Slashdot Mirror
Politics Follows Code
C. Scott Ananian has written a beautiful article for Salon: "Every day, in our increasingly networked world, our freedoms and privacy are being stolen from us. And most of us just let it happen -- most of us tend to accept our computer's workings as immutable, that we are chained to an irrational, vindictive, uncontrollable machine destined to rule over our 9-to-5 days."
--
To quote Bernard Shaw
"A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Think of the number of enormous changes the have been promulgated by one man, from Isaac Newton, to Karl Marx, to Linus Torvalds.
"Every day, in our increasingly networked world, our freedoms and privacy are being stolen from us. And most of us just let happen"
Wait a minute, please!
Stolen?!
The act of _stealing_ something involves a party takes something from another party without the knowledge of that other party. But in the Net, most of the time, we the Netizens KNEW what is going on, but we CAN NOT DO A THING TO STOP IT.
How many times you access a webpage with a cookie attached, and if you do not accept the cookie, you don't get to access that webpage?
How many times do we have the option of refusing the cookies without having ourselves penalized?
That is to say, in the "cookie" example, the act itself is no longer an act of _stealing_, rather, it's an act of ROBBING.
The sentence thus should read :
"Every day, in our increasingly networked world, our freedoms and privacy are being _ROBBED_ from us."
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
One of the issues raised by the DeCSS case is "is code a form of expression?". Come here for my initial effort to turn any piece of C-code into a recipe book (well, kinda sorta. Different streams of consciousness flowed while I was writing it.):
http://www.mit.edu/~ocschwar/recipe.pl
I'll edit this in my "copious free time", and hopefully you can settle for this announcement when it comes to license issues: It's GPL'd.
If any of you feel like giving me the regexps I need for this, please email me.
Small businesses certainly represent the vast majority of the world's economic activity, but that is not the same thing as power.
A large corporation is effectively run by a fairly small number of people, and has mechanisms in place to coordinate its activities. It can therefore make its economic weight felt much more easily than any federation of small businesses trying to act together can do.
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. There are quite a few examples of citizen organizations that have risen up to protest injustices inflicted by large powerful bodies (in this case corporations). Consider the following:
Indeed, it would be wise to learn the lessons from successful protest campaigns. One important lesson is the need to convince as many people as possible that the issue matters to them, so that they will get involved.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Marginally OT, but it came to mind:
/. , but that's not what the US population considers - it's a foreign (no pun int) topic to them). Austria just got sanctioned by the EU, because a right-wing government is now in charge there. We all remember the last time that a strong right-wing controlled Germanic people, don't we? Europeans are VERY sensitive to these matters. The populace of the US (again, /. being more globally aware) doesn't really think in these terms - case in point, who runs the Kansas B.O.E.?
Yes, the advancement of technology has eroded our privacy. Credit card transactions are all in some database, susceptable to cracking - and what's worse (maybe), susceptable to corporate data mining. Use cash if it really bothers you. Don't want to use the ATM, see a teller. The cost of your convenience is a little privacy. Is that bad?
Is data mining evil, if with it a business provides a better product?
Those pesky little Stop&Shop discount cards keep track of what you buy. Does Stop&Shop really care that you're buying condoms and pregnancy kits and KY Jelly, and your last name is the same as that of the local minister? Hell no! Will they print in their flier that the town Rabbi buys pork? Nah!
What Stop&Shop cares about is their mass market. They want to know if an area is predominantly consuming pork or beef, so they can stock accordingly, and not have food rotting in a warehouse. They care about the brands that are selling, so they can smartly bid against their competitors for the things that sell, and not buy too much of what doesn't.
Could any individual or small group out there compromise this data? Sure. Could they exploit it to nefarious and pointed goals? I doubt it. All you could really do is convince the S&S reordering system that everyone (EVERYONE) wants more Sam Adams Wheat - thank you by the way.
So that's what privacy buys you.
If all of the minutae of our daily lives was publically available, would that be bad? Well, I don't particularly want people to know when and for how long I pick my nose - but does anyone really care?
Privacy is not Liberty, and neither is Freedom. Freedom is not about being able to do anything you want behind closed doors, and get away with it. The whole issue of morality and ethical behaviour lies this way, and I don't want to wrestle with it this morning.
IMHO, in the US this (privacy) is a big deal because of the strong Puritanical core of the society. Remember, sex is a dirty word, and if the word 'masturbation' appears in a song lyric at a political function - it makes the news. You (hypothetically) don't want your neighbors to know that you like it standing up and against a wall, do you?
That's what this is about to the pop-culture. The same culture, I might add, that salivates over the subject matter of the current Jerry Springer - justifying their own kinks as lesser, and therefore acceptible.
It's been a while wince I've been in the European mindset, but I suspect that there the issue is entirely different. It's not about your personal freedoms and the right to take liberties with the babysitter. It's more about the 'government' gaining undue control of the population (This is what worries
Anyway, enough ranting for the morning. I should do some work.
One last point on privacy though. JenniCAM. Now, I'm not a subscriber, but I peek in now and again. I'm intrigued. The girl freely and intentionally exposes her private life (sometimes more than others) to the Internet.. Is her life somehow lessened by that? Hell, it's a claim to fame! Read over her journal entries sometime. Does my knowing about her parent's difficulties, or her recent asthma attacks, impinge on her personal liberties in any way? Absolutely not. Does it help me relate, and let me know that I'm not the only person with real problems? Yeah, and that helps. And maybe, in some karmic sense, my compassion for her experiences (which without my knowledge would be impossible) actually helps her deal, and helps me deal - and I just hope that this little blurb about Jennifer doesn't bring JonKatz's guns to bear on her life. She has enough problems.
PPS: Let's hear it for a techno-lobby!!! Stick it to the MPAA! Could you imagine the power of a strike threat from a lobby of technologists?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
The thing is, some of the ways that our representatives have betrayed us are not due to technical ignorance. You don't need to be a computer geek to understand the moral issues involved with:
- Making is easier to tap everyone's voice phone line, whether there's a warrant or not
- Allowing indefinate seizure of property when certain types of crime are suspected
- Extending the copyrights of books and movies by a few more decades
The people who vote in favors of these laws have moral problems that go a lot deeper than the subtleties of digital media issues. We don't need to rally under a "Hacker" banner; we need to rally under a "Take Back Our Country From The Crooks" banner. Hackers have no monopoly when it comes to seeing that all our rights are slipping away.Do you really have to be a hacker to be worried by megacorp (AT&T, Microsoft, Sony, et al) multi-million-dollar contributions to slush funds for both of the major parties? It smells fishy whether they are making software or low-tech widgets.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Who's going to win? That's the turning point. Is the corporate combination of money and influence going to destroy our fair-use rights and abuse our programmers to the point of arrest and imprisonment, or are we going to organize effectively enough to become another power base in America and prevent corporate control of our interests and information access? We don't really have any other allies - even when you're right about this, or other major issues, non-involved people are going to say "Oh, that's too bad. Someone should do something about that, but it doesn't really involve me." and turn away. It's not like the geek lobby is going to be electing presidents anytime soon or anything, but there's no reason we can't have our say on society just like say the NRA, NAACP or the ACLU. I'm not necessarily talking about just joining the EFF or whatever, I'm also talking boycott, education and quite possibly protest - electronic and real world. It's also probable that we stay unorganized and unmotivated - voiceless and ineffectual. Which one would you like to see happen?
Don't think you won't make a difference, and don't think that the MPAA will win no matter what you do. The only thing that guarantees the MPAA a victory is everyone thinking so.
"Well, now that you put it that way... of course not. But you're missing one very important point. No business of any kind, even evil insensitive IP wielding conglomerates, can tell you what you can or can't do in your own home. That DVD is still yours and you can do what ever you want with it in your own home. As much as you hate them, the MPAA is not against people watching DVDs. Of course their priorities are twisted, thinking that the smaller evil of making an illegal copy is far worse than the greater evil of keeping DVDs off certain operating systems, but heh, we see twisted priorities every day on Slashdot. "
Unfortunately, you're wrong. The MPAA can tell me what I can do in my home, if it succeeds in getting DeCSS banned. Morally, no, it can piss up a rope, but legally, it does have the power to interfere in my private viewing of DVDs. Yes, I know, the source will always be available, but I'm talking legally. And please, don't believe that propaganda about DeCSS being about pirated copies - the economics for pirating through DeCSS doesn't work - why pay more for an illegal copy? It's solely for allowing people to view DVDs. Tsk-tsk.
I do agree with your point about government though - If our chickenshit govt. hadn't passed DCMA for money, the MPAA would be up shit creek. Fuck 'em both.
The big sticking point about the whole DeCSS scenario is that the copyright laws are supposed to control distribution, and the MPAA wants to kill DeCSS on the grounds that it is a distribution tool. But as we see it, DeCSS is a tool for personal use of copyrighted data, not distribution. When this very same issue came up in the Universal vs. Sony case, it was ruled that VCRs were not illegal because they enabled substantial legal uses of copyrighted material that had nothing to do with distribution. Hopefully some court will rule this way again soon.
And incidentally, the whole GPL is about distribution, not use. You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind - the law only kicks in when you try to pass the stuff around.
"This is why we need campaign finance reform."
A better way to do finance reform than the typical slashdot opinion of banning any company that makes more money than you (not that I'm accusing you of that), would be to allow only eligible voters to contribute. This would eliminate campaign financing by corporations, traditional PACS, unions, etc. Only individuals could contribute. Of course, freedom of association can't be done away with, to there would have to be a mechanism for individuals to voluntarily pool their funds together.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Boy, this author has just a few feelings of paranoia! His sense of personal oppression is overwhelming.
And why he's attributing a Norwegian arrest with an American copyright law is beyond me.
"So even legitimate owners of legally purchased DVDs can be arrested for viewing their own discs"
This has not yet been upheld in any court. There are some, including the MPAA, who believe that this is the case, but so far no one has been arrested for that. Only a Norwegian boy. And he certainly wasn't arrested for breaking the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Here in the US, we've had one brain-dead moron of a district court judge rule against DeCSS. But district court judges in the US have been making boneheaded decisions since 1787.
"Do we want a future where corporations can obsessively monitor and nickel-and-dime us by charging for every single instance in which we look at or listen to a recorded piece of entertainment?"
Well, now that you put it that way... of course not. But you're missing one very important point. No business of any kind, even evil insensitive IP wielding conglomerates, can tell you what you can or can't do in your own home. That DVD is still yours and you can do what ever you want with it in your own home. As much as you hate them, the MPAA is not against people watching DVDs. Of course their priorities are twisted, thinking that the smaller evil of making an illegal copy is far worse than the greater evil of keeping DVDs off certain operating systems, but heh, we see twisted priorities every day on Slashdot.
"That case went all the way to the Supreme Court, being decided in 1984 against the studios."
So what makes you think it will be a complete reversal this time (and what does this have to do with Norwegian law?) This was a Supreme Court decision. It's the highest precedence of law in a nation based on the common law of precendences. Reversing this precedence is about as likely as changing the constitution.
"But the key issue at stake here -- corporate control versus individual freedom -- is fundamentally important."
I'm sorry, but no corporation controls me. No corporation possibly could. You are mistaking money for power. The only thing that can take away your freedom is government, because only they have the force necessary to do it. Think about it - if the corporations have power, why the hell do they have to go to a New York district court or use Norwegian policemen? If they had the power to take away our freedoms they would already have their own courts and their own cops.
Going after the MPAA is like taking aspirin for a hangover. Government is the booze, the MPAA is the hangover. And you all know how to stop hangovers, take away the booze.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"Why isn't everyone on Slashdot a member of the EFF?"
Oh please! Have you considered the possibility that the EFF is a political organization and that there are at least a couple hundred different political philosophies here on slashdot? How could one organization ever hope to syncronize its politics with those of slashdot.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
A lot of the reason this country is as messed up as it is, is due to single-issue politics and special interest alliances.
I particularly resent your screaming at me just because I won't contribute to your cause. Interesting how you thought the use of the word FUCK in caps was supposed to convince me.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"The large corporations tend to drive the economy of the nation."
You are mistaken. Believe it or not, the small businesses (under fifty employees) holds more economic power than the large corporations. Yes, the large corporations get better press, but it's the small business owner that get's the congressman's ear.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
But then I could take that evil (aren't they all) corporation's software and pass it out on the street corner, along with the original source code!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Interesting post
Privacy is not Liberty, and neither is Freedom.
I'll agree with this. I also agree with the draw of Riki or Jerry and even Jenni, is the unfettered view into someone's life. Sometimes it's just for the opportunity to look down at them, but mostly it's just fun to see how other people are dealing with life in a raw format.
Privacy is a wierd thing. First off, you don't have a whole lot of privacy about your demographic (age,sex,location) info, and most likely your behavioural info either (what you buy, hobbies, etc). You'll have to trust me on this, basically 'cause I use this stuff every day. With an address and a name I can probably tell you what kind of car your drive, your religion, political affiliation, magazines you read, how many kids you have, age, sex, etc. etc.
Like any other tool, its "goodness" or "badness" is based upon the use and the why. This information allows a less well financed company to reach the same number of highly potential customers without resorting to mass marketing. Collecting this info makes our economy more efficient as less money is wasted getting a message to people who will *never* buy your product (like all those AOL cd's, they need a "uses Linux" killfile).
However the potential for abuse is high. The potential for annoyance to customers is extremely high. Such is the trade-off.
I was actually thinking the other day of creating some type of Open Consumer Database, where you log in, set your preferences, info, product interests, and get kickbacks when somebody buys a subset of the list, perhaps on an annual basis. While tightly controlling what companies get access to the info, but allowing individuals to freely update or remove their information.
Recent developements will most likely make a lot of you happy (States will soon not be allowed to sell driver registration info, which is one of the foundations that your profile is built upon) yet this action will just make info collecting that much more expensive, less accurate, and in the end you get more spam (in your mailbox, or over your telephone) (BTW, this law was created in a "save the children" type environment, a stalker had accessed driving records and hunted dwon
Of course they could also buy your profile from Doublclick, which, after buying Abacus, associates online traffic patterns with real-world buying habits. (plus a whole bunch of other juicy stuff)
Dunno where I'm heading with this, but you are and have been targeted since you were young. And you will be until you die. Understanding this for what it is, can be a tremendous leap toward making it a non-factor in your life, allowing the freedom of thought and action that so many of us hold deal.
Anyway, enough ranting for the morning. I should do some work.
good idea...
+&x
The Honorable (Your Senator's Full Name)
U.S. Senate
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
To: Senator (Your Senator's Last Name).
I am writing in regard to a recent ruling by Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York in the case of Universal City Studios, Inc, et al. vs. Shawn C Reimeredes, et al. In this case, Mr. Reimeredes, et al. are accused of violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) by providing the computer source code for a program called DeCSS, which allows the users to play movie DVDs on their home computer. In that ruling, the judge makes some broad and very disturbing assertions about the nature of ideas and speech, which, if left unchecked, could fundamentally reshape the future of the Internet and our society.
One of these assertions is that computer software source code is simply not speech but merely a kind of mechanism. Doing so sets a much higher burden on any defendant in a case where software source code is involved. We who actually make our living at developing software know that it is both a mechanism that does useful work, and it is speech: a mode of expressing ideas. Naturally, different parties in the software industry may weight the importance of each of these dual aspects very differently, but to those of us who actually sit at the keyboard and craft software, source code clearly embodies ideas and is a form of expression which can be highly personal. If a programmer produces software source code with the intent that it be speech, then it must be considered so.
This is a deep philosophical issue that cuts to the very first and most fundamental of our constitutional protections; no individual judge should be able to rule an entire important class of ideas outside the pale of legal protection because he finds them abstruse or uninteresting. At least he should not be able to do so without a spirited public debate.
In the practical sphere this ruling abridges many traditional rights of the consumer. It prevents users from playing DVDs that they purchased legitimately unless they also purchase a DVD from the consortium or its licensees. This allows the consortium if it wishes to quash by independent filmmakers and home movie enthusiasts to create their own DVD movies. It allows them to artificially segment the market and charge higher prices for the same product in different places. It totally eradicates the longstanding consumer right of free use, which, MPAA claims to the contrary, have not to date harmed the industry. Clearly, these abridgements of consumer rights and extension of monopoly power are in the economic interest of the industry, but they are not necessary to their fair and indeed handsome compensation.
This ruling is truly appalling, for it abolishes traditional and harmless consumer rights, establishes the sovereignty of an industry consortium over an important realm of ideas, and makes criminals of people who, at personal expense and with no compensation, are performing an important public service. However what is most disturbing is that it may indeed be in accord with the letter of the new law as established by the DMCA. I ask that you consider reforming this law, so that it accords better with long established consumer rights and protects the rights of all software developers, not just a minority of influential commercial interests.
For further information on the subject please visit http://www.opendvd.org. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Your Name
>>
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The troubling aspect of the recent injunctions is not the technical misaprehensions, which are not particularly material, but that the judge may actually have interpreted the sense of the DMCA as it was intended to function. If DMCA proves to be constitutional (which it may well be literally while being against the bill of rights in spirit), then our only recourse is to our legislators. Lefletting on a Manhattan street corner or in MIT's infinite corridor is noble, but it is not going to affect any people who can make a difference.
In an earlier thread, republic posted his model letter to legislators.
Using the sufficient number of eyeballs theory, we should all take this and develop several versions covering the different viewpoints from which DMCA is bad. I'm working on mine version and will post it here later.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That brief isn't about something interesting like how people without a driver's license is supposed to board a commercial flight in our brave new world.
It's about how the public roads are "really" private property since they're paid for with taxes, and therefore the state can't ban people from driving their car on these "private" roads for minor issues like multiple convictions for drunk driving resulting in death.
N.B., even this paper doesn't try to argue that this mass murderer isn't allowed to freely travel public roads - *as a passenger*, or perhaps on a bicycle.
Instead the focus is on some silly "business"/"personal" use distiction which is completely irrelevant and utterly impossible to enforce.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
California has a brand spanking new law protecting customers because of abuses of the frequent shopper cards by stores.
The most notorious case, which was discussed in the _Privacy Journal_, involved a gentleman who slipped on a wet floor and was injured. This being California he sued, and the store started asking all of his friends and acquaintances about his drinking problem. Obviously, they sought to show that he fell because he was drunk ("'falling down' drunk").
Where did the store get the idea that he was an alcoholic? From their own records. The lawyers pulled up his purchasing details and jumped on the fact that he purchased something like a case of beer every week or two. Perhaps they were legitimately investigating the possibility that he was drunk at the time (and nobody in the store or medical staff noticed it)... or perhaps they seized on this as a way to embarass the plantiff sufficiently that he would drop a justified complaint.
Other abuses have involved stores checking up on customers (and staff), individuals checking up on customers, the government checking up on customers (IIRC the search seemed tuned to home gardeners, not murderers), etc.
And *that* does worry me. I don't want to have to worry about a no-knock DEA raid as a suspected pot farmer for no reason other than the fact I bought a bunch of full spectrum bulbs to treat my seasonal affective disorder.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Perhaps an issue which few have addressed is that far too many people simply give away their right to privacy. Example: Many states use your social security number as your drivers license number. Also, many people put their SS# on their checks. (Stupid, stupid, stupid.)
The ACLU has started to get proactive on the privacy issue. Consider that the ACLU has been entrenched and accepted (or, at the very least, acknowledge) in American socio-politcal much longer than the EFF. It is a valid authority to which one can plea. Check the Link.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Say that I write, record, and distribute a song that you like. You have every legal right to sing it yourself (though if you're getting paid to do so, you're supposed to give me a cut through BMI or ASCAP), or to burn a mix CD with the song on it for your personal use. Certainly no one can stop you from memorizing it, thus making a copy based in your synapses. I can't say "I don't want Geek Boy to be allowed to copy this!" and expect the government to enforce that.
(Note that I am speaking purely of rights under existing copyright law, not ethical rights I believe you have.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A lot of the Europeans in the audience are shaking their heads and rolling eyes at the Americans now and their funny way of exaggerating things and congratulating themselves how things are better in Europe.
Unfortunately, the US situation will reflect on us Europeans. Remember the Wassenaar agreement? Two months before it became public, many governments in Europe (Finland for example) were proudly touting their open-cryptography policy. Then, a few short months later, they grinned sheepishly and signed the agreement, probably due to US or international pressure, declaring cryptographic products as armaments to be controlled.
The MPAA has so much leverage via the different giants in the entertainment industry, that whatever happens in the US will leak over to Europe as well. I'm almost certain that very soon something like the DMCA will be attempted to pass in the EU parliament, "in order to comply with international convention."
Copyright and IP rights are an important matter, but we should still keep the fair use-policy that allows individuals to do as they please with their own, legally purchased property. Video did not kill the movie industry - vice versa. Nor did DVD. And neither will DeCSS or MP3. After all, deliberate piracy hasn't killed the computer games industry - and they use no copy protection whatsoever!
Mainly, I'm worried that people are confusing small "l" libertarians with Libertarians. Plenty of people who are registered in one of the two major parties will consider themselves libertarian on some issues, but that is different than actually being a member of the Libertarian party. Republicans and Democrats are not Libertarians, and never will be, both parties have beliefs that will trump any libertarian feelings in either party.
Basically, I think H-PAC (Hacker Political Action Commitee) is a really good idea, but it is completely seperate from the idea of the two party system or Libertarianism. The NRA, for example, will support Democrats and probably even credible Libertarians who take a strong stand against gun control. Most lobbies cut accross party lines. Now, if the reason you bring up H-PAC is because you want me to start donating money to that instead of the Libertarian party, I'm afraid I can't do that. I'd consider contributing to such an organization along with the Libertarian party (just as I currently donate to the EFF).
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
It's a shame people like the author are jumping at shadows, seeing the boogeyman under the proverbial bed because he wants to think in his mind it's there (so of course it is).
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
This isn't about copyright... it's about *control*. Personally, I am very active against the DVD CCA, and I am doing everything I can to ensure that they FAIL. But I am not a pirate, and I frown on anyone who is. I just believe that if I purchase content I should be allowed to listen to it anywhere and in any way I choose.
You're at least partially misrepresenting the issue. I may never view DVDs on Linux. I just want the freedom to. I may never do a lot of things, but if they win this, believe me, they'll just come down on us harder and harder until we need a license to breathe.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
And you really think that if too many people stopped buying from corporations that the government wouldn't find some way to force the issue?
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
You have just hit upon the downside of a capitalistic society. I am not quite a socialist or anything like that, but I am definitely not a capitalist either. Or at least I'm not a corporatist.
The large corporations tend to drive the economy of the nation. It would be very easy for a few companies acting in concert to cause serious damage to this country's (and the world's, for that matter) economy. The way I see it, lawmakers really don't have much *choice* but to go along with them most of the time. What are they going to do? Even if they're not getting a cent, all the corporations have to do is convince them that the economy will fail because they don't get their way, and boom... they get their way.
The problem here is the notion of corporations in the first place, the centralization of ecomonic power into a few very large entities, and the fact that the government allows this to happen. The corporations need to be toppled and a new economy based on fair trade and free market (which I believe has NOTHING to do with corporations) built. Only then will we be able to solve these kinds of problems.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
The point that we have to get away from our keyboards and start "pounding the pavement" is a very good one. We have spent a lot of time incubating this tecnhology and culture and lifestyle, and it is now to the point where out "geek" culture is going to go head to head with the "establishment". And, like it or not, we have to play by their rules just as much as they have to play by ours. We're not going to win with code... though we'll certainly give them QUITE a scare.
Don't get me wrong. We hold quite a bit of power and most of the cards. But they hold a few important ones and we're going to have to work within them. this will ultimately be judged in the court of law and public opinion.
So, yes. Protest. Boycott. Use all the tools we have. We're entrenched but we're not undefeatable.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
You are correct. I have put my money where my mouth is. Others have to. But we need to be even more active.
To the rest of you: Where are you? Do something about it!
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
is the one that gets the ear of the congressman.
I agree that the "Mom and Pop" stores are the backbone of the American economy.
But I don't believe that they have that stong of a voice Because these business are ran by numerous individuals from every walk of life, they tend to cancel out each others voices. For every small businessman on one side of an issue you can find another small businessman on the other side of the issue. So small businesses tend to distribute their money amoung all the canidates and support both sides of the issues.
But the large companies, whose controlling boards heavily overlap with each other, can goto these congressmen and say, if you support certain legislation for me I will put a million dollars into a political action committee for you.
This is why we need campaign finance reform. We need to stop the undue influence of the corporations over the congressmen. We need to force these congressmen to goto the people in their own district and ask for support from the people that they are supposed to be representing.
-- Never make a general statement.
The main problem is how our elected officials consistently allow corporations to write and interpret laws; this is, in my opinion, where the incredibly oppressive copyright restrictions placed upon even the most mundane software package comes from. It's the corporate entities who wrote these laws, rather than our representatives, and it's the corporate entities who prosecute whoever they deem to be a threat. Prosecutors, judges, and legislators just go along with them, even though they usually have no idea what exactly is going on. I don't think the situation is quite as serious as the author of the quoted article is saying, though. The enormous influx of money into both open source companies, as well as new internet commerce sites like MP3.com, will hopefully provide some targets that aren't quite as easily stifled as the individual hacker. As for the DVD suit, we've seen it before with the introduction of the VCR, or the introduction of the cassette tape. The industry organizations usually lose; hopefully it'll happen again this time.
I know that a good number of people on Slashdot like to think of themselves as Libertarians. And perhaps the Libertarian Party is the one that best supports the beliefs of our community. Realisticcally, I don't think the Libertarian party has a snowball's chance in hell that it will have a major say in politics, not while the GOP and the Democrats have more money and support.
But it seems we need a bit more input. People have said it before, and I'll say it again: We need a hacker (again: the good kind) lobby or something along those lines. Those among our community who have been made wealthy thanks to IPOs and such might consider donating a bit to starting some sort of lobby. If we could form a PAC, then hackers could start providing information to congress about tech issues, and we could gain access to the loop.
Starting this lobby is clearly not an easy task by any means. It would take a lot of money and support, but I think if it were actually to happen, it would be quite beneficial, not only for us, but for the rights of people who don't even realize their rights are being stripped away (at this point, at least).
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The Internet was designed in order to withstand physical and military assaults of staggering proportions. I think that the community and freedom of the net was a wholly unexpected consequence.
but it is true, that the net does interpret censorship, among other things, as damage, and routes around it.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com