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 How can we help the people like Jon Johansen who are victims of the outdated system?"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.
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
Which would give the White House all the excuse it needs to bring in the Army to break us up. A million-node Beowulf cluster would be the most powerful computer in existance. Given export restrictions on supercomputers (they're weapons, don't you know), the cluster would probably be considered equivalent to a fusion bomb...
--The basis of all love is respect
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