Slashdot Mirror
Do Geeks Have a Political Voice?
ion asks: "The software community has been putting up with a lot of political turmoil lately (patents that should never have been considered, DVD decryption, copyright issues left and right). My question is: 'How is it that some of the best-paid workers in the world marketplace have almost no political voice?' We have all sort of software advocates like ESR and RMS, but where is the US Congressman or UK rep in Parliament (or other representative in some world government) that have pledged to support the ideals of our community? How can we form some sort of world geek lobby? How can we help the people like Jon Johansen who are victims of the outdated system?" (Read More)
A good question. Geeks are suddenly finding themselves in positions of wealth and power, and with that comes the burden of politics. Many geeks seem to think politics below them, or consider it something best ignored and left to those who can handle it while they concentrate on 'the real work' of solving the problems that need solving. However, I think the 21st century will usher in a time when those who were once shunned and cast out start flexing some formerly-unused political mojo.
How that mojo is used -- and for what -- depends entirely on us.
Absent such identification, pre-existing economic entities have predominant roles -- think corporations and unions. Tech has not traditionally been unionized -- and it ain't gonna happen going forward. That leaves us with corporations, who, more often than not, are on the opposite side of political questions from the Slashdot-stereotype liberaterian techie. Let's look at a few examples (note: I am comparing stereotypes here):
Intellectual Property: Indiv: Supports freedom of information (open source, opposes patents for trivial software "inventions"). Corp: Favors strong intellectual property rights (software patents).
Freedom of Speech: Indiv: Favors strongly. Corp: Wishes to limit (see DeCSS, CyberPatrol, etc.)
Immigration/Visa: Indiv: May oppose as reducing opportunities/salaries for U.S. citizens. Corp: Favors, for access to cheaper and/or better employees.
Privacy: Indiv: Favors. Corp: Opposes to the extent it interferes with marketing products (see Doubleclick).
Protectionism: Indiv: Opposes as preventing competition. Corp: Favors when it keeps out foreign competition (see semiconductor industry of a decade or so ago).
Communications: Indiv: Favors open access. Corp: Favors whatever is best for it economically (See AOL flip/flop).
Taxes: Indiv: Favors lower taxes generally. Corp: Favors special breaks (for instance, sales tax exemption).
The bottom line, it will be difficult to organize politically a diverse and unpersected group, and any tech political power is likely to be organized around the larger tech companies, who will be representing their corporate interests and not those of their employees.
Thus, be careful what you wish for -- do we really want MS, AOL, Amazon, Doubleclick, Mattel, etc. to have a bigger voice?
If you want a political voice, you need money. Pool some money annd buy yourself a senator.
There are problems with the way we are organized as a community. This is an inherent problem with a group that is so widely distributed, but sites like Slashdot help to alleviate that problem. Of course, there are plenty of people who used to read Slashdot, before all the First Posters and other weenies showed up, so I fear there is still a great lack of communication (heck, even Linus Torvalds doesn't read Slashdot ;-)
I am firmly convinced that we have a voice, but the voice is not focused in any particular direction. Only on a few issues (such as Section 1201 of the DMCA or the DVD/DeCSS cases), have we been able to focus in any significant manner. Even in situations like the above, we do not have the experience as a political group to get any attention.
In early February, I stood out on a streetcorner in front of a movie theater, protesting the actions the MPAA and DVD CCA were taking against DeCSS distributors. It was a cold Minnesota evening, and I wasn't sure at all what I was doing.
When I first arrived, I was looking for some of the people I was expecting to meet. I fairly quickly found one person who was holding a sign with one hand, and with his other was trying to hand out flyers from a pile that was in great danger of blowing away in the wind. Mere seconds after I arrived, a very angry-looking manager told us to move off of the property of the theater and the mall in which it was located. We walked across the street, only to find that the mall owned that property as well. We finally ended up in a spot on the corner of a very busy intersection -- one so busy as to make distribution of our leaflets nearly impossible. We were also by this point quite a distance away from the theater, so no one really knew what we were protesting.
I learned many things that night and from reading post-protest coverage on 2600 sites and the like. If I had known these things earlier, I and the people with me would have been able to bring our point to a much greater number of people. I understand there are ways to get permits to be on `private' property (I use the quotes since it was a mall, a place of business usually open to anyone). Also, if our group had been slightly more forward-thinking and found a location before the protest, we probably would have made a much larger influence. Lastly, there were some very tight time constraints put on us. It is very difficult to organize something like what 2600 hoped to accomplish in just a week -- especially when the night of action in question was a Friday
Because of all of this, I propose creating a site (or two or three, if they become necessary) where geeks can learn about the political events that have the most influence on us. Also, the site could carry information about the best ways to get your message across to the public and the people in power. Basically, host HOWTOs for protesting, contacting representatives, and other things.
Of course, I might just be off my rocker...
(what would be a good name for such a site? geekpolitics.org? any other ideas?)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA
Their web server runs Windows and Coldfusion (yes, it does matter in this case -- it's called "credibility").
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Your, elitist attitudes based on irrational thought sicken me. If windows and coldfusion work, there is no problem whatsoever. If they were willing to pay the money for such a product and it works, what does that have to do with their credibility? I challenge you to draw correlation from the claim that running windows and coldfusion have to an effect on their activities.
"Internet professional" that voluntarily uses Windows and Coldfusion is very unlikely familiar with anything but large companies, their products, their MIS departments and their interests. At best they will lobby for overworked Frontpage monkeys, at worst -- for "internet companies" interests.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Christian Coalition should hire more slashdot trolls -- when they are trolling, they are not lobbying Congress.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
And we're not organized.
The swing voters always hold more power than the multi-issue block voters. There are 40-45% of the people who will vote for canidate A- and nothing canidate B can do or say to change that. Likewise, 40-45% are going to vote for B no matter what A does. The election will be decided by the 10-20% swing voters, whom both A and B are wooing like crazy.
Being a multi-issue voter pretty quickly consigns you to the 80-90% block that gets ignored. You're too hard to woo.
Organization is also important. This is something Geeks are terrible at- we have too much of an anarchist/libertarian streak. Consider: if someone were to organize a "GeekPAC", how successfull would it be? Would you join? Would you contribute money? Would you vote the way the PAC wanted you to vote? Or would you go your own way, and make your own decisions?
If you're a Democrat, what would it take to get you to vote for Bush? If you're a Republican, what would it take to get you to vote for Gore? If you are anarchist/libertarian/socialist/other, what would it take to get you to vote for either?
Although, there is another way to get your beliefs enacted in the political system: control the information to shape the views of the 90%. See Noam Chomsky. The internet/web is not yet a replacement for the classic print/film/radio/TV media, but it's getting there.
How many would follow union bosses?
For better or worse, I agree. The cost of failure there (if an attempt were made at all) would be huge, especially for those who did follow through. Lesser measures would be better. More liklihood of followthrough, less serious consequences for those who do follow through in the event that solidarity breaks down.
Every effective union has held solidarity to be KEY to having any clout. The question is, how to achieve geek solidarity for the REALLY important issues?
Granted, this isn't perfect--things still break--but it does make the overall issue much more difficult.
The ideal time to get the 'flu' is right after installing the latest and greatest bleeding edge firmware update on the router (preferably an unofficial one) in order to squeeze that last .00000001% capacity out of the poor, overworked beast. When the call comes about the router being down, suggest that perhaps Al Gore can fix it.
It does tread a fine line. It is not quite like taking away or damaging heavy equipment since it would still be on the premasis, and will work just fine as soon as a qualified person brings it back up.
The biggest problems I see with such a measure are solidarity, inflamitory, hurts innocent bystanders. In short, BIG problems. Advantages: Management knows almost nothing about what techies do. They don't stand a chance of running things themselves. Also, they are not too likely to figure out that an important 'upgrade' is the reason things came down.
In reality, MUCH less extreme things are preferable. The total shutdown is the equivilant of thermonuclear warfare. A well placed gentle reminder that the net won't last a week without the geeks wouldn't hurt though.
What I meant to say was that, like "women" or "African Americans", "geeks" are not a singular yadda yadda...
Then you prove the point. of the three, can you pick the one that has no lobby and doesn't even get an occasional kiss on the ass from congress?
Much like the mythical "geek" group, as well as, as you observe, "Christians."
The big problem (as opposed to other, "small" problems), is that cats aren't herding creatures. And while I may not be "cat people," it's fair to say that "geek people" are similarly resistant to "herding."
The EDS commercial makes the mistake of suggesting that it is vaguely sensible to try to herd cats. The problem is that it's not even faintly sensible. Neither cats nor geeks "herd" well. Trying to do so is going to lead to managerial disaster.
And fielding a "geek candidate" is not going to be good for other than the small subset of "geeks" that go along with the particular geek's position.
And some ( David McCusker, of OpenDoc/Bento/IronDoc "fame" comes particularly to mind...) seem so independently-minded that the "lobbies" are not likely to represent them at all.
And actually, the commonly-recognized minorities of women and whatever is the politically-correct way today of referencing people that are definitely not melatonin-deficient that likely have roots in Africa, but which may not have any connection to America are not perfectly uniform in their needs and attitudes either...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
What the newfound social status of geekdom brings with it is the ability to educate - and thus influence - the public. With the Internet (and computing in general) rapidly growing toward media dominance, geeks who author and administer a good portion of Web content have more power than ever to make political statements. Getting admins everywhere to turn the sites they run pink to cry out against spam (and providing the appropriate informational links) has done more to raise public awareness that spam need not be just accepted than any other campaign.
We have the power. Let's use it to make real progress, not waste it on KDE v. GNOME, Linux v. BSD, etc. flamewars.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
No, this is the shocking truth... it's much, much harder and more valuable to society to be an organizer, than a worker. The organizers of society are what create wealth. These are the people who take risks to build companies and hire people. Workers very rarely take risks.
If tomorrow, all the managers, CEO's and stockholders dropped off the face of the planet, the world would function just fine. In fact, as Open Source/Free Software has shown, it arguably would function much better than ever before. Not because there would be a lack of organization, far from it. But because there wouldn't be any coercive organization.
Don't give me this Ayn Rand ridiculousness about the ruling class holding the world together. Revolutionary Spain, Open Source, worker cooperatives, all these things show that coercive organization is destructive, and surely not worthy of a reward, especially the kind of obscene awards that CEO's give themselves. Is the skill to coercively organize people so wonderful that it is worth 419x more than the skill to produce something?
And to all those workers out there who actually think this guy makes sense, take a look at this section of his website:
I am a former Vice President of Alpha Base Systems, Inc, former Vice President of Air-Shields Information Systems (now Hill-Rom Netlynx), and former Chief Technology Officer of EduPoint.com. I am currently President of a small consulting company called Silicon Engine, Inc.
Of course he's going to defend the right of the ruling class to rule, because he's trying so desperately to enter into it.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Also, I think that highly-paid technical workers are a relative minority in the world, and even in the United States. Since when do we need political advocacy? Maybe we will in the future at some point, but certainly not now.
That statement does not make sense. "We," define it how you may, are a minority. Therefore we need political advocacy. If "we" were a majority, then we would not need political advocacy - our conscience would be that of the people, and "we" would get the laws "we" wanted to see passed. Claiming that a group does not need a voice in politics because it is a new minority is ludicrous! The whole reason advocacy exists is for the minorities - hence the NAACP, NOW, hell even the KKK represents an outspoken minority of white supremacists. On the whole, I don't see too many comfortable majorities with action committees, etc. Have you ever heard of the National Organization of White People? The Concerned Anglo-Saxon Protestants of America?
Nope.
I just don't see that thought/logic in that idea. We need advocacy because we are a minority, not in spite of it.
So there is a basis for having some sort of voice in politics. I agree that geek is a vague and cliche word (My best friend is a sci-fi 'geek', and personally he doesn't give a shit about patent reform), but there is a great need for people involved in the information industry to speak their minds in politics. A lot of these people are geeks, some aren't; I think the person who asked the question got caught up in the Slashdot vernacular. Perhaps 'information professionals' is a better term - whatever. But the point is that there is a need to voice our views, and you shouldn't be dissuading that by saying we are too much of a minority to have representation. It is this sort of laissez-faire attitude that allowed CDA I and II, UCITA, the One-Click fiasco et al. to come about. We (IT professionals) are sorely lacking representation in politics, and it's biting us in the ass. I mean, come on - the Vice-fscking-President claimed he invented the Internet and that tale had to leave Washington before someone finally called him on it. The people making the laws in this country are comparative Luddites to the people actually driving the "information-based economy" which those same politicians love to wax ecstatical about. This is wrong. We do need our voice to be heard, and we should never give up because we are the outspoken minority. History has taught us that much.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
The geeks (or whatever you call them) are not lobbying for special treatment. If you oppose something like the DMCA, you oppose it because of what it does to everybody, geek or otherwise.
People with technical knowledge will always be able to download things like DeCSS, work out how to make MP3s of their CD collection, and so on. But what about the ordinary citizens, who don't even know what the DMCA is? They are affected by it just as much, more even if they just take what they are offered by the record / movie industry.
Or take software patents; okay, they're a bad thing for individual programmers, but *everyone* loses out from monopolies and lack of choice. A large proportion of households own a PC, and they will suffer more if small software vendors get bullied by large patentholders. For an ordinary small business that is trying to launch an e-commerce site, software patents are also a major obstacle. It just happens that only 'geeks' are the ones worrying about this, because arcane intellectual property matters don't usually get coverage on TV news.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Your priorities, not mine. I don't care about money. What I do care about is working in a job where my peers and employer respects my opinions and stands behind them. I care about working a standard 40 hour work week with paid vacation and a lunch hour included in my 8 hour day. I care about the quality of the environment I work in.
Those are my standards, and my priorities. I don't think so little of myself to say I don't deserve these things. I do. And if this economy is what it's cracked up to be, employers will still want to hire me even /with/ those demands.
Don't short-change yourself. You're worth every penny. Demand it.
Don't forget state/local/provincial representatives. UCITA is a state level issue in the US.
Of course, it may not always help. My local delegate here in Virginia was one of the original Loudoun County Library net censors. (EFF library references) At least I know whom to vote AGAINST!
It's only within the last four years that the traditional technology community (hardware manufacturers, networking companies, mega-ISPs, and proprietary software companies) have achieved political influence. The best indication of this is the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case. This was only brought to a head by years and millions of dollars spent on lobbying in Washington.
Real political influence (in the United States) comes from corporations spending money to promote their issues. This is how the DMCA and UCITA became law. If you want to have that kind of influence, here's what to do:
- Start a political action committee.
- Get the Linux-oriented companies that have gone public to join and contribute millions to the effort.
- Start lobbying for repeal of the laws you don't like and/or lawsuits which would result in these laws being declared unconstitutional.
If you don't like this, because it concentrates power in the hands of capitalists, that's tough. The only alternative is to build a grassroots organization like the AARP, the NRA, or the National Federation of Independent Businesses. I bet when you read about what these organizations do, a lot of you will be equally opposed to turning ourselves into an organization like them.I'm only saying this because a lot of people think we are close to achieving political influence through the EFF, or through some sort of effort that brings a bunch of individuals together around a single issue. In my opinion, we aren't close to having real political influence, at least in the United States.
--
Dave Aiello
-- Dave Aiello
The IEEE and ACM are two organizations that get involved in public policy matters. The IEEE has the Computer Society for people interested in computer hardware and software.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I don't think it would be possible, Unions tend to value length of membership over skill or ability. With geeks that mentality can't be adopted.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Conversely, groups whose members tend to go their own way wind up without much influence-- witness the Auto Workers, where the leadership stayed with the Democrats while the rank and file turned out for Reagan.
If geeks can show that they are both coherent and effective as a political force, politicians will come begging to be the voice of the geeks.
Interesting side note: yesterday's Washington Post carried this column by their pollster about a study of the way the White House and Congress use public opinion research in forming policy. Long story short: they don't. Only lobbyists and activists matter when it comes to making policy; the polls are just used to decide how to market the policies.
There are a few problems with making this happen:
I think what it will really take is some top people in the community to create some sort of global, formal organization to create a political voice, where there is membership, with associated dues, and all other associated items like voting, etc. However, due to the splintering issues I mention above, I see this as unlikely.
I'd love to hear what ESR and RMS, two top candidates for forming something like this, would have to say...
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
The central theme that unites us is the desire and ability to use technology to make the world a better place.
Reality has a liberal bias
If most geeks are humanists (I have no idea if they are) then we could borrow a bit from the humanist manifesto, and if there are alot of socialist geeks (again... no idea) we might borrow a word or two from Mr. Marx (Karl, not Groucho)
What do you think?
Reality has a liberal bias
The most powerful Christian meme (politically speaking) is the one that says "Eveybody will go to hell unless you save them." That is what makes the so-called "Religious Right" so powerful - they can use this meme to mobilize their group members. Where is the comparable geek meme? I don't think there is one.
I think it's a damn good idea.
How about Halloween Weekend (in honor of the Documents)? that's far enough away from now to give everyone time to plan, and close enough to the Elections so that they won't forget. You can get cheap tix to Dulles or BWI in the fall, and if we're lucky it won't rain.
Alert the media! Geeks march on D.C.! Film at 11...
--
Somebody, somewhere, is going to rate this Funny. He'd be wrong....
Bottom line, geeks don't fit the traditional union model.
Actually, I'm going to debate that last line there. The working class and the employing class do have things in common, particularly in a white-collar environment. Good engineers make good managers. Good tradesmen make good foremen. These individuals often go out and start their own businesses and succeed, thus becoming members of the employing class. I personally know people both white and blue collar who have done this; I've even had the pleasure of working for a few of these individuals. And I do mean pleasure. Having been there and done that, they know the score, and they understand that they need to make your job easier... and do. But I digress.
I can correct that statement. The unenlightened working class and the unenlightened employing class have nothing in common. Except that they're both induhviduals. Those who think about it know that to oppose each other, to create conflict between the classes, is counterproductive, and just plain stupid. The Japanese, on the other hand, understand the concept of team management, and are currently kicking our asses. Without unions. American auto workers who are exposed to this concept burn their union cards and run anyone who keeps his out of town.
I guess the moral of the story isn't that we need to kick ass, so much as we need to simply co-opt the leadership. Suborn it. 0wN it.
In other words, as has been said around here before, hack The System. And that, boys and girls, will be the Greatest Hack of All. Bigger than emacs, bigger than Linux itself.
And I have the sneaking suspicion that's exactly what Linus meant when he said World Domination.
-- ;-)"
"See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too
--Linus
Old people would still win. I didn't vote in November because I was at my desk from 7am to 9pm that day. The sad thing is that I could have voted at the school across the street from my house.
-B
Now that's a technical innovation. And one techie without much influence in a political situation. Various news sources have been noticing the story at various levels this week.
You're wrong sig. Totally. While janitors might work have something in common with us, they don't work with the same stuff we do. Information. We are all information workers, right?
And what's the most powerful political force?
What's the most powerful cultural force?
What's the most powerful military force?
Info, baby, and we're swimming in it. So cut the cynicism, or at least temper it with action. Then we'll be talking in 20 years of the hard-fought victories, instead of the opressive regimes.
--
+&x
Exactly. We are definitely on the same side, but it was a reply to one of *my* extremely cynical posts that motivated me to do this. So I was just trying to keep the fire burning...
BTW, I need a quick DeCSS link, I've finally got my site back up. Anyone?
--
+&x
I'm not sure an attempt to shut down .com would work. We geeks are just too individualistic. In many cases, we define ourselves by our contempt for authority, even our own. How many would follow union bosses?
--The basis of all love is respect
> "Geeks" are not a singular group like "African Americans" or "women". Part of the problem with questions like this is that it assumes that there
> even EXISTS some easily defined, discrete group of people called "geeks" who all believe the same things and want the same things.
So, you're saying that all African Americans all believe the same things, and all want the same things? And you're also saying that women, something like 51% of the world's population, all believe and want the same things.
Yeah, right.
There is diversity in ALL groups, no matter how large or small. Every group has to deal with the fact that not all of its members sees the world the same way. That sometimes makes it harder for the group to accomplish things, but the diversity of opinion can also make the group more robust and powerful.
So, to turn your own phrase around, the "geek" is no more mythical than the "Christian" group, or the "African American" group, or the "Union Local 523" group. Each group is comprised of diverse people, but each of the members is joined together by commonalities.
If you don't have any commonalities with the rest of the group, then of course you shouldn't be a part of it. But I don't think that's what you were trying to say, was it?
Thats all you need to be elected president...
Actually, its lower than that.
Why so low? Only half of the citizens that are eligible to vote are registerred. SO we're down to 50%. And less than half of those registerred vote. So we're at 25% now.
Winning a two-way race now makes it so the winner needs only 12.5% to win the election. ANd the real scary thing here, is that the 50% voter turnout is TOO HIGH of an estimate.
so there are enough "of us" to make a difference. How many people do you think that we can motivate to go and vote based on certain issues.
Enough to be noticed. And felt, and influence events.
we must stop being apathetic and start getting involved. It is possible for the system to work, we just need to take the controls. It wont even be that hard...
Its all a matter of education.
... hi bingo
Oh, sure, there are occasionally galvanizing issues such as specific privacy abuses or even DVD encryption, but on the whole, members of this community have 622 views on any subject. Even on those key issues, there are substantial differences on how to approach them.
A big "problem" of liberty-loving, independent-thinking people is that it's hell to organize them. Like-thinking in-step factory workers, sure...they'll unionize or fall behind the candidate they're told. In this industry, though, and with the level of independence demonstrated on this site alone, everyone has their hot buttons that will cause them to head in a different direction. As a result, politcally speaking, it would be a Herculean job to get a majority behind specific candidates.
If you have 2 Slashdotters, you'll get 3 opinions.
Apparently this is a new usage of the phrase "enormous clout" with which I was not previously familiar.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
However you define "geek" it is "geeks" in general who are in "the know" about things such as privacy, freedom of information, reverse engineering, etc. Consequently, if it is everybody else deciding on the laws and policies on these things, the people who use the technology everyday and are intimately familiar with it ("geeks") will be left out in the cold. That's why you see all this completely ludicrous legislation and bully by big corporations. Big corporations can win over the clueless very easily. Since "geeks" have the clues, our opinions should have some weight. Currently they have none. We will keep seeing fiascos over DeCSS, MP3, and stupid censorware unless we make our voice (and common sense) be heard.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, here it is as plain text.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
It may be hard to get geeks out to vote, but this is why online voting is so importent to the geek community! I would say the one big issue geeks should try to unite behind is online voting.. as it would increase our political power.
The other big problem which your quote dose not make clear is: who tells us how to vote? The riligious right has an orginisation to figure out what state and local officials they want. Geeks may never have a simillar level of orginisation, but we can help to communicate the findings of other orginisations (EFF, ACLU, etc.) to people. These orginisations are pretty bad about not checking out local politicians, but they might put more effort into it when people donate the necissary website work to the state chapters.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
This is not totally correct. There are consumer and freedom issues which geeks might get behind, but I think the two issues geeks really need to get behind is on-line voting and candidate information.
Online voting will do a lot to increase the power of the geek lobby.. even without any kind of organised geek lobby!
The thing that will help even more then online voting is increasing information about candidates, i.e. donating some time to yuor local EFF/ACLU/etc to help set up a web page about local elections.
The religious right controls local ellections because they are the only groups which pays attention to local ellections. This is why school boards are removing evolution from high school science classes. If we make it easy to vote and easy to figure out who stands for what then we will wipe out the riligious right, get funding for space, remove DAs and judges who oppose civil/techno rights, etc. It just a problem of making it easy for people.. and this is a problem geeks can solve without orginising.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
What!? Our VP is an internet pioneer!
That's what I love about them high-school girls. I get older, they stay the same age... yes they do.
--Wooderson 1976
-- jimmycarter
Finally somebody quit bitching and actually DID something.
Played with his nails, eh? He didn't even take notes?! That's not very encouraging, but unfortunately not very suprising either...
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
The GNU Manifesto declared the right of Richard Stallman and the people willing to work with him on it to share a body of what has become some of the most politically controversial software ever written. PGP attacked the idea that the masses should not have strong encryption by simply handing it to them as free software. Apache undermined proprietary web protocols.
If we want to be heard, there is an avenue for those willing to stand up and be counted. Write the code and put it out there. Embody the philosophy of freedom in working software. Use the copyleft and other free licenses to prevent anyone from locking up the code. And as a couple of people have been advocating, start patenting intellectual property embodied in free software and make plans to use those patents to enforce its freedom.
Okay, this doesn't answer the question of how to protect the designated victims from taking the heat at temperatures often comparable to conventional fusion. I don't have that answer.
We are trying new things and breaking new ground in terms of models of collaboration. Stallman was quick to point out that free software was free as in speech. But that statement is true in more ways than simply pointing out that it can be sold as well as given away. It is about freely communicating code. And it is part of a larger issue of maintaining our freedom to speak our minds. It is as deeply political as any issue today.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
We need a million geek march on washington... although with all the technology most of us would bring, it would probably turn into a lan party. It would be fun nonetheless.
(`._(`._( , , . JimmyPop[nL] . , , )_.)_.)
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Think it won't happen? It has happened. The retiring Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for whose seat Hillary and Rudy are now vying, did it to a whole lot of geek businesses back in the 80's. It was incredibly slimy, though clever; if I have this correct, he wrote a change into the tax law such that programmers and engineers (listed by name) were specifically exempted from the "safe harbor" provisions of the tax code which apply to, say, attorneys. Such professionals could not qualify as independent contractors unless they met a laundry list of requirements that the "traditionally" independent professions were not required to meet. This put companies in the position of having to pay employment taxes for their contractors, unless they fired them and hired them back as employees. Lots of engineers lost their deductibility of lots of expenses when they had to become someone's employee.
The point is, Moynihan was able to get away with this because geeks didn't have a lobby to keep his clauses from getting out of committee. The people of the USA lost a lot of freedom in the bargain, because you just aren't as free when you are working for a Fortune 500 company as when you are working for yourself. On the other hand, the government probably finds it a lot easier to deal with (and control) a few big employers than a lot of little ones; look at drug testing for an example of that ugly fact. Anyway, when you come down to it, nothing is going to keep the government off our backs better than a strong lobby (a lobby backed up with energetic, grassroots votes is even better, but YOU GOTTA HAVE A LOBBY!).
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Politics:
I personally am learning a lot simply from reading the articles and comments received from Slashdot's "Your Rights Online" area. This is a great first step--we're lucky to have such a great forum here on Slashdot to discuss such things. A lot of people on here have already started their own political activism in one way or another so I think we're already headed in the right direction. There's a long way to go though.
Subversion:
It's definately to our benefit that we understand the 'nuts and bolts' of the Internet, the information infrastructure of the world, better than those that are trying to control it. This gives us a lot of room to change things without anyone being able to effectively stop us (think gnutella; how easily did technology overcome the obstacles that were placed in the way of MP3 distribution?)
I always see people on here saying, "We can't just sit around and talk about it--we have to do something!" and they're absolutely right. At the same time, the discussions we're having here are probably the most important part of changing things.
numb
No matter how much or hard you try you can never ever make this martyr die. --Suicidal Tendencies, Give it Revolution
- Alpha males at the center of the habitat.
- Concubines and offspring sired by alpha males at the center of the habitat.
- Beta males at the periphery of the habitat.
Geeks are at the periphery of the habitat -- at the frontier. Being at the periphery they have to be good at changing unpopulated marginal environments into life-supporting environments. If they were good at taking control of the center habitat, they would be alpha males and be siring the offspring of the concubines.Politics is a lot like this generic terrestrial vertebrate sociosexual heirarchy. For example, you have an enormous number of fertile young women working in places like political centers like Washington, D.C., media centers like Los Angeles and financial centers like New York City. Not coincidentally, that's also where you find the males with the most clout.
That's why I say to geeks "Change the tools and you change the rules."
Seastead this.
That's about the ratio you would expect at the periphery of the harem. Remember, this is what economists call an inflexible market meaning slight imbalances in supply and demand have a big effect on the price. Also, even frontier mining camps had their female employees. Ask yourself seriously sometime, who are these "cute 32 year old microsofties" going to chose to sire their children -- if anyone? If frontier history is any indication, there are some of them who will enter into de facto polyandry, such as the mining camp town whores. Some of them will just go lesbian and opt for someone like David Crosby as a sperm donor. Only a few will marry and stay faithful to one of the low status frontier "miners". Meanwhile, the political alpha males pass their genes as well as legislative measures.
Seastead this.
On the other hand, Al does stop by here in the Valley to do fundraisers, as well as to let Tipper play drums with the Grateful Dead. There are various efforts to get Silicon Valley types involved in Washington, i.e. give money to Democrats and Republicans, and there's gradually increasing momentum for Valley-based lobbying on issues such as Immigration for high-tech workers, software piracy, crypto exports, and export policy in general. There's a major conflict in lobbying between the entertainment side of the industry and the software-development side of the industry on copyrights and patents, and so far the Big Mouse has been winning over the mouse users. Some of the local Congresscritters have figured out that we're their major constituents, and work hard on valley issues; Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eschoo in particular.
A few Silicon Valley moneymakers have been using their money for more traditional politics, beyond industry-related issues. Unfortunately, the prime examples have been Ron Unz (:-) and of course Larry Ellison's work on Airplane Rights.
Jim Warren has done a lot of good work on the State of California government, particularly on electronic open access to state government data and state legislative activities, and he's one of the main reasons we have the access that we do. Jim gave a talk to the Cypherpunks group a few years ago - one of his big points was that state legislators respond quite well to written letters, and it only takes a few dozen letters per legislative district to let them know there's public opinion that they need to follow.
Libertarianism - one of the difficulties with Silicon Valley lobbying is that most of us are libertarians - either the partisan types, or entrepreneurs and technologists who don't think bureaucrats can improve things by telling us what to do (given the evidence from experience with their incompetence and motives) (though lots of us were college students who were happy to have research grants :-), or civil libertarians who don't like the overall injustice and war that governments have delivered over the years, or at least Draft-Dodging Republicans Who Smoke Pot. That means that the most common response we have to "what can the government do to help us" is the same as it was with the French government 200 years ago - "laissez faire" - go away and leave us alone - which is at odds with government's desire to grow and expand its bureaucratic activities.
Also, doing real politics is a lot of work, and most of us are pretty busy doing other things.
Separate reply on EFF
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Hail Eris!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yeah, I'd be the first Bastard President from Hell!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is simply because, we actually produce the products, we actually create the wealth.
No, this is the shocking truth... it's much, much harder and more valuable to society to be an organizer, than a worker. The organizers of society are what create wealth. These are the people who take risks to build companies and hire people. Workers very rarely take risks.
This is key: People are paid based on the rarity of their talent, not on the importance of the work. Sewage workers are incredibly important to society, but they are paid based on the large number of people that can do that work.
The people who have a lot of money, with some exceptions, earned their money and created thousands of jobs and created huge amounts of new wealth. New institutions are not created by the workers.
--
People are not paid on the rarity of their talent, they are paid whatever they can get on the marketplace and the two are quite different things.
Actually, what I should have said was that they are paid based on the rarity of the talent, and the demand for the talent.
Bill Gates made billions more in the 90 than he did in the 80s, his talent wasn't any more rare, he was just making money on rising stock prices. He certainly wasn't any more talented or working any harder.
Bill Gates is possibly the most talented CEO in the world. Say what you want about Gates, but it is not easy to not only put a company on top, but to keep it there. The graveyard is littered with the bodies of less successful CEOs who got fat and lazy with success (Wordperfect, anyone?) Example: The famous "internet" memo. How many CEOs would have just continued to ignore the Internet and hope the Windows paradigm would continue? But Gates restructured the entire company in an amazingly short period of time. It is not easy to change the direction of an behemoth like Microsoft.
Let's face what the market pays people for is total bullshit. A hockey player makes millions while an over-worked nurse struggles to get by? I don't know why you feel the need to justify such a grossly flawed system?
It's very simple. It's a lot rarer of a talent to be a hockey player than it is to be a nurse. Are nurses important? Of course. But there are 10s of thousands of nurses, and it only takes a few years to become one. The number of people who can play pro-level hockey is unbelievably small. The other side of that equation (that I left out the first time) is the demand. There is a huge demand for hockey players due to the television revenues, while only a relatively small demand for nurses.
To use my original example, sewage workers are incredibly important. Without sewage workers, the sewers would back up and we would have huge pestilence and death. So why don't we pay sewage workers 100s of thousands a year when their worth to society is so huge? Because almost anyone can do the job.
--
You're dreaming if you think most geeks agree on those issues.
Patent system reform? There are way too many ways it can be changed in order to get agreement. Just saying "it needs to be changed" is NOT an issue statement. If you put down some details, I guarantee you will have a substantial number of disagreements.
Larger education budgets? I am totally against that. The problem with education is not lack of money. More money == more adminstrators, not better schools. Education needs to be privatized.
reignite science / tech studying in school. more math... That's fine for you, but not everyone needs more math. I agree that it should be available, but again, that's a privatization issue. (Realize that Science or Art is dropped to pay for more administrators).
funding NASA for _real_ missions ( read: making mars a viable goal ) HELL NO!!! NASA needs to be disbanded or folded into the military. Take NASA's budget and apply it to tax cuts for private companies to do business in space. That is the only hope of seeing mankind in space on a consistent basis.
anti-decency acts... Depends on the act. Not everyone is against filters in libraries, despite what some of these silly YRO articles would seem to indicate.
0 net taxes... I sympathize with this, but it is highly impractical. Think about the disadvantage local retailers are operating under, and you will begin to see why 0 net taxes is not only unfair, but is not going to last forever.
--
The larger point is that all these issues are arguable, and that even these issues that you state "geeks could agree on" are not that easy to pin down.
I'll just take one of your points, however... Do you think people that spend more time with your kids than you do should make ( probably ) 1/2 your salary?
I'm all for quality teachers, but -- and I know I'm going to get whacked for this, but think it through -- I think teachers are a lot less important than a lot of people think. Bad teachers can make learning impossible, there is no question about it, but I think the difference between "competent" and "very good" is not that wide. I think what makes the biggest difference is the involvement of the parents, and the "atmosphere" of the school. If parents are very involved in making sure the kids take learning seriously, and the environment of the school has a very serious "you are here to learn" attitude, that is what makes the biggest difference.
After all, it's the students that actually do the work, not the teachers. Let's face it... if you have a very motivated students, all you have to do is hand out books, assignments, and grades. Answer a few questions if necessary. I think that modern schools have gotten into the trap that schools and teachers are supposed to be entertainers or something. Now, I think that it's great if a teacher can make learning "fun", but unfortunately, the vast majority of learning is difficult, particularly the subjects the student doesn't happen to be interested in.
--
If tomorrow, all the managers, CEO's and stockholders dropped off the face of the planet, the world would function just fine.
You must be insane. You think everyone is just going to show up for work everyday without any sort of management? That it will magically become some self-organized entity? Exactly who is going to make the decision for strategic direction of the company? Who is going to make the decision on what products to keep, and what products to kill? Some bookkeeper? Or perhaps a committee? I've got news for you... this has been tried. Companies run by committee go straight into the toilet.
Or take an army. Do you seriously think an army would be effective without a general? Just having a bunch of troups running around with any strategy?
Is the skill to coercively organize people so wonderful that it is worth 419x more than the skill to produce something?
"Coercively"? Exactly what coercision is taking place? As for "419x", damn right they are. The skill to produce something is 419 times less difficult than the skills to organize and lead people to produce things.
Of course he's going to defend the right of the ruling class to rule, because he's trying so desperately to enter into it.
I love it... "the ruling class". Yes, I've been on both sides of the fence. And when you have too, maybe you will understand exactly what it takes to run a company. Maybe you should also take an economics class. People are paid exactly what they are worth. If anyone could fulfill the CEO of IBM's job, believe me, the shareholders would put in the 20K/year bolt-turner.
But there are specialized skills involved in being a CEO, namely leadership. Just as you can't have an army with only soldiers, you need someone to give direction and vision to the company.
--
I must correct myself -- I didn't mean to imply that "women" or "African Americans" are a singular, easily definable group who all want the same things. What I meant to say was that, like "women" or "African Americans", "geeks" are not a singular yadda yadda...
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
In other words I'm kind of equating saying "Geeks need a special political lobby" with saying "rich white people need a special political lobby". Geeks are not being oppressed or left out. What need have "we" of a special political lobby?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
A geek lobby? In the grand scheme of things, such a notion is absurd... What would it stand for.. the ability to reverse engineer, to emulate, to imitate? Wake up.
There are greater issues at hand. Fight for small battles such as the DVD encryption now, but there is no place for something that affects so few people.
And i think it is very arrogant to say that "geeks" do the real work, that is to say to put aside teachers, and social workers, and doctors do nothing with their time. Solving problems has its place, but also there are other professions who do very meaningful work.
We push forward the boundaries of computing, and this is important to society, but lets wake up, there is no issue here, IMO. Society has more important things to tackle first. Lets take a number...
---jay
"Geeks", almost by definition, would in any given political campaign only concern themselves with the technological issues at hand. We aren't so much a group that needs representing on the whole as a special-interest group that could perhaps involve itself with politics when technology is to be an issue.
Oh but there is just one problem: Some of these dinosaurs *do* get it. They put the net into their old little toolbox of "old media", comersials, lawsuits, lobbying and what other means of influence they have.
Who do you think is more powerful:
A bunch of geeks equipped with their techical skill and the net
OR
A bunch of global companies equipped with their political and legal skill, tons of money, political connections AND the net?
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I've pondered this one a little bit myself, and one thing I noticed is this: in the way politics works, realistically, you need a large group of people in a reasonably small area to influence the bigwigs. The diminishing power we have over our representatives is our vote (I say diminishing because of how much influence is bought and sold), and votes are geographical in nature. It is very hard to bring the voice from the internet - which clearly transcends geography, - to "old world" or "real world" (depending on where you fit. :-) ) politics.
In the good ol' dial-up BBS days, there was the benefit of knowing when people you were talking to were from your area (because area codes were usually displayed), and there was that chance of getting a bunch of people together. That sort of link between electronic and geographic proximity has been mostly lost, and the link is now between electronic and interest-related proximity - never before have as many geeks been in one "place" as there are here on Slashdot.
So, I guess I'm just rephrasing the question: How do we reforge a geographical link? A protest in front of an MP's (I'm Canadian) office that The Media(tm) picks up on is hundreds of times more influential than a bunch of form letters forwarded along by concerned citizens.
-Syvlester
-Rob Ewaschuk
For information about current legislation in front of Congress, you may visit Thomas, the US Congress Internet site. You may find additional information on the House and Senate at their respective sites.
For State and Local information, you may want to refer to the Yahoo Government Politics Directory here and find your particular state or locality.
As that sometimes disturbing, sometimes OK group the Christian Coalition noted: About 7% of the population determines the result of most votes in the U.S. Only about 60% of people are registered to vote. Less than half of them turn out for most elections except hotly contested Presidential elections. This sets the amount of voters at 30% usually. That ends up being less than 15% per major party. This means that 7% of the people nominating a candidate for one side can often be enough to get that person elected. If you vote in every single election in your locality, you wield tremendous power on the electoral system. A great commitment by geeks to the political process would have a disproportionate affect on politics as usual. Geek issues WOULD be addressed. (How do you think the Religious Right got so much influence in politics?)
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
This complete difference with strong agreement on certain issues is the weakness and strength of the geek movement (if it can really be said that there is one). We don't throw our weight behind a single political party, so we aren't stuck with the other political baggage that party already has. We can lobby in all of the parties and offer our strength and expertise in various areas in exchange for political representation. If the parties are arguing about how to implement the general goals of our subset of the population, it is a massive step forward from the total non-representation we have now. If geeks always turn out the votes for the parties they join, they can gather the same kind of disproportionate strength that other issues groups (like the labor unions or Christian right) hold in their parties.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
"Think of it like buying a dog... "
And, if you want your politician to avoid scandal, you'll apparently need to have him neutered!
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
I think the apathy of geeks towards traditional politics (and the obligatory snubbing in return) is a matter of relevancy. Cyberspace lawlessness, or perhaps more accurately, self-regulation, can quickly make one unconcerned by the actions of lawmakers.
What has affected your life more: the internet, or a balanced budget? Which has spurred unwavering economic growth: information-age productivity, or Alan Greenspan? Which promises to bring peace, prosperity, and democracy to more of the world: the open exchange of information without borders or censors, or the WTO?
American (and probably EU) politics are just so damn boring these days, and it's very much like some employee focus group: "Thank you all very much for sharing your opinions. Management will now go do whatever the hell we feel like, and you will all try to ignore us to whatever extent possible while getting your jobs done."
As for wielding new-found power, how can the techies change things any more than in the last decade?
"You say you want a revolution? I started three of them before breakfast this morning."
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Internet privacy (or the lack-therof) seems to strike fear into the hearts of many. The public is fed up with SPAM, annoying pop-up ads, junk mail, phone solicitations, and they're scared to death of "identity thefts." Any politician who can solve these problems will have a groundswell of support, and if we geeks get vocal on this issue, it could greatly increase our political clout. As for the other issues, it doesn't look too good:
UCITA: We're opposed by big companies like M$ and AOL, who have big money, powerful connections, and (this is the most important) they create jobs. Politicians love that. Our only allies are the companies that purchase lots of software, who are just starting to catch on to the dangers of UCITA. Unfortunately, they are much less organized than the proponents of UCITA, and they probably figure they won't get screwed because they are important customers for the software vendors.
Cryptography: Here, we are up against the most powerful agencies of government and most of mainstream society. Most people buy the "national security" or "law enforcement" arguments against strong cryptography for public use. The more we argue for the freedom to encrypt, the more we sound we're doing things that are illegal.
Censorship: We are opposed by the ultra-religious, as well as the liberal "child advocates", forming a pincer move against us. Luckily we have some of the press on our side, and 1st Amendment groups like the ACLU. There have been some victories here, like CDA, but still the common public sentiment is that there's too much smut on the internet and someone needs to do something about it.
DVD/DeCSS: Absolutely no one is with us on this one. The issue has been framed by the media as "movie stars" vs. "pirates". No one gives a damn if a few Linux users can't use their DVD's. They don't understand what free software means, and they'll buy into anything that Hollywood has to say on this. Most of all, they don't understand how pirates can copy DVDs without DeCSS because the media (a bit more techno-savvy than the public) doesn't even get it.
Free Software: One word: FUD. Oh, and most of the richest geeks are against us, and they're the ones that get interviewed by the media, not RMS and ESR. Let's just be glad that we don't need politicians to let us have Linux and free software.
Pols will expect payments every election cycle, and you should be able to step-up if they run for higher office. Buy one yourself or start a polical action committee (PAC) with a few like-minded people and pool your resources. Your payments buy you access to your politician when you want to discuss your issue, and your pol might even introduce the bill you write.
Of course, your pol will require attention. Don't buy a pol if you don't (a PAC helps reduce your commitment) have the time to monitor, lobby, feed, and disipline it. Think of it like buying a dog...
I've mentioned this before in these forums, but I feel this comment makes it worth mentioning again.
I don't believe that you've really thought out what you're saying here, AC. The principles of communal action and shared voice are much, much older than Communism or Socialism. See, I *am* a Communist, and I can assure you that I do indeed have my own ideas on how the world should be run. But changing the world is not the immediate goal here. The goal is to change the ways in which we, the geeks, are seen, heard, and understood in the world. This isn't about a global revolution. It's about being heard.
I should ask here: are you a Linux developer? Ever written an open-source application? If you can answer yes to either of those questions, then you've participated in a process that's very similar to Communism in many ways. You weren't being paid for your efforts; so something else motivated you: the good of the community and the pride you get from having done something important for that community. This is what it's all about: shared labor creating universal gain. Like it or not, it's an idea at the very core of Communism.
My question to you, AC, would be this: what's there to be afraid of in a little communal action? What's wrong with having a common purpose and a united voice? Are you going to let your McCarthyist fears prevent you from adding your distinct voice and opinions to a group that just might be able to change the world?
But if you're happy being ignored by the system that's supposed to protect you, then maybe that's okay in your view. But a thousand voices shout louder than one. And one voice is simply not going to change the world.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
I have zero pity for you if you can't negotiate a salary to your advantage. There's a word for your kind - its not geek - its chump.
Don't blame society because you took the first number they put on the table.
It doesn't even sound like you enjoy programming. If this is the case - quit. When you're sitting on your deathbed, you're going to regret not taking charge of your life.
unding NASA for _real_ missions ( read: making mars a viable goal ) HELL NO!!! NASA needs to be disbanded or folded into the military. Take NASA's budget and apply it to tax cuts for private companies to do business in space. That is the only hope of seeing mankind in space on a consistent basis.
Funny that you mention this.   I read something from the AP this morning that said a bill was just signed into law to begin to "de-governmentize" the Intelsat (I believe - or one of the *sat) network - opening the way for privatization of satellites...
A move in the right direction, IMHO.
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
...make strange bedfellows.   Often revolutions begin one person at a time.   With the power of the web - and a voice not churned through the journalistic feeding frenzy market machine (it slices, it dices, it turns out FUD and muddies the water), there is a chance to educate (and fire up) the public - who inturn will (hopefully) vote for folks who are in a geek's interest.
/.ers nerds?   ;-)   Is there a difference?   Why am I here?
And granted, the apathy out there is pathetic, but if you put up a hot enough issue, you'd be surprised how the voting tides will turn for the geek...
But then again, aren't
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
Much kudos for actually getting out there and talking to the people who make the laws. Now I've been shamed into making a similar appointment here...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Unless someone offers a critic of existing organizations, with changes to be made - I'd argue we may have to many organizations and creating another would continue to fragment what influence there is to be had.
Or in other words, what "we" don't need is to defuse our resources by building up a new organization, but use those resources to strengthen or affect change within existing organizations.
There are a lot out there. I started with three:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
The Center for Democracy and Technology
From there I was able to also dig up links to:
The Internet Education Foundation
The Media Access Project (non-profit telecomm lawyers, interesting..)
The Global Internet Liberty Campaign
Digital Future Coalition
Let alone those that aren't "purely" technical - such as the ACLU or People for the American Way, that touch on things like 1st Amendment (yep, American biased I am) rights. I could keep going and going, but if I didn't bore you ten lines ago, you would be now.
The likelihood of having THE "geek organization" are slim. Finding issues we can individually devote our resources to and building coalitions where interests overlap is a more realistic goal.
There already are high tech lobbies in the US Congress, and I should hope elsewhere in the world. The Association of Internet Professionals has a lobby, if you would like to join the AIP go to www.association.org. No, the AIP doesn't cover all of the folks on /., but I think it affects a major portion of them.
Blame me. I am responsible.
I haven't been applying for any patents lately, voicing sympathy for the big corporations, but I have been investing a large portion of my salary into stocks. Like many other people, I kind of expect and demand my investments yield great returns. This, I fear, is where the pressure is put on large companies who have capitol raised from investors to bludgeon the competition with patents and lawsuits any chance they get. The more I invest for my future, the more power and extra cash these large companies have to secure thier share in the marketplace. My investments are encouraging world domination and loss of freedom as companies decommoditize as they secure the marketplace.
I have been enjoying fantastic returns and can retire very comfortably; however, I'd gladly trade my spectacular returns back for my personal freedoms when I explore technological challenges. If these unfair property rights laws were done away with, sure my stocks may plunge for the moment. I'd gladly buy freedom back if its not too late.
But consider what fairness in the business world will do for productivity in the long run. It might stop all these crazy mergers that attempt to settle lawsuits. They all want to merge into One Big Company that can't sue itself. Do we all want to work for One Big Company?
Finally, nerds have realised something. It's something that's not a very easy thing to come to terms with, but it'll change your outlook once you do.
No matter how many zeroes we may have on the end of our paychecks, we are still working class
Not middle class (which doesn't really exist outside of tax forms), not ruling class, not even managerial class, but working class. This is simply because, we actually produce the products, we actually create the wealth. And how does our society (more importantly, the people with the wealth) treat people who create the wealth?
They may wine and dine us if there aren't many of us. But they're always looking for ways to find people who'll work for less, take more shit, and be even more scared of being fired than you are. Whether that means farming out work to India, or hiring students right out of college, or via other means, they're doing it. But in the meantime, we have power, right? Wrong. One thing that people in power have never willingly granted the working class is power. Once we start challenging their power, they'll ask the restaurant bouncer to throw this bum out on the sidewalk, because they're through wining and dining.
So how do we fight these people (the "Ruling Class", if I may use a term popular in anarchist/socialist discussion) and their profit-driven concepts of intellectual "freedom" and "property", which are completely at odds with our definitions? We have money, that's true. But think about the truly idealistic and skillful hackers. The Tim Berners-Lee's, or the Linus's, or the Steve Wozniak's. Some have made a very decent chunk of change, but nothing compared to Jim Clark, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs. And definitely nothing compared to the RIAA, the WTO, or the MPAA.
I don't have a complete solution, but a step in the right direction is greater collaboration with other working class people. Whether it's construction workers (throw out any classist preconceptions you have; which would you rather associate yourself with, a construction worker who's more than willing to get their hands dirty and get some work done, or some manager in an expensive suit that reads email all day and pays for luxury trips on the company credit card?), biotechnologists, telecommunications workers, or anyone else who actually accomplishes something in their nine-to-five. More importantly, anybody who is upset by how the corporation they work for is distorting their work and using it for unethical means (this could be everyone from GM to Amazon.com to Monsanto to Disney).
Think about it. Geeks aren't the only ones pissed off by the actions of the rich and powerful.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. - Preamble to the IWW constitution.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
We're so fragmented in our beliefs we're in worse shape than either the Demoratic or Republican party.
- it-or-not crowd.
The democrats have the skeletons in the closet of the Eco-Whackos and the Tax payer funded abortion nuts and the republicans have to deal with the shove-the-bible-down-your-throat-whether-you-like
We've got to deal with Script Kiddies and "Hack the planet" losers who make us look like pimple faced sexually depraved twits.
We have nothing which unites us. Democrats have th "Help The Poor" and the Republicans have the "Lower Taxes" drums to beat and there is nothing that unites us.
Are we geeks first or last? Would you vote for politician X if s/he agreed with you on every computer/technology related issue but differed with you on abortion, gun control, or environmental policy?
How about if Politician Y agreed with you on all of those social issues, but disagreed with you on regulating the internet?
If it were me, I'd hold my nose and vote for Y.
What central theme can unite us as geeks?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
We are people. We have different opinions, upbringings, ideas on how things work. Some have said that geeks can't have a voice, because we're such a diverse group.
I disagree. I can think of one thing all geeks value, and I'm sure that whatever else we disagree about, we can agree about this.
Freedom.
Freedom of information. Freedom of curiosity. Freedom of speech. Freedom to innovate. Freedom to distribute. Freedom to market. Freedom, freedom, freedom. It all comes down to freedom of knowledge.
Every web page we construct, every piece of code we write, every post we make to fora like Slashdot and the like, even every piece of software we mirror or link to is an expression of freedom on the new frontier.
We are grunts, as someone here said. But we are grunts with an unusual amount of power. We control the tools that the people in control rely on to get things done. We control the channels of communication at the lowest level. We work in the dark computer rooms, the back rooms, the IT departments of corporations, even among non-geeks in places like law firms, newsrooms, TV and radio stations, and anyplace else where information is transmitted and shared. We control the dials, buttons and keys that must be pushed to Get Information Out. If knowledge comes from information, and knowledge is power, then information is freedom.
As geeks, in the places we are, we have more control than we realize. We value freedom. We have control over one form of freedom (information). Thus, we have a duty to protect that freedom from all who would take it away for their own ends.
When we speak out against patents meant to take exclusive control over seemingly trivial processes, when we mirror a piece of software because a company is attacking the author, when we call out to expose lobbyists trying to shove through a law limiting everyone's rights over information but their own, we defend freedom.
And we don't just exist in one nation, but everywhere! Our major interests aren't just limited to one country - they are universal! Information is in every country; knowledge, available to anyone who wants it. As a group, we can make sure that is true into the future; we can take on those who would steal that right, anyplace they try. The socialists and communists of the past century tried to cobble together an International to represent workers' rights; meanwhile, an International of geeks preparing to defend freedom of knowledge is here, now, and we don't even realize it! If we wanted to, we could wipe out the Internet. Here. Now. A few people in the right places executing the right commands, and it's over. We have power; we have responsibility to those who use our systems, and responsibility to defend those systems from attack, physical and ideological.
We don't have to give ourselves a pretty name, or elect a governing body; indeed, that would go against everything we stand for. We can be individuals, acting as a group, to ensure that people can read source code, write opinions, even market software without being squashed by someone bigger and more powerful. We don't have to unite under a banner, or declare allegiance to someone. We just have to do what we're doing now, with the volume turned way up.
Write code. Read code. Mirror code when authority tries to hide it because they're scared of having something revealed. Send letters to newspapers. Call radio and TV stations. Ask embarrassing questions to politicians. Put up websites to offer software, information, or just to give your opinion. Do what you can to ensure information and truth flow freely.
We are geeks. We control the information. We value freedom of information. Thus, we have a duty to defend that freedom, anytime, anywhere, in any way deemed necessary. If we fail to defend the freedom to have an individual thought, or spread truth, then nothing is left.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I don't think the numbers explain it -- the teachers union has enormous clout, as do other groups smaller than geeks. With geeks busy with their positions of responsibility, pretty independent by their nature (therefore, not tending to join political groups), and leaning politically toward smaller government; that probably keeps them uninvolved with government and ignored by "big government" types -- the people who actually runs things.
I would love to see some numbers on the breakdown on the money spent on political lobbiests for the various industries and demographic groups.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
The problem is that the current political system is not geek-friendly. As someone who's done politics since I was 13, and been on various Democratic Exec Boards (KCDCC, 42nd, 36th, just moved to 43 (maybe next year)), the system rewards groups willing to put in the hours.
/. effect to overwhelm the political process. For example, to game the sytem with geek-friendly delegates by showing up for caucuses which are sparsely attended, with an SSH-enabled web status board to help one figure out how to get the most delegates (of any candidate, it doesn't matter) elected to the next stage.
A geek lobby that could work would be to use the
Or to overwhelm the Exec boards and meetings at which policy is set by having a co-located LUG meeting - then timeshare one or two people to watch the political process for opportunities while everyone else writes code. Let the politicos waste time with speeches and have the key geeks make motions right after ICMing all the geeks in the room to vote on the motion.
It's not that hard, really.
Will in Seattle
I think getting louder is the wrong approach. Getting organized. Getting the word out. Trying to motivate people to vote or contact their representatives. These are better options IMHO. Getting louder will just alienate people. It usually only works for groups that can fall into the "family values" camp. A bunch of nerds basically saying, "Stop messing with our stuff or we'll put up a bunch of mirror sites" isn't going to lead to change.
Once nerds (that includes me) start winning political office or organizing voting blocks, then we can get some things done. Vote - that's how it gets done.
Jon Sullivan
www.jonsullivan.com
The sad truth is, that won't matter for now, but in time it will. There are countless 'causes' that ask you to write to your congress-critters and tell them how you feel about a specific piece of legislation. Believe it or not, that's a good idea. The politicians do occasionally listen to their constituants. It is a good idea to write to them and ask them the hard questions.
Here's a plan to follow right now while this is fresh on your mind.
1) Find out what legislation is currently being considered. Do this for both federal and state issues.
2) Write a letter to your representatives (all of them) as well as any members of special committees responsible for the legislation. Tell them your opinions on the issues. Tell them in plain English.
3) Write a separate letter to your elected officials. Tell them how you expect them to vote on something and tell them why. Ask them to notify you of how they finally decide to vote.
When the time comes for you to elect a new representative, make a note of how well they followed your directions throughout their past term and vote accordingly.
This ends the armchair guide to lobbying. More assertive tactics exist, but these are the things you can do rather easily without having to get involved with activist groups.
I really think that's a red herring. Do you really think that there's not some basic commonality or popular plurality of interest among the "geek" community? You've said that women and African-Americans are every inch as diverse politically as geeks are, and yet there always seem to be two or three key viewpoints about any topic that, because of their united voice, get the consideration, get the editorial and popular press and news airtime. The question of whether or not we "need" a collective voice is almost completely irrelevant. The fact that we don't all speak as one only underscores this point. There's many, many things we know and understand about the world and its new technological paradigm that *must* be aired and *must* be popularized.
Or else, we all lose.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
Before you even talk about a ``geek lobby'', you need to decide what this lobby stands for. There are clearly some issues ( say, gun-control; republican-or-democrat-or-other ) where there'll never be agreement. Perhaps it's possible to create some kind of manifesto and/or policy platform, but drawing widespread support for it, even among geeks, could prove difficult.
And who's going to have to change that?
We are.
We have to form a consensus on the issues (maybe borrow Taco's polling engine), figure out which candidates support them or might be willing to, Slashdot the hell out of them (and not just with email, but with face time and with treeware), in short, we have to get it in gear, here and now.
Or we're going to get squashed.
I'm serious, folks, with DMCA and DeCSS and CyberPatrol in the courts, we stand a good chance of getting promoted to outlaw. The time to act is now.
Let's Do It.
--
This was the year everything changed.
-- Commander Ivanova, 2261
Ahh. There is the confusion. You have been expanding "lobby" into "political force for special protectionist privileges." I can see where you could come by that idea; certainly the press loves to paint lobbies in that color. However, "lobby" need not be just a racket for getting goodies or protections for a subset of the population.
A much better expansion of "lobby" is "political force to make the world as we would like it to be." Clearly for many groups, "as we would like it to be" is "more goodies for us". But that need not be the case.
Since many geeks feel similarly strongly about such issues as free speech, intellectual property law, etc., we could, theoretically, have a lobby to advance those causes.
Of course, practically it would be very difficult to do, because geeks are such a minority it would be hard to get them to rock a vote....
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
While I an certainly not the sort of person who wants to see an org chart or any such crap, some sort of organization (like a union)is needed. For example, when the rank and file cops want to be heard, they come down with the blue flu (most all of them. Too many to simply replace the 'malcontents').
Imagine how quickly the economists and big money interests would pay attention if the message was: Unless this is cleared up, On Monday, 27 March, .com will will cease to exist. It will return (this time) on Tuesday 28 March.
Keep in mind that the announcement itself could drop the Dow 100 points. Actually doing it could easily cost 500-1000 and a good month to recover.
That action would be very extreme, and a last resort. Lesser actions could well have a positive effect. The problem is, if Monday 27 March came around, how many techs would actually shut the routers off? If it's not close to 100%, there will be a lot of lawsuits and fireings, everyone else will just laugh, and the geeks will have no political clout whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but while the above paragraph is unflattering, it's sadly true. We do control some of the best tools ever created to effect social change in this country, nay, the world at large. But the same personality attributes that allows us to spend 12 hours staring at a computer monitor making those tools are the same personality attributes that relegate us to relative obscurity in the public eye. The general public admires the earning potential of this line of work, but little else.
Geeks have no voice as it stands right now. When l0pht went to Congress to testify over security, they were ignored. We submitted proposals for using open source to make the government work cheaper and faster, those were rejected. We're not being taken seriously. Those of us who, in frustration, take to their keyboards and engage in hacktivism are labelled criminals and locked up for dozens of years. Our only recourse - civil disobedience, has already largely been headed off by draconian legislation like the DMCA, or the dozen other acts which make even looking at a computer menacingly a felony.
No, we don't have them - they have us. Our only tools right now are the internet and it's massively distributed architecture, designed to make sure that information that gets out there stays out there, and excercising our technical abilities to route around the damage caused by bad legislation, corrupt politicians, and massive corporations stripping away our rights for additional profit.
Yea, welcome to the 21st century.
Slashdot could work to change this... in a big way. If we unite as a force of change, it may be possible to introduce some diversity into the presidential race. Slashdot as a whole should endorse a candidate (decided by the slashdot poll), which everyone on Slashdot will work to get elected. Obviously we would become one of those special interest groups, but one which is composed of individuals who all have a say in the collective policies that we support.
Slashdot polls on all the major issues, and with our sheer numbers, we would be able to influence the campaign platform of our selected candidate. I put forward the name of Ralph Nader only because he happens to be the candidate that I support, but it could just as easily be David McReynolds, or anyone, other than Bush or Gore.
The best way to determine who your views are most in line with is at the Presidential Candidate Selector: http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/
Ralph Nader is here, and David McReynolds is here
Reality has a liberal bias
I got there at 12:58 for a 1:00 appointment. He met me about 1:15. Khakis. blue shirt, tie.
/., as a sample site for a community meeting place (hehe).
;-) I would strongly urge you to try and do something similar. I have the rather useful advantage of working in the same building as my congressman, but you might be surprised how accessible some of them might be.
:(
I started off with a couple questions about privacy and the FBI. He was against most of their efforts to gain administrative wiretapping permission, instead saying there should still be a judge involved (although he mentioned there were both good and bad judges, IHHO)
Then I went on to some patent issues. This was where he was most responsive to some of my ideas. Having read up a bit on the history of the patent system, I was able (I think) to illustrate to him that it was not, at least in the realm of software, fuctioning as originally intended, and was now inhibiting the progress of an industry. I said that often the physical task of writing software was inexpensive (at least froma a starting point), and often it was prohibitively expensive to do a thorough enough check to make sure someone hadn't used the same obvious of even slightly trickly method you were planning on implementing. Thus creating prohibitive barriers of entry into a burgeoning industry. I mentioned Bezo's letter, and suggestions, but how he felt his hands were tied given the current system.
Then I went on into DMCA, IP, and copyright. I used the DVD case (which he had heard of) as an example on why you might need to circumvent copy protection as a means to fair use, and how that action was now a felony in the U.S. I mentioned how I download MP3s as a way to try new music, and how various industry groups have tried to fight new technology every step of the way. Instead of fighting in the marketplace, they have moved to fighting in the courts. Since he didn't recognize the DMCA by name, I think a lot of this went in one ear and out the other. He was playing with his pen and fingernails during this one.
Finally, I got to explain (in under two minutes) the Linux/Open Source phenomonem and how it differed from traditional product design and distribution,i.e. the differences between an M$ EULA and the GPL. I mentioned how I felt political websites (including his) were not being used as the community centers they might be, and directed him to
Finally, I ended with a quick bit about my fears as a current 'Net user that big (international conglomerate) money and government interference would erode and eventually destroy this wonderful medium and everything it makes possible.
I don't know how much he grokked, or even tried, but that was 10 minutes of time he wan't lobbied by the RIAA
There ya go. (oh, and thanks to 348 for the final push, no link, I post too much
--
+&x
I have an appointment (in about 15 min) to meet with one of my state's congressmen. After mentioning it to a couple people here (physical), I've gotten "good luck, he's a ___", none of which was good. I'll let you know how it goes. Basically I just want to see what the knows/thinks about the Net and some of its issues.
--
+&x
The religious right gets it. It's time for geeks to get it. The following is from a salon.com article on how The Christian Coalition does it:
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Digital Millenium Copyright Act comments due by March 31! EFF has information here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Also, I think that highly-paid technical workers are a relative minority in the world, and even in the United States. Since when do we need political advocacy? Maybe we will in the future at some point, but certainly not now.
The causes that "we" (read: "I") are commonly perceived as supporting -- the free exchange of information, open source software development, keeping it legal to embarrass corporations who do stupid things -- are good causes for everyone (except big business, of course, and I don't think anyone will rationally argue that big business needs ANY MORE POWER than it already has). I can see lobbying for such causes, but not on behalf of a mythical "geek" group that is, in reality, about as well defined as "Christians".
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased