Slashdot in Politics?

Michael "Codetalker" Obersnel asks: "I was wondering if anyone out there had any ideas on how to turn all that passionate talk on Slashdot (how I love it) into a political force that people will pay attention to. Like a lobby group or something similar. It seems that people tolerate the DMCA and spam enough to complain about it but not really do anything about. I think we could change that with some organization and a cohesive front. I'm not suggesting that Slashdot itself be responsible, only that the community take part. Like a micro-payment system to hire lawyers for topics we are interested in or some sort of petitioning system. I know I'd pay a buck to overturn the DMCA, free Dimitri, outlaw spam, protest license problems, protect the GPL etc."

Comments

Lobbying Congresspeople

[Deven]

If all the people who take the time to complain on here would just take the time to phone and/or write their congressperson, it would probably make a big difference. The other side is organized; why aren't we?

Re:Lobbying Congresspeople

[wurp]

You can send a fax to all of your congressmen even easier than you can send an email via aclu.org. If you go to
http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html
at the bottom of the page you will see an option to fax your congressmen. It will figure out who they are based on your physical address and fax them whatever content you enter into their web form.

Here's what I sent to my congressmen:

A second attack on the freedoms of Americans is happening right now, and you're on the front lines. Please help defend my freedom.

I know that times like these compel one to try to do something about it, to fight for our freedoms and security. I can only assume that this urge
is what is driving the current push for laws that ostensibly increase our national security, but in fact restrict our freedoms without measurable increase in security.

You are doing more than your fair share to fight for the American way if you resist the urge to pass oppressive laws in a time of crisis. Please don't let national law be driven by current events. The strength of our nation lies in the freedom it grants its citizens, not the power of the government to control those citizens.

That said, I would like to list some laws which I believe are currently under consideration, and which I feel gravely impact the freedoms on which America is founded. I strongly urge you to vote AGAINST the following legislation:

1) The Mobilization Against Terrorism Act a.k.a. Anti-Terrorism Act proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft. If I understand this bill correctly, it would for example treat computerized graffiti (defacing a governmental web page) as an act of terrorism punishable by life in prison. While defacing government property is obviously a crime, there are already laws on the books with reasonable punishments for these crimes. This bill also appears to violate our ex post facto protections granted by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

2) Amendment S.A. 1562 of H.R. 2500, the Combating Terrorism Act, sections 816, 832, 833 and 834. This bill appears to grant broad rights to government agencies regarding computerized wire taps. There are already mechanisms for obtaining the right to a wire tap (warrants). I feel this act is an abridgement of our fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

3) The draft Public Safety and Cyber Security Enhancement Act (PSCSEA). Restrictions on cryptography can only hurt legitimate uses, never criminal or terroristic uses. Cryptographic algorithms are well known and software providing strong encryption is easily obtainable, regardless of US law. If its use is criminalized, will that stop criminals from using it? Also, encrypted communications can NOT be identified if the communicating parties use commonly known methods of steganography. The kind of messages that terrorists would send back and forth could easily be hidden undetectably in any public internet forum, video stream, photograph, sound or other file. Criminalizing encryption will only restrict law abiding citizens from protecting personal and financial information.

4) The draft legislation titled "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" (SSSCA). This law grants unprecented rights to intellectual property holders (including virtually eliminating Fair Use rights, first sale doctrine, and public domain rights). At the same time, it increases the cost of all computer systems and eliminates an entire computing industry founded on openness and freedom. (There is publicly available software which allows one to operate a computer while legally paying no license fees. This software and any like it would be untenable since anyone could alter the program to disable the copy protections required under the SSSCA. This software (Linux) is an incredible boon to students, non-profit organizations, and low income users everywhere.)

I am a computer software developer. Intellectual property is my livelihood. Please follow the guidelines given by the founding fathers in our Constitution with respect to IP. The limited monopoly on intellectual property is a sacrifice we make to satisfy the real goal.

From the US Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The goal of intellectual property rights is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, not to guarantee income in perpetuity.

How you vote affects how I vote. Please help protect the freedom of American citizens.

Here is a list of articles further enumerating the concerns about current legislation: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257
http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/hollings.090701. ht ml
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010921_eff_wiretap_a le rt.html

Sincerely,

Bobby Martin, CEO NavTools Inc.

Re:There already is such an organization

[supabeast!]

The EFF is not a lobbying group, it is a fund set up to help people whose freedoms are attacked unjustly. What we need is someone with the knowledge, experience, and leadership capabilities to start up a PAC (Political Action Committee.) that can lobby politicians for us.

This is the sort of thing that some of those loudmouthed leaders of the open-source community should really be doing, instead of running around trying to demonize Microsoft and other software companies, making the entire movement look like a bunch of cheap wackos.

One way /. could help...

[CptnHarlock]

... is by allowing the EFF to have free banners on the site. If lets say every 50th banner is a free banner for the EFF then /. and Andover would really put their money where their mouth is. I mean there's anyway a decline in banner sells worldwide, that gap could easily be filled with "goodwill" banners... How'bout that Taco & Co?

Re:One way /. could help...

[orn]

Actually, I think a Slashbox would be better. Split it into two fields. The first would be "Top Issues", the second would be "Recent News." Let them control it and let the articles link directly to their site.

Rudy

Start with OpenSourceLobby.org

[mikosullivan]

At OpenSourceLobby.org we are working to educate the government about the value of open source. We are a grass roots movement: each member of OpenSourceLobby "owns" his or her congressional representative and is in charge of establishing a relationship with that legislator and educating him or her about open source. We are also writing up fact sheets and talking points to assist lobbyists and other open sourcies in making their case.

We're just getting started, so it's a great time to join in.

Because no one here exerts any effort..

[sphealey]

Congresspeople and other politicans pay attention to three things: (1) manually typed, manually signed letters from registered voters with reasonable arguments and tone (2) contributions of $$$ (the more the better, but any amount gets attention) (3) contributions of manhours.

I suggested when the Dimitri issue broke that if 100,000 slashdotters typed out a letter to their Congressional representatives (quick - who is the house member from your district?) and mailed it in, then Congress would begin to pay attention to the debate.

The typical response was "I don't know where a manual typewriter exists {hint - your public library} and if I can't e-mail my letter I won't bother. And send in $50??? You have to be joking!".

So exactly why would you expect any politician to take anything said here seriously?

sPh

Re:Because no one here exerts any effort..

[cascadefx]

Congresspeople and other politicans pay attention to three things: (1) manually typed, manually signed letters from registered voters with reasonable arguments and tone

If you don't have a manual typwriter, bring out that old impact printer that is gathering dust in your closet. A simple Perl script could change the letters you send enough to make them seem less formulaic.

Then send them to all of your:

1. Representatives in Washington
   
2. state Reps
   
3. local Reps
   
4. heads of the Political Parties at the national and state level
   
5. governors
   
6. state attorney generals
   
7. attorney general of the United States
   
8. president
   
9. vice president
   
10. speaker of the house
    
11. Heads of pertinent committees
    
12. Heads of pertinent agencies
    
13. Editors of influential Magazines and Newspapers
    
    
    

    Then you just have to sign them by hand OR get a plotter to do it.
    
    

    I think we are framing the idea of "lazy" wrong. Sure computer people are lazy. They hate expending effort that will just have to be done over and over again. It is better to spend a couple of days hacking together a solution that could be applied when needed instead of taking the few minutes it will take to solve the problem once.
    
    

    Doesn't Larry Wall say that the three great virtues of a programmer are laziness, impatience and hubris? Well, let's put that crap to work.
    
    

    If you don't have an impact printer, fake it by choosing a crappy fixed width font like IMPACT or something. Sure, it is not the same, but it does tend to throw people used to recieving nicely formatted text. Also throw in some spelling errors and leave out some words (then go back and correct them with whiteout... though this goes against the virtues
    
    

    If you start to analyze the problem, you could probably figure out what makes a personal letter sound personal and a form letter sound like a form letter. Capitalize on that! Keep a couple of flat files with appropriate phrases in them for a particular subject. Combine them in interesting ways with a program and only include a couple of new sentences here and there of original content (which should be put into files for later use).
    
    

    I think this could work. Anybody have any concrete ideas or recipes?
    

My own personal problem...

[CrazyBrett]

... is that I'm lazy and a procrastinator. I've been meaning to call/write my congressperson and senators for a week now, but I keep putting it off or forgetting it. To get me to do something, it needs to be easy, and it needs to be something I can't back out of once I start. Given that, I have a suggestion:

Remember when Microsoft sent out letters to people and told them to sign and send them to their representatives? Well, trying to force that on people was obviously silly, but the general idea was good. If I had a letter in my hand that said exactly what I wanted to express, and all I had to do was sign it and drop it in the mail, I'd have no reason to procrastinate.

Suppose we form a web site where good writers can put together coherent, intelligent letters on various issues. Concerned citizens can go to the site, browse the letters for one they like, and download it in a printer-friendly form. On the same site, they can also look up the address and fax numbers of their representatives, so all they have to do is sign it and mail it in.

Yes, I know the EFF has some of these features. However, it would be useful if the community could contribute sample letters, and if the process was even easier than it is now. Remember, the target audience is me, the lazy, disorganized procrastinator.

Laziness

[scott1853]

It would be nice if politicians listened to us, but they just see us as minority group of finatics.

There's still a good chunk of people out there that believe in some mystical entity controlling our lives without any proof of such thoughts. Yet these are the same people that say "that's impossible" when they see what science is capable of. Like it or not, these people have more political influence than we do. They have more power because they are unified, with leadership and there's a lot of history behind them.

There's a lot of programmers here, and I'm sure they're all used to trying to see the big picture and chart all the variables. This is one of those BIG projects in mapping all the variables and figuring out their relationship. The major points are: there's little history in computer technology right now; t's still new and strange to a majority of people; pogrammers work long hours, and the pay is decreasing, leaving less time for political movements; and there is no single "leader" that represents us, which is very important towards political advancement. You can't expect politicians to summarize the demands of many individuals, all with different points of view. They're more likely to listen to an individual with well thought ideas and the backing of a large community.

What we have been proposing on /. is that the advancement of laws be stopped. We don't have any alternatives, we just want these laws to go away. You want to make a difference and be listened to? Propose your own laws that include regulations we can live with. You want to get the RIAA off everbodies back, weaken their economical standing or find a middle ground everybody will be happy with. From what I see, nobody is doing this. We're basically starting our own little war with every other industry including our own, and yet we're still not unified in our efforts of opposition. Last I checked, a group of separated individuals don't win wars against unified groups.

My Humble Suggestion

[Compulawyer]

As we know, there is no shortage of opinions on Slashdot. I can tell you that although sometimes very effective, Political Action Committees (PACs) have a LOT of drawbacks. First, there is the neverending myriad of laws and regulations controlling fundraising, political contributions, etc. Second is staffing. Third is financing.

My feeling is that although PACs command some attention, sincere letters from constituents weigh far more heavily.

My humble suggestion is to create a place on Slashdot where members can readily find the names/addresses/email adresses/phone numbers of the Representatives and Senators in Congreess who vote on these issues. Of course, key members on the right committees (like Technology) should be prominently displayed.

A well-categorized list of these elected officials with the ability to fire off an email while surfing (a/k/a a mailto: link) would promote discourse directly with those to whom we have given the decision-making ability.

/. has no single voice

[slim]

I don't think this idea makes sense because I don't think Slashdot has ever had a single coherent voice (and it would be duller if it did).

It bothers me when the /. "community" is stereotyped as pro-Linux (I am, many are not), Anti-MS (I see plenty of Windows users here now), Libertarian (a lot of the libertarianism here, esp. wrt gun control, goes too far for my liking), anti-IP (there are plenty of dissenting voices on copyright)...

No, Slashdot hosts heterogenous set of views. If you want to support a particular political agenda, get with a more singleminded organisation, one per issue. The EFF might be a good start, as might the FSF. Or the NRA if you're that way inclined.

Other ways geeks might influence their national politics is through running services like Britain's faxyourmp.org.uk -- the site was prompted by opposition to the RIP bill (privacy stuff) but now it addresses parliament's accountability, and public political apathy by making it easy for a constituent to contact their MP even if they don't know what constituency they live in or who their MP is (as is worryingly common).

I am a Lobbyist in Washington D.C.

[morganew]

As the subject states, I am a lobbyist with a firm here in Washington D.C. (you can look me up at opensecrets.org); and while much of the discussion here has the roots of a good ideas, there are some inconsistencies I have seen that should be corrected:

1. Creating an organization that can hire a lobbyist and Political Action Committee (PAC) are completely different things. A PAC is set up with the intent to pool and distribute campaign contributions to Members of Congress. Any organization can hire a lobbyist. There are some restrictions on using appropriated dollars to fund a lobbyist (commonly referred to as the Byrd rule) but otherwise, hiring a lobbyist is not a hard thing.

2. Hiring a lobbyist is expensive/cheap. You can find younger lobbyists that have recently left the Hill and are hungry to work hard for a relative pittance... but they may lack the access you need to compete against other interests. Some firms limit their monthly retainers to a minimum of $20,000 a month, others take interesting clients for much less. The costs really depend on how broad the issues dealt with are, how toxic you will become to other potential clients, how many hours the effort will take, what are the expenses (copies, dinners, cabs are important for tiny retainers) associated with it and so on.

3. Congress is already "bought" by big business. Patently not true, but I will say that the large telecommunications, software and entertainment industries have taken the time to express their concerns to Members of Congress, and to present information that suggests that, among other things, should their industry be harmed by the amorphous "open source" movement, there will be a loss of jobs in the respective congressperson's district.

4. Congress has turned a deaf ear on electronic freedom. Also not true, Congress knows of the issues, but frankly the other side makes a much more compelling case. Additionally, I do not believe some of the organizations who do work for the policies most of you express concern about operate in a politically savy mode. I know I may be shooting myself in the foot here, but I personally came up with an effective method to combatting the cybernanny software in libraries, and suggested the idea to a head of one of the non-profs here in town. Unfortunately they were so overwhelmed with issues and underwhelmed with cash, nothing was done with it. Some organizations tend to show a "zealot" side, which is not always an effective way to advocate a position.

Finally, why would an effective lobbyist work on behalf of the concepts expressed on slashdot? To get a lobbyist who knows the Members and staff of the Judiciary committee and the Commerce committee will require finding someone who probably already has connections with organizations that would oppose the "slashdot movement". Why would he make himself toxic and decrease his/her ability to put food on the table for his family for a movement that will cost him hours of time with a likely tiny reward?

For a more complete discussion of Washington, check out my other post at Tech savvy but world dumb is the root of the issue