Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virginia House Passes UCITA

Posted by michael on from the if-you-don't-complain-now-you-don't-get-to-complain-later dept.

Keith Kris writes, "Looks like Virginia [its House of Representatives] has passed the UCITA, got it through unanimously, too. This needs to be stopped quickly. Many people don't even know what this act is. Spread the word." Microsoft, AOL and the Business Software Alliance are pushing this heavily. Virginians, you need to call your state senators immediately since they're still considering the bill. Tell them who you are, tell them you're a constituent, tell them you oppose passage of UCITA because it will destroy consumer rights.

8 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. sid=moderation by KMSelf · · Score: 5

    There is a "hidden" forum at sid=moderation on the topic of moderation. While useful, comments posted to it have the unfortunate tendency to disappear after time.

    There are obviously several very broken things about /. which are defeating the moderation system. These include troll posts, the apparent inability to restrict nonsensical or repeated posts, and an serious shortage of moderation points to posts. With karma 44, I've had moderation privileges once this millenium -- prior to December, 1999, it seemed I had mod priv typically once or twice a week. Comments get caught in a vicious cycle of failing to be moderated up once an article topic has reached a hundred posts or more -- for meaningful use, I'm forced to read at score=1, score=2, or higher.

    Repeating comments I've made (and have since slipped from) sid=moderation:

    1. There need to be far more moderation points. The ratio of points to posts needs to increase at a rate greater than traffic.

    2. Anonymous coward posting needs to be seriously rethought. CmdrTaco will insist on it being allowed. I'd propose a "Yale Wall" solution (See Lawrence Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, p79.

      Essentially, the idea is that AC posts would require vetting by at least one registered user. The user would face the karmic consequences of any moderation of the post, and would grant the AC post any karmic benefits: If the post is moderated up or down, the signer's karma is increased or reduced, and whatever default posting level the signer has is given to the post. This preserves anonymity while allowing a modicum of control over the AC process.

      To do this, there would have to be a seperate viewing field for unvetted AC posts. Once vetted, the posts would enter the main forum and be subject to moderation. Only one vetting would be required to transfer the post to the main board.

    3. The existing karma/default score system is working fairly well. The main problems are flagrant abuse by a very small number of individuals (whoring points, then spamming), and AC posts. The first problem could be addressed by administrative karmic reduction for spammage. The AC problem would go away with the vetting system, a default score of "unmoderated", and ranked moderation (see below).

    4. A distinction must be made between posts which have and have not yet been moderated, and a moderation filter must exist to allow viewing (and moderating) of previously unmoderated posts. It's simply too painful to prowel through posts looking for that which should be moderated, up or down. The best current option is to view newest first w/o threads. It's still a poor proxy.

    5. Moderating and posting to a forum should be allowed. CmdrTaco doesn't like it. Fooey. Moderating your own posts should not be allowed. Abuse can be detected in M2.

    6. Notification of current moderation status of a post should be given before moderation points are committed. It's often the case when moderating an active forum that several people have moderated the same post(s) simultaneously. A confirmation screen saying "this post is currently moderated at [score], continue?" should be given. Wasting points shooting down crap is plain stupid. Boosting a decent but not brilliant post to +5 is silly.

    7. Better filtering options. Score based filters are limited. It should at least be possible to set a ceiling as well as a floor (show all posts between -1 and 1). Better yet would be to allow filtering out posts according to criterion. I'm annoyed frequently by amusing, but otherwise not very interesting posts, which are highly scored. They're often the highest scored in an article.

    8. I'd like to see moderation transformed from a voting system to a rating system. Essentially, now, a moderator can score a post up or down, and cumulative score is what counts. IMO, taking a weighted average of point scores -- say -5 to +5 -- for a post, would be a useful system. The number of points which could be voted, both on a single post and within a single moderating session, could be tied to karma. This would allow a moderator to express mild to high approval or disapproval of a post. Some measure of interest or intensity could be derived from the number of ratings, as well as the aggregate (mean) rating, and an inference of controversiality from the standard deviation (for all you stats hounds out there).

    There are other problems. Karma whoring, gullibility traps (posts written to look informative but actually false), etc. I believe that as other issues in the moderating system are dealt with, the magnitude of these issues will be diminished. Or they won't <g>. But there are bigger fish to fry first.

    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  2. Unanimous? by Effugas · · Score: 5

    Are you kidding me?

    Not a single legislator dissented?

    Not one?

    Lemme get this straight. I'm sorry, this verges on the unprecedented:

    A highly controversial bill with extremely distrubing implications against every single consumer, small business, and corporation in the country doesn't manage to get a single dissenter in the Virginia House?

    Not one?

    I don't buy it. I can't buy it. A resolution commemorating the life and work of Charles Schulz wouldn't pass unanimously, yet something that makes Virginia the battleground for hundreds of millions--if not billions--of dollars worth of lawsuits...

    Oh. You've gotta be kidding me. You've seriously, truly, really gotta be fucking kidding me. Not even the worst trial lawyer would sink to *that*.

    People, grass roots are great, but we need trees right now. Does your school use Samba? Does your company? Guess how long Samba gets to stay legal if UCITA passes?

    Managers, do you want to be liable for asking your employees which database would serve your company better? Do you like reading unbiased reports? Maybe you don't. Maybe you're masochistic. Maybe you prefer the lose-lose scenario of years in court vs. solutions you've just been banned from knowing are inferior.

    Unfortunately, that's just not your choice. As ever so many are happy to mention, a company's primary obligation is to its shareholders. You've gotta maximimize profit, right? Does UCITA help you to maximize profit? Or does UCITA expose you to a constant stream of risks from which only years of litigation is the possible relief?

    Consumers gain nothing. Businesses gain nothing. Software companies get the right to shut down...everything, with the full force of the law behind them.

    Managers, whose company is it anyway?

    CEO's, ready for hackers to start using those backdoors that software companies are gonna be able to legally put in their software?

    Lawyers, ready to start drafting feverish defenses? Treasurers, ready to go for broke?

    Virginians, wake up. You're under attack. Under the flag of the geek, you're about to get bit hard by a rattlesnake. Now, you might be able to suck the poison out, but it might be a better idea to whip out a shotgun and give UCITA's tounge a few more forks.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  3. Cease and Disist by bug_hunter · · Score: 5

    Dear Slashdot,
    You have used our software in an attempt to encourage others to take a stand against UCITA, and therfore violate your license agreement. A signal shall be sent shortly to disable your software under our regulations.

    Thankyou

    --
    It's turtles all the way down.
  4. Exaggeration will get you ignored by werdna · · Score: 5

    Tell them who you are, tell you're a constituent, tell them you oppose passage of UCITA because it will destroy consumer rights.

    In case you haven't noticed, this strategy hasn't worked to stop DMCA, Copyright Extension or Dilution. It didn't work to stop the NCCUSL, and it won't likely stop UCITA.

    Trying to oppose UCITA on the ground that it is the source of all evil, and devoid of all good will simply get you ignored. While such demagoguery may be a useful way to build up the negatives on issues all the population cares about, it isn't going to raise enough votes to scare a legislator who wants to have a "technology-friendly" state. This is particularly true in the face of an organized, well-monied, lobby of UCITA supporters.

    If you *are* interested, you need to get out there with simple, rational and well-articulated amendments directed to what you feel are the worst points, and argue them with somewhat more substance and less sensationalism. To argue that UCITA will "destroy" all "consumer rights" invites a calm, rational rebuttal on the facts by the other side. In the face of specific amendments targeted at specific problems, it would be much harder to defend some of the places where UCITA overreaches.

    This was an opportunity to make some changes. To have a think-in as to what changes are needed to actually make life better for the open source community. Instead, we took the role of "antis," and lost our place at the table, and will probably end up with UCITA in two or three dozen states, perhaps more, all with nothing else to show for it. Hopefully, the next time NCCUSL or the government shows an inclination to make wholesale changes to the laws most closely relating to what we do --if that happens again in our lifetime-- we'll be less silly about it.

    With all due respect to the community, a call-in campaign to say that UCITA is all bad is probably the best way to assure that UCITA will ultimately pass exactly as drafted.

  5. Moderate up: More detailed VA information by BoLean · · Score: 5

    Here is the contact info for the sponsoring senator:

    Senator Stephen D. Newman (R) - Senate District 23

    In-session address:
    General Assembly Building, Room 305
    Capitol Square
    Richmond, Virginia 23219
    (804) 698-7523

    email:snewman@inmind.com

    Mailing address: General Assembly Building, Room 305 Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
    (804) 698-7523

    Here are links to the bills :
    HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277
    SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239
    SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239

    Member in charge of the study:

    Delegate Viola O. Baskerville (D) - House District 71

    In-session address: General Assembly Building, Room 525
    Capitol Square
    Richmond, Virginia 23219
    (804) 698-1071

    email: del_Baskerville@House.state.va.us

    Mailing address:

    P. O. Box 406
    Richmond, Virginia 23218
    (804) 698-1171

  6. This is incorrect (and InfoWorld is not reputable) by signe · · Score: 5

    OK, If you actually bothered to do a little research at the VA state Senate site, you would have found that all that passed the House or Senate was a joint resolution to create a joint subcommittee to study the UCITA and its language. And of course that passed unanimously. All the legislators want to have more information on this, and a technical subcommittee is one of the best ways to get it. The bill was not passed. Not only that, but the report from the subcommittee isn't due until December 1, 2000. So it won't even be voted on until 2001.

    Why did they do this? Because, as they say in the resolutions (which, by the way, is both HJ277 and SJ239), "the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding," among other reasons, which are listed in the resolution.

    So all I say is shame on Slashdot, michael, Keith Kris, and those prominent people who posted such as Dan Kaminsky. Shame on you for creating yet more sensationalist journalism because you didn't bother to check your references. Any geek with half a brain knows that InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and the like are not very reputable sources.

    -Todd

    ---

    --
    "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
  7. Inaction in action by Agar · · Score: 5
    This is really disturbing.

    A law that has been universally (except by the sponsors, of course) derided as anti-consumer and potentially dangerous to the industry gets passed unanimously?

    I honestly believe that there are a lot of people who assume that "someone else" will be the person that makes the call/writes the letter/publically takes a stand. Everyone looks at eachother, no one does anything, and the law passes.

    Don't let this happen! If you need to know more, there's a very accessible and interesting series of articles on the topic by Ed Foster at InfoWorld -- look at the GripeLine column (just ignore Metcalfe, K?)

    Seriously. Make a call. Make a difference.
    ------

  8. Heres the constituents line by bripeace · · Score: 5

    Heres the consituents opinion line for both the Virgina House of Delegates and Virgina senate.
    (800) 889-0229
    Please all virginia voters please call and voice your opinion, Before the senate gets a chance to vote on this. One thing to note is AOL headquarters is Dulles, VA right over there near ashburn. So instead of letting the big companies like AOL and they're lobbiers deciding this for us pleae let your legislator know.

    -Brian Peace