Slashdot Mirror

According to the article, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) stated: "I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences," Ehlers said.

Probably the best thing any person can do is to contact each and every member of the House Science Committee who will consider this proposal. The members include:

Lamar S. Smith, Texas
Constance A. Morella, Maryland
Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania
Dana Rohrabacher, California
Joe Barton, Texas
Ken Calvert, California
Nick Smith, Michigan
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dave Weldon, Florida
Gil Gutknecht, Minnesota**
Chris Cannon, Utah
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Gary G. Miller, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
W. Todd Akin, Missouri
Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois
Mike Pence, Indiana
Felix J. Grucci, Jr., New York
Melissa A. Hart, Pennsylvania
J. Randy Forbes, Virginia
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, RMM*
Bart Gordon, Tennessee
Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
James A. Barcia, Michigan
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Lynn N. Rivers, Michigan
Zoe Lofgren, California
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Nick Lampson, Texas
John B. Larson, Connecticut
Mark Udall, Colorado
David Wu, Oregon
Anthony D. Weiner, New York
Brian Baird, Washington
Joseph M. Hoeffel, Pennsylvania
Joe Baca, California
Jim Matheson, Utah
Steve Israel, New York
Dennis Moore, Kansas
Michael M. Honda, California

According to the article, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan) stated: "I think hackers should also be considered terrorists and sentences that hackers get should be in line with terrorist sentences," Ehlers said.

Probably the best thing any person can do is to contact each and every member of the House Science Committee who will consider this proposal. The members include:

Lamar S. Smith, Texas
Constance A. Morella, Maryland
Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania
Dana Rohrabacher, California
Joe Barton, Texas
Ken Calvert, California
Nick Smith, Michigan
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dave Weldon, Florida
Gil Gutknecht, Minnesota**
Chris Cannon, Utah
George R. Nethercutt, Jr., Washington
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Gary G. Miller, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
W. Todd Akin, Missouri
Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois
Mike Pence, Indiana
Felix J. Grucci, Jr., New York
Melissa A. Hart, Pennsylvania
J. Randy Forbes, Virginia
Ralph M. Hall, Texas, RMM*
Bart Gordon, Tennessee
Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
James A. Barcia, Michigan
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Lynn N. Rivers, Michigan
Zoe Lofgren, California
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Nick Lampson, Texas
John B. Larson, Connecticut
Mark Udall, Colorado
David Wu, Oregon
Anthony D. Weiner, New York
Brian Baird, Washington
Joseph M. Hoeffel, Pennsylvania
Joe Baca, California
Jim Matheson, Utah
Steve Israel, New York
Dennis Moore, Kansas
Michael M. Honda, California

"Money has little to do with it (believe it or not..). Campaign financing is a very heavily regulated thing, and its not so simple as a lobbyist or group giving money to the congressman. Most people blame it on that, since they just dont know any better."

Several years ago, my family and I (I was about ten at the time) went into Barney Frank's (my congressman- MA Democrat) office to get some Senate passes. We expected to just pick the passes up from the secretary at the front desk, but she told us that Mr. Frank was in the back, and could come out if we waited a few minutes.

Three or four minutes later, out he came. He introduced himself and then chatted with us for about ten minutes. He was a pleasure to talk to, and listened to what we said, on whatever issue we wanted to talk about. (It was years ago, so I don't remember what exactly we said, but I do remember being struck by his knowledge about whatever random topics we brought up.)

We had no money, no agenda, no power, and didn't even expect to talk to him.

It's nice to know that there is at least one congressman who cares and is accessible. It's no wonder that he's barely even been challenged in his district for years.

Additionally, here are his views on the terrorism bill. One excerpt:

It is entirely legitimate for those of us who are proud of America to reaffirm our patriotism at a time when enemies of freedom attack us. But invoking the word PATRIOT in the context of this bill gives the unfortunate impression that those who disagree with it are not patriots. I voted for the bill, and I am pleased with the work that we did collectively to provide for enhanced law enforcement powers in a way that I believe is consistent with American liberty and privacy. But I fully respect those who disagree with our work, and I wish we had not chosen a title for the bill that in any way reflects on their good faith in expressing that disagreement.

Several years ago, my family and I (I was about ten at the time) went into Barney Frank's (my congressman- MA Democrat) office to get some Senate passes. We expected to just pick the passes up from the secretary at the front desk, but she told us that Mr. Frank was in the back, and could come out if we waited a few minutes.

Three or four minutes later, out he came. He introduced himself and then chatted with us for about ten minutes. He was a pleasure to talk to, and listened to what we said, on whatever issue we wanted to talk about. (It was years ago, so I don't remember what exactly we said, but I do remember being struck by his knowledge about whatever random topics we brought up.)

We had no money, no agenda, no power, and didn't even expect to talk to him.

It's nice to know that there is at least one congressman who cares and is accessible. It's no wonder that he's barely even been challenged in his district for years.

Additionally, here are his views on the terrorism bill. One excerpt:

It is entirely legitimate for those of us who are proud of America to reaffirm our patriotism at a time when enemies of freedom attack us. But invoking the word PATRIOT in the context of this bill gives the unfortunate impression that those who disagree with it are not patriots. I voted for the bill, and I am pleased with the work that we did collectively to provide for enhanced law enforcement powers in a way that I believe is consistent with American liberty and privacy. But I fully respect those who disagree with our work, and I wish we had not chosen a title for the bill that in any way reflects on their good faith in expressing that disagreement.

Uh oh....are you saying that The Flag(tm) has been DESECRATED???

(And what are we to make of "burn all gifs day" when it comes to this particular .gif?...)

I was just poking around on the house roll call vote site today and noticed that, apparently, the constitutional amendment allowing congress to criminalize "desecration" of that flag has PASSED THE HOUSE!...way back on the 17th of July. I'm a bit surprised that I hadn't heard about this before now (or am I misinterpreting this?)

On the plus side, if I'm reading this correctly:

1. It now has to pass the Senate
2. It THEN has to be ratified by 2/3's of the states
3. and even then, it only ALLOWS congress to criminalize flag "desecration", it doesn't make the criminality of it part of the constitution.

Rep. Michael Castle (R-Delaware), who unsuccessfully tried to remove the language through an amendment, said: "My concern is we're imposing an obligation on financial companies to check virtually all of their statements, especially customers who deal with websites." (Wired)

That's his only concern? That's pretty pathetic. Personally, I would like all financial companies to check all of their statements for reasons which have nothing to do with terrorism.

What he should have been concerned about is that it's all a farce and they're punishing an industry for being successful, as far as I can see. I suppose it's also possible that the various Indian Nations (Or should I say Native American? Even though they're immigrants too) are paying them, but Vega$ is more likely. Or hell, maybe it's both of 'em, *and* the barroom video poker machines.

Whatever is behind it, the allegations that online gambling is tied to terrorism money laundering may be true, but defecating on all online gambling establishments as a result is ridiculous.

During the 90-minute debate, liberal icon Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) sounded almost libertarian. "Too many people who disapprove of gambling want to ban it," Frank said. "It's not generally been the policy of the U.S. government to tell people how to spend their money." (Wired)

Amen, brother. Thank god a democrat is saying it. That's the line I expected the republicans to take on this issue. Maybe they're trading brains up there these days.

The bill would ban credit card companies from issuing card numbers to be used on gambling websites. Credit card firms and banks would be liable if they have "actual knowledge" that they may be providing services to online casinos, a penalty that some members said went too far.

"The problem with actual knowledge is that a court can assume this," said Castle, the sponsor of the unsuccessful amendment. (Wired)

Well yes, that does go too far. This is not the way to punish these businesses. I'm a little unclear on "card numbers to be used on gambling websites", though. I thought that the only card numbers used on a gambling websites were those of the customers. Does this mean that if I tell a bank I'm going to use my credit card for online gambling, they won't give it to me? And if a court can make an assumption and rule on that assumption, well, that's a problem with our court system that we should be looking into right away. I thought that you had to prove someone guilty, not just assume they were. Well, I guess I haven't really believed that since childhood, but you know what I'm saying.

The only committee member who voted against the final bill was Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Texas.

Paul said the anti-gambling sections were about "whether the government should try and mold behavior. Over centuries governments have tried to do this.... Gambling is entertainment. We should not allow government to regulate entertainment." (Wired)

Damn right, Ron. You tell 'em. While we're at it, can I get a nudie bar in my town, please?

It's being debated on the floor now:

http://clerkweb.house.gov/floor/current.htm

http://www.house.gov/writerep/ is the address to go to if you want to send a quick email. Letters are best but the vote is today.

My girlfriend is a Legislative Correspondent for her congressman. Here's how it all works.

Most every representative and senator has at least one "Legislative Correspondent". This staffer is responsible for dealing with mail and responding to it.

IF YOU ARE NOT A CONSTITUENT, DON'T EXPECT A RESPONSE. They're not going to waste time/money on you; it's S.O.P. for all congressional offices.

If you are a constituent, your letter/email will be assigned to an issues category and have basic information from it entered into a database (which keeps track of who you are, where you live, what other letters you've sent, basic stuff like that). If a letter exists which addresses your issue, it'll get printed out and sent back to you. If not, either the legislative correspondent will write a letter on it -- which can require a good deal of research -- or, especially if it's an important, popular issue, will have a "Legislative Assistant" write the letter, typically someone who knows more about the particular issue. The new response letter typically will be read by the "Legislative Director", the chief of staff, or even your congressperson.

Once the letter is revised and approved, it will be mailed to you. Some offices reply via email -- if you emailed them; other offices always issue snail mail. Always, always, always include your mailing address in your letter.

In my g/f's office, email has the same status as written letters. I don't know if this is a universal practice. I do know that their email system and database software is universal. It's best to submit your email via your congressperson's web site (http://www.senate.gov/, http://www.house.gov/), because it's easier to get info from it into their database.

Once your letter/email has been responded to, they will file a paper copy of it and that will be that. Whether it has an effect is entirely dependent upon your congressperson's politics, campaign financing interests, and staffers, and upon the political wind, and upon how reasonable and articulate your correspondence is. If you sound crazed at all -- and remember that congressional staffers majored in poly sci, not CS; their passions are not your's -- they'll think you're loony.

An important fact to keep in mind is that some congressional offices have months' worth of backlog. It will take TIME to get a response, especially as there's a lot of mail pouring into the Capitol these days. My g/f's office strives for two weeks turnaround, max, and that's a very good number.

---

Congressional correspondence is important, obviously, but you may be able to be more persuasive by talking with the right legislative assistant. Call up the office, explain to whoever answers the phone that you'd like to talk to the appropriate legislative assistant about your issue, and if the right LA isn't there, leave your phone number. If you take this tact, however, it's very important to know about the issue and to be prepared to talk about it in a reasonable and personable manner. Think soft sell. Be prepared to concede some points. Be prepared to prioritize sub-issues, what's non-negotiable for your vote, why you feel that way, and also what you could live with. Be prepared to demonstrate the ramifications of possible legislation, how it affects you, and how it affects others (especially other constituents). If you're a business leader, or work for a notable employer, or are an influential and/or notable and respected citizen, your voice will carry some impact. If you can be a source of reliable information and input for your congressperson, his/her staffers will be grateful.

Got it?

Good.

-- Jon

The exploitation of the WTC attacks and the aftermath for gain both political and monetary is frankly pretty disgusting. The networks have done it since minute 1, The T-Shirts and baseball caps in stores since day 2 or 3, the covers of magazines, newspapers, the endless story after story of the hardship and painthis all caused.

It truly is terrible. I understand things need to be reported, people need to be made aware, yes its nice to sell things and donate the money to the cause of helping and cleaning up etc. But what of the things that are for profit?

Conspiracy alert?

While I don't think our Government staged the WTC attacks, I do think the biggest 'corporation' that has exploited the situation for both monetary/political gain has been the current administration. It is shameless truthfully: they have introduced radical legislation(covered here), got the wheels of war rolling (the whole gang in charge right now is a who's who of the military industrial complex), and the possibility of the oil connection in the region:

UNOCAL testimony on needing gov support in Afghan region to stabalise for energy plans

Energy Information Administration prospectus on Regions Energy

as well as the total destruction of critical analysis of the job the administration is doing (How can you condemn the pres in this hard time?) by the press , the supposed complete reversal of approval ratings Worldwide, despite the questionable actions, the complete "fsck you" attitude towards allies and UN, has led me to believe that they have taken this ball and run with it.

Off the soapbox and back to the topic. When a company like Sun or Oracle or anyone of that magnitude chimes in ready and willing to go forth with some plan that makes them look good and allows them to profit off of these insane times we are living in makes me really not think to much of the company, nor do I want to have anything to do with them.

There are some good links to finding names, addresses and phone numbers for your reps/senators in D.C.
THIS LINK has Senate information.
THIS ONE leads to House of Representatives information.
AND THIS ONE at Project VoteSmart is about the only central repository for FAX numbers.
We need a database of all this information in some easy-to-use format like MySQL or Access (shudder) so that popping off letters and faxes is as easy to do as possible. Email is easy. Snail mail is most effective. If we can't get rid of paper entirely - and this would appear to be the case for effective communication with congresscritters - we need to make it as painless as possible. I have found that the biggest pain in snail mail is NOT the cost of the stamp or the tedious activity of putting folded paper in envelopes. Instead, it's collecting all the relevant addresses and/or FAX numbers in one place. I can't believe no one has done this yet. I've made a small database for maybe a dozen people in Washington, but to do it for every elected rep. and senator would take more than a week. If we could agree on a common format (or formats) then one person per state could get it done in no time at all.

Special interest groups and political action committees have these tools. It's basically targeted spam, but it gets the best results.

Slow it down there, release the shift key, good. Phone calls, faxes, and even email are treated equally in most offices. Try write your rep for more info.

Representatives aren't tapped into the wired quite yet (Hello ... Navi)

The write your rep program has been going on for quite some time and I've gotten snail mail replies to my letters. A rep that doesn't accept email will usually not even post an email address or ask to be contacted a different way.

If there's one thing we've learned this past month, it's that we must stick together. As computer users, we must stand together on this issue. This includes writing your state representatives in the U.S. Congress and Senate, since they will ultimately be deciding the fate of this bill.

Write Your Representative
Write Your Senator

Keep our rights alive!

It they were hiring at the NSA or FBI it would be far more attractive. They could use some new blood from what they *say*. Joining a semi-approved vigilante organization is different. The alphabet agencies are somewhat well known for using and discarding people with plausible deniability, like Noreiga for example.

It's all whether they are really looking for people to protect the Internet, or to help them with the Big Brother program. Some of the provisions of the ATA are nonsensical -- they help the terrorists more than us. They are all very nifty domestic surveillance measures however. So I'm not following any leaders until this measure is finalized. If you want to protect the Internet what could be better, for now, than protecting your own systems?

The ATA makes it life in prison without chance for parole for defacing a web site. While I agree that action is illegal, I am not in favor of paying taxes to support the script-kiddies for life.

If you'd like to help them decide here's a petitition getting broad bipartisan support.

In Defense Of Freedom

Two points:

1) Bush's point was that keeping federal taxes at record levels, higher than during World War 2, was risking recession. Which was (and still is) true. The Democrats amplified it in the news by relentlessly pounding Bush over it, which was hypocritical as hell because:

2) Remember the '92 Clinton/Gore campaign mantra about the "WORST ECONOMY IN 50 YEARS!"? Which besides being irresponsible was also a blatent lie, given the mess of the Carter Administration twelve years before.

Other than that, yup, psychology is a bitch, and I hope we don't get stuck in that negative feedback loop. It'd be nice if Bush used his current popularity to push thru both corporate welfare cuts and tax cuts, maybe even radical tax simplification (Flat Tax), but it's not likely to happen.

1. Come up with what to tell our representatives. Most of us are computer geeks and not politicians or speech writers, so sometimes it's difficult for us to present a more compelling argument than "Don't do this, 'cause it sucks".
2. Make it easyy to forward that information to our representatives by making acces to our representatives information easier.

Here is some info on Congress...

Locate Your Representative (House)

Search by House Committee

Search by Senate Committe

Search Senators by State

Hope this helps!

Here is some info on Congress...

Locate Your Representative (House)

Search by House Committee

Search by Senate Committe

Search Senators by State

Hope this helps!

Disclaimer: I just answer these letters, I don't actually make policy...

We don't care if letters are posted, faxed, emailed or if people ring in. In either case we'll read 'em, log 'em and you'll get a letter back (love the franking privilege). You don't have to manually type it, though we prefer people who make an effort to write their own letters rather than paying a company to fax us on any issue the company feels is important (that's just evil).

If you don't want to write by hand, there's a web form at www.house.gov/writerep/ to work out zip->representative and send an email. If your rep doesn't like email, WriteRep will tell you.

Be careful with cash, as well - it's not legal to receive campaign contributions on federal property so sending $50 to Washington offices is a bit icky.

Basically, as a constituent you'll get decent treatment, and there's probably nothing you can put in your letter to make it get in front of your representatives themselves. If the staffer thinks it's an important enough issue (or if the volume is high enough) then action will be taken.

HTH,
Tom

You do realize that you can find this information on, of all places, the web, don't you? Here's where to start:

http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cf m

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

From there you can go to their individual web sites and find contact information for their various offices (if no mailing address is listed, then you'll have to send an e-mail instead and mention the lack of a mailing address). Is that accessible enough for you?

Here's where you can write your representative (House): http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Here's some tips on contacting your congresspeople: (both house and senate) http://nch.ari.net/advocate.html
From congress.gov's faq : http://thomas.loc.gov/tfaqs/02.htm (How can I communicate with a Member of Congress )

I would suggest sending more than just an email. One member of congress already said he would only respond to snail mail because of all the ?spam? he was recieving (can't find the particulars of that one though...)

I'm sure that a few other people can find plenty of coherent well thought out reasons why this won't work and is generally a bad a thing...

You seem to be forgetting who owns the mainstream media (among other things).

1. Write (with real paper, not email!) a firm but polite letter to your Congressional representatives in the House and in the Senate.
   
2. Help support Clean Elections.
   

NOTE: It's not that people who write DeCSS and e-book decoders have a less valid argument, simply that in our governments eyes, university researchers have a bit more credibility

In a nutshell, it was very clear that she (and everyone else in Coble's office) considers academics, as well as anyone who is even vaguely liberal, to be part of the very same "lunatic fringe" defined mostly by script kiddiez and hackers who steal people's credit card numbers from e-commerce sites. She actually referred to the academic community in the same sentence, and with the same snide tone, as those other people.

So while there may be a handful of elected representatives who are technically literate enough to grasp these issues (Rep. Boucher is one that comes to mind), the vast majority are either ignorant or, worse, deliberately disingenuous about their views (certainly Rep. Coble's staff falls into the latter category).

-fred

P.S. Lest you think you are detecting some sort of political agenda in this post, I am moderately conservative politically, and have never voted for anyone strictly based on party affiliation. I am, however, a resident of North Carolina, which is Congressman Coble's home state.

NOTE: It's not that people who write DeCSS and e-book decoders have a less valid argument, simply that in our governments eyes, university researchers have a bit more credibility

In a nutshell, it was very clear that she (and everyone else in Coble's office) considers academics, as well as anyone who is even vaguely liberal, to be part of the very same "lunatic fringe" defined mostly by script kiddiez and hackers who steal people's credit card numbers from e-commerce sites. She actually referred to the academic community in the same sentence, and with the same snide tone, as those other people.

So while there may be a handful of elected representatives who are technically literate enough to grasp these issues (Rep. Boucher is one that comes to mind), the vast majority are either ignorant or, worse, deliberately disingenuous about their views (certainly Rep. Coble's staff falls into the latter category).

-fred

P.S. Lest you think you are detecting some sort of political agenda in this post, I am moderately conservative politically, and have never voted for anyone strictly based on party affiliation. I am, however, a resident of North Carolina, which is Congressman Coble's home state.

I posted this earlier and it got modded down as off topic, but maybe I didn't say enough about why I thought this link was relevant.

My point in posting this link was to help people write their representatives to express their concern about the DCMA. We can whine all we want to in forums such as slashdot, but all we're really doing is preaching to the choir. If you want to change things, you have to contact your elected representatives. The U.S. is a participatory democracy, and those who actually take the time to participate have disproportionate power.

If you are a U.S. citizen, write your congressional representative a short note politely asking them to read the Science article mentioned in the original post. Tell them why you think this is an important issue. Make your voice heard.

To find out who your Congressional representative is and how to contact them, visit:
http://www.house.gov/writerep

If you are a U.S. citizen, write your congressional representitive a short note politely asking them to read this article.

To find out who your congresssional representitive is and how to contact them, visit:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

• Find your Representative here.
  
• Find your senators here.
  

Folks, a reminder -- arguing about this here isn't going to accomplish much. The people making the decisions aren't reading Slashdot.

If you have an opinion, then now is the time to express it where it matters. Send a calm, reasoned note off to your Congressperson, expressing your concerns. Postal mail generally gets more attention than email, but the sheer bulk of email can matter as well. As a reminder, you can find (and write to) your Representative via this page:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

and find your Senators' email addresses from this one:

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index_by_state.cf m

Personally, I recommend urging calm and balance at this point. If you come off as an extremist, odds are you won't be listened to. Most Congresspeople right now are feeling an enormous pressure to Do Something Now. Make clear to them that, while the people may well want action taken against the terrorist threat, we're also paying attention to what those actions are. The appropriate steps need to be carefully designed to have the maximum effect upon actual threats, while minimizing the effect on civil liberties. Legislators are used to compromise; if you make it clear that their constituency cares about both sides of the issue, it may get through to them that extremism here is a bad idea.

(I'm quite certain that at least one or two truly stupid laws are going to come out of this mess. But injecting a note of calm may help to keep the number and severity down...)

Having the local community install the fiber and provide access to it maybe the only answer for a lot of people. It is extremely hard to get people to invest money in small areas where there is a small population center. This problem should be viewed as an infrastructure problem. You can't attract industries without the proper infrastructure in place. More and more this means that not having broadband access will probably hurt your chances of attracting buisnesses esp high tech.

Just like the local community usually provides water, sewer, garbage, police, etc services, if they can't get industry to do then they'll have to provide broadband. Unfortunately, the state of Virginia passed a law making it illegal for city or county gov'ts to provide telecommunication services. The city of Bristol, Va, took this to court and won. They are planning on rolling out a fiber network that would serve the city.

Another community nearby, Abingdon, Va, has had fiber down their main street for a few years.The city provides the fiber and a connection while a local ISP NetAccess provides the bandwidth and manages the billing. (Congressman Boucher lives here by the way.)

The petition is rather vague. Letter-writing allows you to be more specific in their views. You can mention the cryptography and wiretapping proposals specifically, along with your views on what the U.S. response should be.

senate.gov and house.gov have all the information you need. Writing to legislators who do not represent your area of the country is not very effective. Legislators tend to listen much more closely if you can kick them out of office.

Don't just complain about infringements upon your civil liberties. Send a brief, polite letter with a VERY CLEAR MESSAGE to your elected representatives. The U. S. House of Representatives maintains a "write your rep" service at http://www.house.gov/writerep/. Compose your letter and send it off. Your voice counts more than you think; those who speak up are generally considered to represent the thoughts of as many as 50 people who think the same but don't necessarily speak up.

This is not flaimbait -- I was just wondering what party she was affiliated with as I read through the article, and I thought others might want to know as well.

I can't think of any particular reason why the DMCA would have more support from any particular party, and since it was a verbal vote, I don't suppose we can find out. Hollywood may traditionally pay big bucks to Democrats, but Republicans are usually the ones associated with big businesses. Seems like the whole system is shot. Anyone care to venture a guess on whether any one group is favorable for tech issues, or if it's really just an individual issue?

You can find contact information for your senators here, and your representatives here.

Shaun

Sigh. As soon as the shock wore off, I began to think: How long before Feinstein, Hatch and the other power-lusters in Congress would start dancing on the graves of Tuesday's victims in order to further their own poliical agendas?

Now I have an answer. Less than 72 hours.

Write your Representative and your Senator. Compose a well-reasoned letter and urge them to NOT trample on the freedoms of the People of America. This bill is simply a facade of terrorism detection plastered over a first step in the abolishment of the 4th Amendment. It will affect only the law-abiding citizens of this country instead of the ones it is being promoted to target. Funny how Hatch and Feinstein have a history of that, isn't it?

I live in Indianapolis, and I will spend a goodly amount of time this weekend composing a letter to Senator Richard Lugar. The Representative for my District is Julia Carson. I will also write to her as well, but she has spoken out against the Bill of Rights during her campaigning, so I am afraid I will be speaking to an enemy of the American people.

ANY law that is a blow against the freedoms of the people is a success for those who would destroy freedom, including terrorists.

I agree, you guys kick ass.

On the other hand, there is a congressman trying to use this moment for political gain by criticizing Bush and Guliani at every moment, so let him know that he's not doing the right thing: martin.meehan@mail.house.gov

I am taking a pre-emptive strike against that, and I invite you all to join in. The fun part is, it's all completely non-violent and legal. All you kill are trees.

I am writing my congressman and senators. I ask other Slashdotters to do the same. You can find them and their mailing addresses at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.

You will want to snailmail them on this one. Snailmail seems to have more impact on legislators than email.

Come up with your own wording, or use my words below as a template (or even literally--I don't mind).

This day has seen a tremendous tragedy. We must remember, however, to be deliberate in how we react to this horror.

There has been a lot of political pressure lately to get on a "tough on crime" bandwagon. This bandwagon believes that we must give up certain constitutional freedoms in order to better protect ourselves. Thus we have attempts to limit ownership of weapons, attempts to legislate the internet, attempts to criminalize the civilian use of cryptographic privacy, and so forth. There is a knee-jerk reaction, whenever the United States is attacked, to trade basic American freedoms for supposed security.

I am writing to plead with you to fight this bandwagon. Yes, we must be tough on crime. Yes, we absolutely must discover who did this to us and take whatever steps are necessary to neutralize the threat. But to attempt to do so by removing our freedoms is doomed to failure and destructive to America as a whole. To do that would be to cooperate with the terrorists who wish to destroy us.

Though you are likely thinking along the same lines, I must point out that this was a difficult, professional attack that took elite personnel--something entirely different from the regular street crime our police face every day. They successfully hijacked three or four aircraft in one day, without one failed attempt. They bypassed some of the toughest security civilians are subject to. The caliber of terrorist that must have done this will be unfettered by attempts to control gun ownership, internet usage, cryptography or dozens of other laws. The penalty of law is irrelevant when you are willing to die in your attack. If you can get a weapon past security (which I must assume these people did), getting your hands on one in the first place is easy, regardless of how many laws are in place.

If we, as a nation, react to this by instituting laws "for our own protection" that stomp all over the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, we will do no harm to those who attack us, but tremendous harm to our own law-abiding citizens.

Terrorism is a form of warfare that does not attack our military assets, but the spirit of the civilians. Though it looks otherwise, the war is not fought in New York, not fought at the Pentagon, not fought at Oklahoma City. It is fought in the halls of Congress. I ask you to stand tall and fight for the values that make America great against your colleagues who think it is safest to stay in our foxholes and turn the United States into a police state. This will not be popular, but it is needed.

I thank you for your time, your attention, and your courage.

Mark my words, my friends: today has been one small step for terrorism, but one giant leap for the police state.

For all of you folks who are thinking about funnelling money to the South Carolina Republican Party as revenge for Hollings' perfidy - stop. Notice the name of the other sponsor on the bill.

Ted Stevens is a big-gun Republican, not an outcast on the moderate fringe. If he's working with Hollings on this, it's not just some kooky imperial-state Democrat's idea. Merely elbowing Hollings out of his seat won't make this bill go away. Take a longer view.

As far as lobbying goes, here are a few more useful people to lobby than merely your local Senator. Write McCain. Even if you aren't an Arizonian - he's ranking Republican on Commerce. Is your Senator on Commerce? Find out and harangue them about it, too. Write Ron Wyden [D-Ore.] and George Allen [R-Va.], who are respectively the ranking Democrat and Republican on the Commerce subcomittee that handles these matters. And don't forget Rep. Billy Tauzin [R-La.] and Rep. John Dingell [D-Mich.], who are the chair and ranking member of the Commerce committee on the other side of the Capitol, in the House, and who have demonstrated considerable clues on matters technical in the past.

If this bill makes a floor vote, the battle is already pretty much over. Fix it so it dies a quiet, neglected death in committee.

For all of you folks who are thinking about funnelling money to the South Carolina Republican Party as revenge for Hollings' perfidy - stop. Notice the name of the other sponsor on the bill.

Ted Stevens is a big-gun Republican, not an outcast on the moderate fringe. If he's working with Hollings on this, it's not just some kooky imperial-state Democrat's idea. Merely elbowing Hollings out of his seat won't make this bill go away. Take a longer view.

As far as lobbying goes, here are a few more useful people to lobby than merely your local Senator. Write McCain. Even if you aren't an Arizonian - he's ranking Republican on Commerce. Is your Senator on Commerce? Find out and harangue them about it, too. Write Ron Wyden [D-Ore.] and George Allen [R-Va.], who are respectively the ranking Democrat and Republican on the Commerce subcomittee that handles these matters. And don't forget Rep. Billy Tauzin [R-La.] and Rep. John Dingell [D-Mich.], who are the chair and ranking member of the Commerce committee on the other side of the Capitol, in the House, and who have demonstrated considerable clues on matters technical in the past.

If this bill makes a floor vote, the battle is already pretty much over. Fix it so it dies a quiet, neglected death in committee.

Lloyd Doggett [house.gov]

You might want to write your senators, too. Kay Bailey Hutchison [senate.gov] and Phil Gramm. [senate.gov] Both Republicans, but Gramm and Hollings have a history of getting cozy, and Gramm has already annouced his retirement.

The Internet is supposed to be...

• TO EMPOWER K-12 LEARNERS
  
• the promise of our future
  
• to save the American medical system
  
• a global, multipurpose, multimedia communications network
  
• to strengthen Hispanic families and communities
  
• to open the door for competition
  
• for English as a Second Language
  
• for freedom from sysadmin
  
• to transfer the power of the high-speed network effectively to society at large
  
• to compete successfully with Fortune 500 companies
  
• To center learning around the student instead of the classroom
  
• to regain the tails of the normal distribution
  
• to test the founding vision of the framers of the Constitution
  
• to propel the economy forward
  
• a truly democratic means of communication.
  
• to increase mail usage and expand paper consumption
  

Obviously the most important fact about this announcement is that we have a new (and hopefuly more competent) judge involved.

First the good news, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has worked as an attorney for the Department of Justice before and should therefore be sympathetic to the limited resources available to them compared to the big money behind Microsoft.

More good news, she's decided against the Big Banks before and in favour of the credit unions in one of her previous decisions.

She also appears to have seen through the foolishness of some patents in another one of her judgements, this time against the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb.

This sort of abridgment of freedom and individual liberties has become the hallmark of modern trade agreements. Corporations making big campaign contributions have taken control of the process, and have pushed the US Trade Representative to introduce all sorts of undemocratic and unethical provisions to trade agreements in secret negotiating sessions totally closed to public scrutiny or accountability. This is why there have been massive protests in Seattle, Quebec, and so many other places around the world.

The DMCA provisions are just one of the latest dirty little provisions added into these things. They also have provisions to gut environmental and safety standards, undermine workers rights, and prevent people from having a say over what goes into their food. US clean air laws and endangered species laws have already been overturned by international trade agreements, and now Mexico and the Bush administration are going after tractor trailer safety standards. If that doesn't seem crazy enough, consider this: the state of California is being sued under NAFTA for $900 million by a Canadian company for banning a cancer causing gasoline additive that was getting into their drinking water. Under NAFTA, as with most trade agreements, the case will be settled by a faceless dispute resolution body in a foreign country that has no accountability to the public, and conducts its operations in secret.

There is one big thing we can do right now. George W. Bush is trying to push legislation through Congress to give him the power to negotiate these agreements without any input or review from the Congress. Fast Track negotiating authority lets the president negotiate the FTAA and other trade agreements in secret, and then send it to Congress, which has 60 days to vote it up or down with no ammendmnets. 60 days is a very short period of time to sift through the details of thousands of pages of a trade agreement. The Congress has 100 legislative days (which translates into 4 or 5 months) to review executive orders that are generally much shorter and less complicated than trade agreements. Fast track is just plain wrong.

This is going to be a tight vote that will be won or lost in the House of Representatives, so any and all calls and letters to your Congressperson make a difference. You can look up who your congress person is at http://www.house.gov/writerep/

You can find more info on fast track at the followign sites:

• Sierra Club Responsible Trade Campaign
• Public Citizen Global Trade Watch
• AFLCIO Make the global economy work for families page

The government should have nothing to do with bailing out companies that invested too much in tech with the wrong ideas in mind.

That's nice, in theory. However, the government created this mess in the first place.

Consider the state of the RBOCs in the first place - a monopoly granted a hundred years ago had at least a bit of time to get entrenched. Breaking up AT&T only segmented the monopoly into smaller (but also less dormant) entities.

The Internet nearly came under the same monopolistic jurisdiction back in the early 90s (namely ANS and the "Baby Bell NAP" architecture - thanks to UUNET, PSI and Sprint for killing this animal). Again, government (then (D) Sen. Al Gore and the NSFNET folks) promoted the vision of a Bell-centric model.

Now we've got plenty of (D) Senators and Representatives, like the Swamp Thing from Bellsouth (evidently a foreign nation within national bounderies) and a few (R) types on the paid Bell lobby working hard to fix what Gore couldn't complete. Bell dominance of the Internet last mile is a key component.

Per a few other points:

What's the long distance market have to do with an ISP like Covad?

Well, for one, Covads and other "OSI 2+ last mile" entities can help slaughter the long distance toll model, at least domestically. Don't forget that the Bells are still hungry for the long distance market - mostly since their upper management is still about 10 years behind (hey, they used to be 40 years behind - that's progress!).

government...bailing out companies that invested too much in tech with the wrong ideas in mind

What bailing out? Much of the problem comes from exclusive local partnerships with the Bells and cable providers, limiting right-of-ways to a single entity in exchange for a lucritive franchise agreement (read "bribe to the government"). Bailing out DSL providers - how? Through chapter 11? By demanding a community resource be opened to competition (which calls that franchise agreement network what it should: public property).

Seriously, how would you feel if I entered into an agreement with your community to be the exclusive grocery store provider, in exchange for giving 3% of the profits to the city government? What a deal for me: no competition, high margins, and the government gets to beef up its budgets (building bigger political empires!). I'll even throw in a donation to your re-election campaign too, and there's no quid pro quo (wink!). What this regulation proposes is recognizing the grocery store for what it is: community granted property that belongs to the community. It's a lousy way to fix the problem created by an unethical prohibition of competition, but there probably isn't a pretty way to get out of this Bell mess.

bail out monsters like Chrysler or Continental

And how many hundreds of thousands of dot-com jobs have been lost, in many cases thanks to the unethical action of the Bells?

rework federal law simply because yet another dot-com servicer went belly-up

Yea, you probably wouldn't want to change the pollution laws either even though all the fish in the ocean were floating belly up. Really, the only laws that need "changing" are the ones protecting bloated monopolies from complying with the law mandating they open up their community-granted networks.

Unfortunately, as long as these Bell congresshacks keep getting re-elected, we can expect the government to keep rigging the system in the Bell's favor.

*scoove*

You can have my keyboard when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Cliches aside, I have been thinking for a while that geeks and the NRA now have a lot in common. The key to the issue is an interpretation of the constitution. Many of us believe that the DMCA is an abridgement of our first amendment rights. Let's do what the NRA does, let's lobby. Maybe we don't have the time or money to go to Washington, but we U.S. citizens can slashdot our senators and our representatives. My one e-mail may not make the difference, but if we all send a polite e-mail expressing our concerns, we can make a difference. Contact your senators and representative. Let them know. They are becomming aware that there is a growing population of the technologically savvy. If they hear from enough of us, they will listen.

But we all share some responsibility here. We've let national politics become dominated by sound-byte politicians, each with a political agenda that's a mindless list of hot button issues. Look at the web page of Dick Armey, the politico quoted in the CNN piece. His politics are hodpodge of simple-minded reactions. ("Beware of the red-light camera scam!") This is the House Majority Leader, one of the most powerful positions in DC!

Here's an interesting political experiment: call Mister Armey (phone number on his web site) and give him a piece of your mind. Or write your own congressperson.

But we all share some responsibility here. We've let national politics become dominated by sound-byte politicians, each with a political agenda that's a mindless list of hot button issues. Look at the web page of Dick Armey, the politico quoted in the CNN piece. His politics are hodpodge of simple-minded reactions. ("Beware of the red-light camera scam!") This is the House Majority Leader, one of the most powerful positions in DC!

Here's an interesting political experiment: call Mister Armey (phone number on his web site) and give him a piece of your mind. Or write your own congressperson.