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: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.
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:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:2, Insightful)
Which networks will air this? All those ones that don't support SOPA?
Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (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.
Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws (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: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.
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.
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: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)
... 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: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:Let's generalize: (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: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:Let's generalize: (Score:1, Insightful)
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.