ruled was illegal in Grokster, but where is the DOJ? Where is the investigative journalism? AOL teaches and encourages you to steal music so Time Warner can s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree, it creates a conflict of rights and a loophole allowing people to commit harm to others. That is foolish and irresponsible, but it is not the end of the world or the end of slashdot or the end of free speech. If it is abused, then the conflict of rights will have to be resolved in the courtroom. No matter how badly the courts stumble over it, it won't end up with some doomsday "zomg we're China" xenophobic nonsense.
Xenophobia? Are You Insane? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree, it creates a conflict of rights and a loophole allowing people to commit harm to others. That is foolish and irresponsible, but it is not the end of the world or the end of slashdot or the end of free speech.
When did I say it was the end of the world, the end of Slashdot or the end of free speech? And, yes, it could affect my Slashdot posting as I might inform you that I have parodied Dr. Suess and movies and songs in my posts. Should a rights holder decide that those are too close to their original material or even just decide that I probably couldn't defend their lawsuit, they could sue me instead of issuing a DMCA and demanding it be taken down.
If it is abused, then the conflict of rights will have to be resolved in the courtroom.
Well, unfortunately, those with the most money often win in the courtroom and which side do you think is going to predominantly be the big dog? The conglomeration of all record labels known as the RIAA? Or the single mother?
No matter how badly the courts stumble over it, it won't end up with some doomsday "zomg we're China" xenophobic nonsense.
Wow, if you think my criticism of an oppressive tool such as the Great Firewall of China is xenophobic then you truly are ignorant. Don't you get it, I want to help the Chinese people enjoy the freedom to say and read whatever the hell they want! I want the Chinese people to enjoy the freedoms I enjoy like being able to say "Fuck the United States Government and that wasteful war in Iraq" while being a citizen and not worry that there is a death van awaiting me on my return to my home tonight. That's not xenophobia, you idiot! It's a desire for freedom! I suffer from oppressive-government-phobia!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it can be resolved in a courtroom. Some one uses SOPA to take down your site. Your site is down, so your revenues are down. It takes two years to get your day in court. By this time, you have, by necessity, moved on to something else. So, finally, your day in court is an inconvenience that interferes with your current job/contract/consultancy. You're screwed no matter how you look at it, and the MAFIAA wins.
Re: (Score:2)
...it won't end up with some doomsday "zomg we're China" xenophobic nonsense.
Yeah, by all means play the race card. Never mind that the GP's argument had nothing to do with race.
In my country (New Zealand) we're very familiar with your particular flavour of Politically Correct Arsehole. You pricks are always there ready to drown out intelligent conversation by screaming "RACIST!!" without taking a nanosecond to actually understand the argument. You're also usually wrong.
Of course, you won't let that alter your behaviour for even a moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, like drunken airline passengers could never be charged under terrorism laws because they were only meant for real terrorists, not drunk airline passengers. Pick your link. The people in charge of incarcerating other people have taken any excuse to do so, no matter how torturous the interpretation of the law. And the courts have, since they are in the same business, decided this is just fine. So be very careful what you allow.
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Interesting)
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down.
"There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out: "Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, yes, you do. You just listed four highly technical terms, and explaining how SOPA is going to break those things does require a highly technical understanding. So I believe the original article is absolutely right that the problem is politicians not understanding technology.
But they don't consider the Internet as a means of communication and expression. If they are chiseling into stone tablets, then SOPA isn't going to affect them. To them, the Internet is that thing that lets pirates get films for free, and the MPAA has told them that's wrong. Again, the problem is that they don't understand that the Internet is free speech in one of its purest forms, and this will strangle the Internet.
There's a website along these lines: Free Justin Beiber [freebieber.org].
I agree, a 15 second ad would be great.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, politicians aren't all cavemen recently defrozen either. The average age of a member of the House is less than 60, and they didn't come from the Amish either. While I don't doubt most don't understand how most of the technology works behind the scenes, there's no reason to assume they're that ignorant about how the Internet enables Free Speech and how dangerous a tool like SOPA will be.
Re: (Score:2)
I consider SOPA a reason to assume they're ignorant about it, if nothing else. You might attribute that to malice. ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.") I think it's a mixture of both.
I don't doubt that these politicians have been completely bought out by the likes of the MPAA, and that they are acting in the interests of lobbying groups. But at the same time, I also don't think they have a clue, for example, what we mean when we say "SOPA will break DNSSEC," and nor
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you give them credit for what they understand.
I think they understand well that the internet is a means of communication. I think they understand all too well in fact. It is because the internet provides every individual human being with their own individual soapboxes that politicians do in fact want to limit it. It is because now, every minor party from the communists to the greens to the anarchists have an effective and cheap way to communicate their message to the masses.
The internet terrifies them. It's not very effective today, but they're thinking about tomorrow. They're thinking about Web 2.0, and user-generated content, in particular, user-generated political speech. They're thinking about ten million people going to Youtube to watch an untelevised debate between candidates without "R" or "D" behind their name. They're thinking about fifty million followers of the green party's twitter feed. And it's a threat that's going to materialize soon--very soon.
Politicians and companies alike are threatened not necessarily by free speech itself, but speech that is easily accessible. The only difference between the two is that politicians are in it for the power while companies are in it for the money. The fact that their interests just so happen to coincide makes it all the more convenient for the politicans to enact such legislation, and for companies to throw money at it.
Why do you think there is limited opposition to the act? It's not just the content lobbies sweet-talking their politicians with campaign donations. The political establishment itself wants to get rid of speech on the internet.
The worst part is, if SOPA fails, there will be another push for a similar piece of legislation sometime down the line. Should that fail, there will be yet another. It will continue like this until either the populace gets fed up and stops objecting (either through compromise or exasperation), or they smarten up and start voting for candidates that really represent their interests.
If I were a betting man, my money would not be on the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Really insightful. Regretfully, I agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, yes, you do. You just listed four highly technical terms, and explaining how SOPA is going to break those things does require a highly technical understanding. So I believe the original article is absolutely right that the problem is politicians not understanding technology.
Heh, that's creative editing and quoting. Those sentences aren't even in the same paragraph. GP's point is that SOPA's main problem isn't about technology, although it causes a few tech issues. SOPA's main problem is that it attack civil liberties.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you understand SOPA. SOPA isn't a problem with Technology. It's not going to physically break the backbone routers we need for the internet. It's not going to present technological challenges. What it's going to do that is a problem is rape free speech [eff.org], make user-generated content (like what I'm doing right now) nearly impossible and on par with China's arcane policies [nytimes.com] as well as a number of other things. It threatens uploading content, it threatens internal networks, it threatens open source software, it threatens DNS, DNSSEC and internet security. And the worst part is that it's going to be completely ineffective at what it aims to do!
Phew! I was worried about that for a second, and then you mentioned it would be ineffective at what it aims to do. I guess I have nothing to worry about then!
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
... it's going to be completely ineffective at what it aims to do!
Phew! I was worried about that for a second, and then you mentioned it would be ineffective at what it aims to do. I guess I have nothing to worry about then!
The War on Drugs is ineffective at stopping drugs. That doesn't mean it's without consequences, or should be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think SOPA is bad, then consider the fact that the next 10 technology-related bills in Congress could be worse.
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
Having read the text of the proposed law, I expect that I understand it as well as anyone.
And being about the age of the average Congresscritter, I'm aware that MY generation is the one creating and passing legislation.
So, no, it's not about ignorant people passing bad legislation. It's about people whose objectives are different than YOUR objectives passing legislation.
You want free speech, they want money (and the votes that money can buy).
When your desire for free speech translates to money/votes, they'll care. Until then, they will ignore you.
Re: (Score:3)
So, no, it's not about ignorant people passing bad legislation. It's about people whose objectives are different than YOUR objectives passing legislation.
I think it is both. I would strongly suspect that most people in Congress have little idea about technology and little interest in it. Congressional elections select for those who can convince a small group of primary voters to select them often based on their success in raising money for their campaign. That means most representatives have two areas of expertise: fund raising and convincing people to vote for them. They may have some other areas of expertise, but it's not guaranteed and most of them pr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do. It's not that difficult: if a site infringes on copyright, a notice is enough to block access to it. There is no need to involve any technical definitions in the explanation.
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you understand SOPA. SOPA isn't a problem with Technology.
You're exactly right. SOPA is the mere exercise of bare power. The problem is not the politicians' ignorance; they know full well what they're doing. The problem is that they don't care. They've gone to the well for campaign funding, and this is the bucket they brought the water back in. It's really that simple. Technical considerations don't even get a look in.
It threatens uploading content, it threatens internal networks, it threatens open source software, it threatens DNS, DNSSEC and internet security.
"So?" asked the Congressman, "What did FOSS, DNS and DNSSEC ever do for me?"
There are only two levers that can change a congressman's mind: Votes and money. The money (to buy the votes) is behind SOPA right now, so that's where he'll be found.
What needs to be made clear to him, therefore, is that no amount of money is going to be enough to save his seat. And rather than wait for election day (which will be too late), take a lesson from the Tea Party and primary the fucker. 'Tis the season, after all....
Putting together a well-organised campaign to get delegates up in arms about an issue as basic and important as this is neither too hard nor too expensive. Find a clear-eyed, presentable spokesperson who can explain the problem in a nutshell, and start working on your local party committee members to back him. You don't (necessarily) need to get your person (s)elected even. Long before that, you can be sure that your candidate will have a moment of epiphany where suddenly the problem becomes clear and his position switches accordingly.
This approach can't easily be countered by lobbyists, because they don't have a significant presence outside of Washington, they don't know the local ground nearly as well as you do, and they simply don't have enough money allocated to counter every primary challenge.
Tactically, this is insurgency warfare. Look to Iraq and Afghanistan for some indication of its effectiveness.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when do incumbents face primaries? I've heard about it for very unpopular candidates, where even their own party won't back them for reelection, but not otherwise. I could be wrong -- I'm not trying to be a dick, I am curious.
I think you hav
Re: (Score:2)
Since when do incumbents face primaries? I've heard about it for very unpopular candidates, where even their own party won't back them for reelection, but not otherwise.
You just answered your own question. Make the candidate unpopular, and the primary has to happen. Register a lot of new members, stack the committees, or lobby them, or both, and make it clear that for as long as your representative stands by SOPA, his survival is far from assured.
Re: (Score:3)
try making DNSSEC work in a SOPA world. How about the fact that the fundamental enforcement tool is to perform a mandated man in the middle attack on DNS. that is pretty fucked up and breaks the internet.
What will happen is these criminals will simply move to a more robust DNS solution and a new internet will be born which makes it nearly impossible for the powerful to stomp out.
Silk road anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
DNSSEC works fine in a SOPA world: the ISP can just drop the reply instead of forging it. The end result is the same.
CORE PROBLEM? (Score:3)
CAPTURED BY INDUSTRY.
Reinstating OTA won't solve the problem, when the office will be populated by revolving-door industry flacks, just as regulatory agencies are, today.
Re: (Score:3)
That DOES break the internet ... with respect to making the internet more secure and reliable. What SOPA should do is use outside means of law enforcement against the violators. The very serious problems with SOPA is that it requires breaking security integrity for ISPs to comply with the possible orders they could receive. It also will cost the ISPs substantially more money. And this is being done without the proper judicial due process the US Constitution requires (we can only hope this gets quickly k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding, people who do stuff like that are hard-core criminals. Such people deserve to be financially ruined, and incarcerated.
Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws (Score:5, Insightful)
The Greek "politicians" were actually philosophers. They knew they didn't understand everything, so arguments were structured to expose their own ignorance through the statement of assumptions: "Assuming X is true."
This inevitably can lead to more discussion about whether the assumptions are valid, but the approach at least documents the process of working through the details of what eventually would become legislation.
Right now politicians make decisions based on ideology and dogma, not on logic and reasoning. At a bare minimum, Parliament and Congress should be held to a philosophical evaluation of law that starts with "Assuming the Constitution is true" and "Assuming the Charter of Rights is valid". Those foundational documents should always be the core of testing the validity of an argument for encoding something as law.
As long as politicians are chosen by a popularity contest instead of an assessment of their skills, experience, and knowledge, that leads me to conclude that politicians should not make laws at all.
Instead, they should be responsible for collecting evidence from the public, industry, and others concerned about the legislation they propose to prove it's good legislation meeting the needs of the people, not serving the will of dogma and corporate influence.
Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws (Score:4, Funny)
No sweat, though, just head on down to your neighborhood re-education center and we'll scrub those subversive thoughts right out of your cranium!
Re: (Score:3)
Citizen? How archaic. It is consumer these days...
Now get back to consuming! *whip snap*
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's funny is that Slashdot and all the other tech blogs was pro-net neutrality all last year, and posters like me who criticized that kind of government intervention were downmodded into oblivion because it went against the opinion of the hivemind. Now with SOPA, people have seen just what it's like when politicians try to regulate the internet from Washington, and suddenly it's cool again to keep politicians away from technology! My head gets dizzy sometimes from the back and forth in trends.
Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Apples and Oranges. Net neutrality is about regulation of those that deliver the internet (i.e. ISPs) so as to prevent them from, for example, blocking or throttling sites/content from particular providers or that use particular protocols as it suits them. SOPA is about regulating what goes on ON the internet which is entirely separate. Net neutrality is about competition, while SOPA is about content control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now politicians make decisions based on money, not on logic and reasoning.
There. Fixed that for you. Otherwise, I generally agree with you.
half right (Score:5, Interesting)
"As long as politicians are chosen by a popularity contest instead of an assessment of their skills, experience, and knowledge..."
wait... who is making that assessment? all you have introduced is another corruptible source of power. "We have found politician XYZ to be without skills because we got $15M in our bank accounts to say so." i know what you are talking about in theory, but in practice, you are just introducing another point of failure and corruption in the power structure. there is only one valid source of power: the people. so only they should determine who rules them via, i'm sorry, a popularity contest. not because they always vote with the best intelligence and interests. but because any other source of arbiting power is worse
"Instead, they should be responsible for collecting evidence from the public, industry, and others concerned about the legislation they propose..."
and this is exactly right. they don't know everything. but they know how to assemble bright minds to help them decide. unfortunately, the concept of bright minds helping them decide is being replaced by pay-to-play in our democracy-rapidly-becoming-plutocracy
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I suggested this [ycombinator.com]:
"Actually, randomly selecting people from a state or province, similar to a lottery draw, may be a better idea. The key is to make sure it is a large variety of people."
Re: (Score:2)
"Actually, randomly selecting people from a state or province, similar to a lottery draw, may be a better idea. The key is to make sure it is a large variety of people."
An idea even more radical is to place term limits on the Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court. It will require a change to the Constitution, but the mood for such a change is reflected in the dismal 11% approval rating of Congress. Use your vote to favor a government that does not have at is heart a stagnating core of dinosaurs who every year fall increasingly out of touch with "the people" and further into lock step with the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, there's a tendency in government on both sides of the border to IGNORE the advice of any critics and proceed with a goose-step down the dogmatic path the politician's vision has laid before them. It's been a long time since rational thought and evidence-based decision making had anything to do with government.
Roughly a decade, in Canada's case.
I'm talking about politicians making their education and experience a core part of their platform to prove to the people that they have the skills and qu
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery is like sex. It's perfectly fine if you've given informed consent, which, presumably, you would only do if you felt doing so was worth it. The very mention of it -- again just like sex -- terrifies the politically correct crowd, who specialize in reacting without thinking, but -- again like sex -- there's nothing wrong with the concept. It's all about implementation.
And always remember, the 14th amendment provides the government the authorized power to enslave you. Where do you think your license pl
Re: (Score:3)
Consented slavery is an oxymoron. If it's consented, it's not slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
If I present you with a contract that says I own you in every respect, and you consent in an informed manner, you are a slave. Believe me, it's 100% slavery, and has both the same worth and the same consequences for you.
Just as when someone who turns themselves in for a crime gets imprisoned; it's still imprisonment. Volunteering doesn't change the nature of the thing. It just reflects the degree of liberty you're allowed to exercise. Here, you cannot consent to such a thing; your liberty is more impaired b
Re: (Score:2)
The Old Testament talks about slavery in those times, and it didn't have quite the same connotation it does in modern times. For thing, if I recall correctly, you were only allowed to keep a slave for seven years, not a lifetime.
The other thing is that voluntary slavery was used as a means of paying off debts. If the debtor didn't have the money to pay a debt, they would become slaves to whoever made the loan.
Some might say that working for a living is a form of voluntary slavery, if they were a hard
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is that voluntary slavery was used as a means of paying off debts. If the debtor didn't have the money to pay a debt, they would become slaves to whoever made the loan.
Well, that's only voluntary depending on the options he had. If the alternative was prison or death, it's hardly voluntary.
Some might say that working for a living is a form of voluntary slavery, if they were a hard core communist. I don't think that way, but I can understand the perspective.
I don't think a Communist has any problems with people working for a living; work is glorified in Communist theory. Their position is that a worker is a slave because they live to increase the wealth of the capitalist and the bourgeois.
But again, that's hardly voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not slavery, it is servitude, and it is not perfectly fine in ANY way. Look it up. Servitude and slavery are closely related, but neither are good in any way.
There are reason contract laws today prohibit selling yourself for one time offers.
Structure. (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at what happened to Microsoft: they didn't lobby enough and found themselves on the wrong-end of an antitrust suit. Now they lobby enough that that's not a problem anymore.
You're right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have half a brain you can take a look at any semi-automatic rifle and figure out how to make it fully auto.
Now I still haven't had a chance to see how they make the M4 have a 3 round burst.
Re: (Score:3)
Like in Texas.
The only state where gun ownership such as you're obviously refferring to that is effective is Arizona. In every other state it appears to be a criminal offense to simply talk about gun ownership, the consequences being that only criminals have guns, and Texas is a consequence of those views. Only in Arizona are people allowed to carry without QUITE AS MANY restrictions as in all the other states.
Re: (Score:2)
Like in Texas.
The only state where gun ownership such as you're obviously refferring to that is effective is Arizona. In every other state it appears to be a criminal offense to simply talk about gun ownership, the consequences being that only criminals have guns, and Texas is a consequence of those views. Only in Arizona are people allowed to carry without QUITE AS MANY restrictions as in all the other states.
I believe New Hampshire is the least strict in the nation regarding gun ownership.
What I'd like to know... (Score:4, Interesting)
Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?
It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement? Will free software start to also suffer a similar fate?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in supporting widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it arguably easier to bypass such censorship?
IMO: more corruption than ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
Politicians are basically owned by the big money corporations that put the politicians in office. The politicos don't know about tech, and don't care either. The lobbyists write the bills, and the give the bills to the politicians to pass - along with a big campaign contribution, of course.
Do you actually think SOPA started in congress? Some congressmen, all of the sudden, thought it was important to save the content providers?
All the stuff about "politicians don't understand tech well enough to make laws about it" is just silly. Congress doesn't even read the bills it passes, and congress certainly does not write the bills.
All JMHO, of course.
How can I use SOPA to wreak havoc? (Score:2)
There's a quote by a politician (perhaps a US President) which I can't find exactly, but I can paraphrase it: The best way to expose and destroy an unjust law is by rigorously enforcing it. If anyone knows the exact quote please tell me.
I've always been of the same view. If SOPA passes (I pray it does not), what can I, as an individual, do with it to cause chaos? Could I force Amazon to remove all of my product reviews? Mess with eBay seller feedback? Post copyrighted material in comments on Whitehouse.gov
Re: (Score:2)
There's a quote by a politician (perhaps a US President) which I can't find exactly, but I can paraphrase it: The best way to expose and destroy an unjust law is by rigorously enforcing it. If anyone knows the exact quote please tell me.
I've always been of the same view. If SOPA passes (I pray it does not), what can I, as an individual, do with it to cause chaos? Could I force Amazon to remove all of my product reviews? Mess with eBay seller feedback? Post copyrighted material in comments on Whitehouse.gov and get the site shut down?
That's a nice thought, and fine in theory. However, it won't work that way in practice. You see, should SOPA become law, it will be enforced on the little guy when some corporation needs to shake someone down for cash or silence criticism. The politicians who actually vote for it will likely be exempt. Sure, you COULD try to call out a supporter when you see them committing willful infringement, but since they voted FOR the measure, everyone will look the other way. Can't have the lobbyists biting the hand
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about using SOPA against pro-SOPA companies. I'm talking about using it against individuals and innocuous websites to cause general chaos. If the law allows it, why not? That's the whole point -- expose the bad law by inflicting terrible consequences upon innocent people.
Never heard of this group before.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please no committee - and I call BS on quote (Score:2)
From 1974 through 1995, this small group with a tiny budget served as an impartial, nonpartisan advisory to the U.S. Congress on all matters technological.
Only bad could come from its reinstatement:
1) "Buy IBM and Microsoft and contract with (insert major defense contractor) and (well-connected Indian body shop) for services - that's all you need to worry about."
2) Usual government bureaucracy means we'll get specs for good technology ten years after consumers have moved on
Very few politicians get technology. Many actually seem proud that they don't use the Internet or even email
I call BS. 1999 wants its quote back. Everyone in Congress and almost every politician with any pull has a smart phone and those use...the Internet and email.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
There have been many. many examples of non partisan government agency being of great value.
Yes, it should be reinstated.
That's not what the agency does. Do you now how blindingly stupid and ignorant you sound?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you now how blindingly stupid and ignorant you sound?
Is this your first day? I understand "Blindingly stupid and ignorant" was the second-choice slogan to "News for nerds, stuff that matters."
Broaden your thinking (Score:2)
The preceding discussion is based on the term "technology" being used in a very narrow sense. However, the argument still applies when the term is used broadly, and hence to probably 80% of modern life. How many politicians (and lumpen proles) understand enough to make informed decisions about stem cells, oil pipelines, radio spectrum allocation, chemicals, water treatment and distribution, combustion, electrical networks, etc., etc. But yet laws and regulations are passed every day.
The politicians can l
OF course the should (Score:2)
The issue is they aren't informed.
conversely (Score:3)
The real problem is stupid voters... (Score:5, Interesting)
not new (Score:2)
yeah...right (Score:2)
I've Been Saying This for YEARS (Score:2)
Politicians are not people they're a process. (Score:2)
A better way to think of politicians is not as people but a process. They're a system. A committee of blind people that gets all their information from thousands of little braille cards that are handed to them. These cards indicate polling information, funding, demographic surveys, etc. What they're actually talking about from one second to the other rarely matters. What matters is whether voting one way or the other will improve their chances of getting reelected.
If you want to talk to politicians... don't
Doesn't address the problem (Score:3)
The problem with congress is not that they lack good information or sources for good information. If we reinstate the office of technological assessment, it will simply add to the voices of industry people who are already there. However, the real problem (the money), will still be there, and the senators will still vote whichever way the company who makes generous donations to their campaign dictates.
Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws (Score:2)
Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws
- Fixed that for you.
Politicians *are* informed about technology. (Score:2)
They do not just admit it. It is easier for them to say "I ignore technology" in order to justify their anti-technology laws.
Re:You could make this argument about all laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. Politiicans know practically nothing about anything other than getting re-elected, which is why most Western nations are just about bankrupt right now.
Re:You could make this argument about all laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo. Politiicans know practically nothing about anything other than getting re-elected, which is why most Western nations are just about bankrupt right now.
Once you understand that then politicians become very easy to train. They respond as reliably as Pavlov's dogs to the right positive and negative reinforcement. You can do it with money, or you can do it with grassroots. Grassroots is more work, and there has been far to much complacency by the constituent population of late, which is why money is winning so often. But it doesn't have to be like that. Very small amounts of money and an informed, involved, and organized group can actually do it better.
Groups like Demand Progress, Campaign for Liberty, Fight for the Future, EFF Activism, and many other groups (even the 9/12 Project is mobilizing on this) understand that dynamic. They know how to apply pressure, and most of them also know how to follow up during election time to back up their promises.
And that's why things like the DISCLOSE act (and other efforts sold as "campaign finance") are so popular in Congress but despised by grassroots activists. They don't really take money out of politics, they serve to enhance the role of money and make things really difficult for small issue-advocacy groups. Especially when it comes time to remind voters of all the bad things the incumbents voted for while in office.
Because people are waking up to the issues in Washington, more and more people are finally starting to get involved. The politicians don't like that, because it can cause bad press (negative reinforcement), challenges during elections (negative reinforcement), and other bad consequences.
Don't blame politicians for behaving that way - they don't have souls.
Re:You could make this argument about all laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Because people are waking up to the issues in Washington, more and more people are finally starting to get involved. The politicians don't like that, because it can cause bad press (negative reinforcement), challenges during elections (negative reinforcement), and other bad consequences.
Don't blame politicians for behaving that way - they don't have souls.
I think you have struck on key issue... Politicians don't like the idea of a free Internet, they just don't fully understand why right now. The answer is pretty simple, people engaging with each other via social media leads to a population less tolerant of soundbytes and rhetoric. As society becomes more involved in the issues, it demands greater accountability. An activist is born when a personal connection is made to an issue. I for one view SOPA and PIPA as a personal affront to my liberty and will not be satisfied by a hearty speech or weasel words of justification or apology. I want Congress to reject the notion that the US Government has the authority to eliminate free speech anywhere in the world without due process. Especially given that the approval rating for Congress is hovering around 11%, meaning they do not have a mandate to act "for the people" in any case. It remains to be seen if the President is going to act responsibly and veto these bills or kowtow to Congress like he did with by signing in the NDAA [guardian.co.uk] -- another liberty smasher that he passed into law while the world was celebrating New Year's eve. The TV channels may not be interested, but politicians can't escape the scrutiny of an entire population via the Internet... at least until they make social media nonviable by enacting something like SOPA, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I once proposed this idea: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3161455 [ycombinator.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unions are organizations whose primary purpose is to protect the jobs of individuals who could be either easily replaced or marginalized. Most IT folk either operate under the idea that are uniquely skilled, their replacement would be cost prohibitive, or that the job for which they are working is temporary. In all of those cases, there is no reason to organize towards job security. What does help and provides a voice toward information technology workers, are political advocacy groups, such as the Electron
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest a guild similar to the original free masons. One of the reasons the masons could be free is because their services were in high demand. If you were a king or despot and treated your masons poorly you could count on never getting anything built again.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a member of a union that represents IT workers. It is not that easy to get people involved, actually. I think a lot of it's culture and the fact that many are young and there's not much taught about unions anymore (and plenty bad "taught" by ignoramuses).
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it was killed. It was non-partisan. Anything that reduced separation of the parties got in the way of their real message, which is "elect me, I'm different from them." And in this case, it was a non-partisan board that happened to arrive at recommendations based on reality, rather than politics, which are often at opposing ends of the spectrum.
In today's contentious environment, if you're not with us (meaning if you're not contributing to our campaign), you're an ENEMY OF THE STATE AND MUST BE
Re: (Score:2)
I just got a ad today from a Satellite internet company. Also now 4G is pretty fast.
Well what is a contract? It's an agreement between consenting people. Why should law trump that?
Re: (Score:2)
Well what is a contract? It's an agreement between consenting people. Why should law trump that?
Because some people are deceived or coerced into agreement, rather than truly agreeing in full knowledge of the consequences of that agreement. Moreover, two people agreeing to do evil to a third does not make it right or legal; laws trump contracts precisely to stop a whole range of truly nasty abuses. (If only there were fewer bad laws, but that's separate from the nature of contracts.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is there such a thing as prescription drugs anyway? It was laws that doctors got passed to give themselves a cartel. You can't get the medicine you need unless you pay tribute to a doctor. Nice scam.
Re: (Score:2)
We are not talking about harmless stuff with minor consequences here, prescription drugs are often very dangerous if used in the wrong way or combinations. Do you honestly believe you and Joe Sixpack understand eno
any book on totalitarian states (Score:2)
will have a paragraph or two about the amoral technocrats who enabled it.
then some authors, like goth and aly, or black, write entire books about technocracy.