Slashdot Mirror

What struck me was how his reaction was so reminiscent of Former Senator Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, when he felt betrayed after the defeat of SOPA and PIPA in spite of having paid millions in "bribes" to congressmen and senators. He said to them, "Those who count on 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Many feel this is an open admission of bribery.

The white house petition went up from 86/87 at the time of the posting to 161. It has reached the first milestone and is now publicly visible on the whitehouse website,
see WhiteHouse petitions. Only 10 days left to reach 25 000. Between grad students, retired researchers and patient groups that want access to medical research, it should have been easy had the petition been advertised. It's time taxpayers around the world unite to put an end to paywalls protecting taxpayer funded research. It's time the academic publishing multinationals stop seeing taxpayers as walking wallets. I hope the US shows the world the way by adopting FRPAA. Don't forget it's an election year.

Done. But /.ers are lazy:

Sign the petition(s) to the Congress
http://www.congressweb.com/cweb2/index.cfm/siteid/sparc

and to the white house
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/strengthen-public-access-publicly-funded-research-and-support-federal-research-public-access-act/jF4mxRc4

Here's the actual document. Appendix A contains the "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights". (There's a link in TFA, but for those who want to skip to the source, here you go.)

I wrote the White House asking them to take off Google Analytics. They didn't respond.

The more I read on cases like these, the more it's sounding every day.

Why not create a petition asking the Obama administration to submit new laws/regulations to STRENGTHEN consumer rights and the First Sale Doctrine? I bet we can get the requisite number of people to sign it - post the petition link to Slashdot, Reddit, and a few other strong tech sites and let the signatures fly.

If crap like this continues public libraries will have to be shut down because book publishers will insert "you only have a license to read this paper book, you don't own it" clauses into the copyright notice on the back of the title page.

And remember when a dumbshit bribed judge bought the MafiAA's "throwing a promotional CD into the trash is unauthorized distribution" bullshit?

I find it hilarious, because I remember George Dumbya Shrub talking about the "ownership society" while his party passed laws that were even worse than the DMCA, quietly gutting consumer rights behind our backs... what he meant is, you don't "own" anything you buy any more.

And why aren't the Slashdotters pushing FOSS more, rather than worrying about things they know they can't affect? https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/lower-national-debt-expanding-governments-use-free-software-such-gnulinux-and-libreoffice

I don't think they ever responded to the petition to take these petitions seriously, which as created back in October, and reached the number of signatures required in November. I guess someone needs to make a petition asking them to respond to that petition.

Although I guess the Terms of Participation says:

The White House may elect to respond to petitions at any time

Also, I find the html entity fail in the response title amusing (scroll down).

I don't think they ever responded to the petition to take these petitions seriously, which as created back in October, and reached the number of signatures required in November. I guess someone needs to make a petition asking them to respond to that petition.

Although I guess the Terms of Participation says:

The White House may elect to respond to petitions at any time

Also, I find the html entity fail in the response title amusing (scroll down).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: How is that any excuse to give up without a fight?

If someone comes to you every day and eats your lunch, do you just acquiesce because you know he'll come back tomorrow if you don't? No, you give him a good swift kick in the jewels and then try to have them prosecuted. Then you get together with all their other victims and start planning out a strategy to stop them from coming back again.

Assuming that the White House actually takes the petitions seriously, the current ACTA related petitions are:

• Submit ACTA to the Senate for a vote
• End ACTA

... and, not ACTA related, but as I'm an ALA member, there's also one that needs another 6k signatures by next week for funding for school libraries. (although, personally, I'd rather it go to regular public libraries, so they have access over the summer)

Assuming that the White House actually takes the petitions seriously, the current ACTA related petitions are:

• Submit ACTA to the Senate for a vote
• End ACTA

... and, not ACTA related, but as I'm an ALA member, there's also one that needs another 6k signatures by next week for funding for school libraries. (although, personally, I'd rather it go to regular public libraries, so they have access over the summer)

Assuming that the White House actually takes the petitions seriously, the current ACTA related petitions are:

• Submit ACTA to the Senate for a vote
• End ACTA

... and, not ACTA related, but as I'm an ALA member, there's also one that needs another 6k signatures by next week for funding for school libraries. (although, personally, I'd rather it go to regular public libraries, so they have access over the summer)

Assuming that the White House actually takes the petitions seriously, the current ACTA related petitions are:

• Submit ACTA to the Senate for a vote
• End ACTA

... and, not ACTA related, but as I'm an ALA member, there's also one that needs another 6k signatures by next week for funding for school libraries. (although, personally, I'd rather it go to regular public libraries, so they have access over the summer)

The Federal Government is bringing in the same money it did in 1998 and 1999 - even adjusting for inflation

Considering the number of tax breaks we've had over the past 10 years, this quote just set off my ignorance and/or lie detector.

Yep. Ignorance. See those sharp downward spikes there first in 2001ish and then again around 2008?

--Jeremy

Sorry, not ignorance on my part - apparently you mistook my statement of dollars adjusted for inflation for percent of GDP - which is what your reference shows. Now if you look at page 31 of the White House's budget summary, you'll see constant dollars used for revenues. About $2 trillion in 1998, and we're at about $1.92 trillion in 2010. About the same revenue - per the President's own budget report.

The only ignorance on display here is your own inability to comprehend basic English - or your zealotry to uphold some ideological ideal that is apparently wrong.

Well for starters, we're in a State of Emergency as a country. See, Bush declared said SoE after September 11th. The National Emergencies Act exists to prevent an indefinite state of emergency (to some degree), but that's basically what's been happening. It has to be renewed every year or two and Obama has signed it every time (here's 2009, just an example). Why? Because being in a State of Emergency also grants the Executive Branch around 500 additional powers that it wouldn't otherwise have.

So yeah, there' that.

And for US citizens, you can sign a petition to challenge ACTA after being signed into law as an executive agreement -- which doesn't require approval -- when it covers intellectual property, which requires ratification in Congress.

I think you're making an unsupported leap there in that "doesn't require approval". TechDirt suggests that that could be true, but doesn't say it's more than "a pretty strong argument".

It's also an incorrect argument. Contrary to what TechDirt thinks about ACTA, it's non-implementing. In that sense, it's exactly the same as TRIPs, which was also an "executive agreement... cover[ing] intellectual property," but was never ratified by Congress. Instead, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which implemented the agreement in TRIPs.

Same thing here... there's no requirement that ACTA be ratified by Congress, because ACTA doesn't actually set or modify any statutes. Instead, it places obligations on the country to write statutes granting certain minimum levels of protection. Congress will have to pass bills doing so, so it's not as if anything is implemented by ACTA without Congress' approval.

And that's going to be the White House's answer to any petition demanding ACTA be ratified by the Congress. There's no requirement, and Congress can weigh in when they write an implementing act.

And for US citizens, you can sign a petition to challenge ACTA after being signed into law as an executive agreement -- which doesn't require approval -- when it covers intellectual property, which requires ratification in Congress. Techdirt has more information.

If you want to go further, you can contact Senator Ron Wyden, who also questions the constitutionality of ACTA.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

We could use some bigger numbers if you SlashDotterers can learn how to register, or log-in, to WhiteHouse Dot Gov. You also have to click some things and provide a zip code I think. If I caught you in the middle of a revolution planning session I apologize. I understand that you are probably to busy.

Link Link Link
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-chris-dodd-and-mpaa-bribery-after-he-publicly-admited-bribing-politicans-pass/DffX0YQv
Hey; we might get a newspaper story or two out of this. It is somewhat embarrassing.

Speaking of you can post your own petition. Here goes! https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/congressional-reform-act-2011-congress-must-equally-abide-all-laws-they-impose-american-people/s3DTkzrl sopa had senators back of because enough people took notice. If more then just 25K sign it shows we are looking and paying attention.

Keep on signing that puppy. I think they need to realize that there's a few more than "just" 25K people interested.

Here's another poll that folks might like to John Henry.

You do mean John Hancock, right? Unless you're talking about driving a railroad spike through it...

Keep on signing that puppy. I think they need to realize that there's a few more than "just" 25K people interested.

Here's another poll that folks might like to John Henry.

The response to SOPA/PIPA petition on We The People was fairly detailed discussion of those policies. It helpfully advanced the discussion by establishing a formal White House position on the bills. It was fairly negative, which signaled that a veto was possible if concerns were not addressed. They also made a lot of noise about how terrible piracy is, just in case you weren't clear on their overall loyalties.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy

Don't forget the response to the anti-SOPA petitions which, whilst not taking a strong pro or anti-SOPA position per se did nonetheless state the White House's opposition to several of the key provisions and was doubtless a factor in the decision to eventually withdraw SOPA and PIPA.

Think of the petition system a bit like the manager of a sports team being interviewed after losing a big game; it's very rare that they'll openly criticize the players because that would stir up unwanted animosity in the dressing room, but they can still make general statements that make it clear how disappointed they are with the performance.

Of course, it's equally possible that they could just ignore it

Really, there are a lot of petitions on there I would think everyone on Slashdot would support. Consider these:

Restore democracy by ending corporate personhood

Reduce the term of copyrights to a maximum of 56 years

End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet

You can register and sign all of them in about two minutes. There's absolutely no excuse not to, except apathy. Signing a petition may not change anything, but not signing it is guaranteed not to.

Really, there are a lot of petitions on there I would think everyone on Slashdot would support. Consider these:

Restore democracy by ending corporate personhood

Reduce the term of copyrights to a maximum of 56 years

End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet

You can register and sign all of them in about two minutes. There's absolutely no excuse not to, except apathy. Signing a petition may not change anything, but not signing it is guaranteed not to.

Really, there are a lot of petitions on there I would think everyone on Slashdot would support. Consider these:

Restore democracy by ending corporate personhood

Reduce the term of copyrights to a maximum of 56 years

End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet

You can register and sign all of them in about two minutes. There's absolutely no excuse not to, except apathy. Signing a petition may not change anything, but not signing it is guaranteed not to.

As I post this comment, every comment posted in this thread before mine was an apathetic "signing the petition will do nothing". It would have taken just a few seconds longer to sign the petition, even if also creating an account to do so.

Signing the petition might indeed do nothing. But posting a comment here saying so is absolutely guaranteed to do nothing. The corrupt politicos like Dodd absolutely count on people insisting on doing nothing. Just as bribery is the oxygen for their corruption, cynical apathy is the 78% nitrogen that makes the air they breathe.

Sign the petition, and at least have done something to strangle these parasites. Even if that's just being a small part of forcing the president to defend or deny them. It's better than nothing - certainly better than a loudly committed nothing.

Well... we can petition to have Chris Dodd and the MPAA investigated for bribery. That might be a good next step.

There is at least one other major presidential candidate who is against SOPA: Barack Obama.

It is rather pointless. The petition to have "under God" removed from the pledge is a good example of how seriously they take these things.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/edit-pledge-allegiance-remove-phrase-under-god/v5J2fC6z?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=undergod

In this petition, it's asked that the phrase "under God" be removed, as it's arguably a violation of the first amendment. The first issue was the person chosen to respond to this request: Joshua DuBois, the head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Slight bias here, given that DuBois heads-up a department that was itself a flagrant violation of separation of church and state. His answer was an exercise in contradictory hand waving and trying to deny that it's stupid to that a multi-cultural nation, with a pretty strong constitutional protection against religion infecting government, should keep a 1950s addition to the pledge that says that the country is subservient to the Christian god. Yeah, Hindus and stuff are welcome in America, so long as they accept that their elephant guy and the chick with the arms are not running shit here. Personally I don't see the pledge as being a pressing issue - there are far more egregious violations of the first amendment, such as the tax breaks that churches get just by virtue of being religious.

Cute: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN

They could have ignored the issue entirely if they were planning to let it pass.

No, there is a new government transparency mechanism at the White House https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petitions where you can vote on stuff, or create petitions to vote on, and the ones that get a lot of votes get official policy responses. It is not a mechanism for changes, but it is a mechanism to discover official positions on a wide variety of issues, including ones that would not otherwise get responses.

Sign up, vote on some stuff, and then when the response is published you'll get an email.

The ones that disagree with stuff that already has an official positions are useless, of course.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog

and I am going to provide a retort every time I see your lying propaganda shill, plant and stooge posts appear on /. about this topic.

ACLU

UPDATE I: Don't be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

--

ACLU: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority."

Huffington Post: History Will Judge Obama On NDAA

Obama's WORTHLESS signing statement

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable.

--

Forbes: President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?

There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.

If anyone is interested this is the White House's response to the We The people petitions "Veto the SOPA bill" and "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" on the subject.

If anyone is interested this is the White House's response to the We The people petitions "Veto the SOPA bill" and "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" on the subject.

If anyone is interested this is the White House's response to the We The people petitions "Veto the SOPA bill" and "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" on the subject.

The Obama Administration has responded to the petitions for stopping SOPA, PIPA and E-PARASITE. The good news: They oppose DNS intervention and action against anyone covered by US law. The bad news: They did not address deep-packet inspection or payment processors. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#/!/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet

The issue here is that WHO these are operated by appears to be a government secret. The Government should not have a secret about which government agencies are operating in the US.

Most effective drone technology is still in government hands. (Yes there are some private drones available for anyone with the money to spare, but these are expensive and unlikely to be deployed on anything that is secret, and would more likely be used for forest management, crop evaluation, mapping, etc.)

That leaves two principal areas of sponsorship. Law Enforcement (DEA, ICE, etc), or Military. Military training over military training areas seems perfectly permitted. Military assistance watching the boarders or off shore seems well within the military mandate.

But military operating inland, over cities to spy on citizens is on pretty shaky grounds, and when doing so is a government secret the ground are not only shake they are slippery. You get tangled up with the Possee Comitatus act when you start using Air Force drones for non-defense purposes or to aid Law enforcement without a formal orders to do so, that must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.

So if the drones are flown by CIA, or Air Force there is a problem.

If the government comes out and says they are flown by DEA, fine.

But refusing to say seems pretty short sighted for an administration that promised open government.

You only have to listen to Senator Levin and Barack Obama's own statements to understand that 1032 does NOT exempt US Citizens. So please do your research as I can tell that YANAL.

Read the Signing Statement. Here he affirms he has the power but promises not to use it.

Watch the movie. Again, he's talking about 1031 which is the detention subsection and NOT 1032 which is the requirement for the military custody.

they fought for the rights of gays and women

This is also a theatrical wedge issue. The only slight difference is that public opinion fell heavily on the "change the military policy" side, so one tiny corner of gay policy got changed. Until gays have they same rights as non-gay citizens, they are still not showing true support. How many of them are fully invested in truly equal rights for gays? How's Obama's position on gay marriage? They don't even get the half-a-loaf that is civil partnerships. Has there been a single substantive change in non-military policy regarding gay rights?

Yes:
- Presidential Memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Source
- Presidential Memorandum protecting gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights. Source
- Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. Source

There's your substantive change.

Your point about shooting for a weak goal rather than an impossible goal is also valid, but I think there are some problems with your premises.

Maintaining separation of church and state? Obama not doing so great -- rather than end the Bush system of funneling public money to myth mongers, Obama perpetuates it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships

Environmental protection? Obama has kinda sucked, even granting BP special dispensation from various environmental regs just prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Things like not requiring disaster plans and such. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/gulf-m06.shtml

As for fracking -- has Obama actually done anything to prevent it? No -- instead, he's set up a panel of industry shills which has been roundly criticized by scientists but concluded fracking is safe. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/fracking/Scientists_CHU_Letter_SIGNED.pdf

That leaves public education, social service programs, and trickle-down. It's lunch time though and I'm hungry so I'm going to quit googling.

My point is that by voting for Obama, based on the premise that he will do some small good things may not be warranted. Obama is good at saying stuff and making promises, but when it gets down to policies, he's just another republican. Seems to me the better choice, if you are a liberal, is to not vote for a GOP candidate like Obama because you aren't likely to get even the small gains you want and all the while, the neocon agenda will just be further cemented into the new normal.

Of course they're all from the same site -- it's my site. If you bothered to look, you'd find all the citations you seek. It's a hassle to have to keep repeating them, so I aggregated them.

Par.2: Obama ran in 08 as a candidate who would be different from the Mitts and Newts. He turned out to be their brother in policy however. It's very faint praise to say he's no worse than the GOP, which should be a hint at how much he sucks.

What exactly has Obama done to avoid the christian nation thing? Nothing. In fact, look at what happened with Plan B, where Obama allowed his appointee with a MA in Public Administration to overrule the FDA and whole panel of scientists. This stems from the same case BTW, wherein a federal judge excoriated the Bush administration for using politics instead of science to base its decisions. Indeed, Obama seems just as intent on perpetuating and financing myth as anyone: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships

Nobody pretends to be ticked off: Marty Lederman ripped the Bush administration hard for using secret legal memos to support due process free detention. Now that he is part of the White House legal team, Marty Lederman is WRITING secret legal memos to support due process free execution. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/singleton/

If the Democrats really cared about civil liberties, little ones like the right to not be killed without trial or incarcerated without trial, they would be calling for Obama's blood. Because they are not, I can only conclude that their support of civil rights is a campaign issue when engaging the GOP and nothing else at all.

As for your last paragraph, there are not two parties. There is one party, with two faces, to trick people like you into voting for its candidates. That way, nothing changes.

Vote for a third party candidate of your choice. Winning isn't the only thing that voting is for. If enough people voice dissatisfaction, it will inject new issues into the mainstream consciousness, which may in itself be enough to cause change even without an electoral victory. But voting for Anthrax because you hate Ebola, or vice-versa, does nothing. Absolutely nothing at all and is the dumbest choice you can make. Choose to resist, not suck it up.

I'm pretty sure it's just a small gaff on Obama's part. If you look at the transcript from the speech, he says "Now, if you’re a family making about $50,000 a year, this is a tax cut that amounts to about $1,000 a year. That’s about 40 bucks out of every paycheck." This works out fine, with the unsaid assumption that he's refering to be being paid biweekly (or semi-monthly). However, shortly thereafter he did say "...we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week.", which is incorrect but probably just a small slip-up.

Source.

Source: The Whitehouse

The President said: "[On] Tuesday, we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week. And I have to tell you that the response has been overwhelming. We haven't seen anything like this before. Over 30,000 people have written in so far"

Thats a direct quote from the President of The United States, as cited by his website.

Thats $40 per week, another 'liberal' who can't realize when they are being bullshitted.

Isn't the White House saying $40 / paycheck or did I miss something? For those of us who have real jobs, we get paid once every 2 weeks. Hence, $40 / paycheck is just over $1000 / year.

Quote from Obama

"[On] Tuesday, we asked folks to tell us what would it be like to lose $40 out of your paycheck every week. "
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/22/president-obama-discusses-what-40-means-americans-families

A more important deception is that it is a reduction in the amount taxpayers pay into Social Security--NOT the general budget. This is more akin to reducing the amount of 401k withholdings than a tax break because you will have to make it up later one way or another--either through reduced SS benefits or increased SS taxes to make up for the deficit.

According to the White house.

Bush policies created about $7 trillion in additional debt, while Obama's policies have create $1.4 trillion. Almost half of the debt that Bush created comes from the lost tax revenues thanks to his tax cut. If you work it out, Bush added almost $900 billion dollars of debt for every year he was in office. Obama's contribution is less than half of that, and most of Obama's debt is one time costs (over half of it is the stimulus package) rather than yearly costs like Bush's tax cuts, expanded drug benefits and wars.

Unless there's something seriously wrong with that graphic, Bush makes Obama look like a fiscally responsible conservative.

If you care about this issue and are a US citizen, then I strongly urge you to sign the a petition relating to the matter or start and promote a new one. The existing petition only has 2 days left. You can find it at:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/amend-constitution-making-internet-unalienable-right/YJ3fXQcm

It might not fix the problem by itself, but it does get us a response and also gives the White House an idea of how many people are opposed to it.

As an aside, signing petitions at whitehouse.gov takes much less than voting and (given the 25,000 signature threshold) may actually have more of an impact than voting. I strongly urge you to do so.