Slashdot Mirror
Ask A Tech-Savvy Lobbyist About The Politics Of Computing
Morgan Reed is a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. with the law firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti. He has represented a wide range of clients, from the International Pizza
Hut Franchise Holders Association (really) to the Telecommunications Industry
Association and the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM). That means he's paid to personally persuade (not to mention cajole and
badger) lawmakers with real shoe-leather tactics, on issues that few lawmakers have the time to personally spend years
learning about. He's also a Slashdot reader and Linux hacker, with work on the Linux Router Project (LEAF/ LRP). Morgan has volunteered to expand your
knowledge about the intersection of technology and politics. Ask Morgan (one question per post, please)
about how clueful politicians are when it comes to technology, what tactics are likely to impress your representatives
to make intelligent tech-related decisions, and what you can do to steer the course of legislation which could affect
your freedoms. We'll pass your questions on to Morgan, who will get back with answers shortly.
What is your take on the recent actions and gestures made by the W3C concerning mandatory proprietary code?
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Have you spoken with Rick Boucher? Is he really as tech savvy as he comes across as, or is he playing us? Does he really care about protecting rights online?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
How could we best get over the point that the DMCA, SSSCA etc benefit nobody beyond making a few men with already-fat wallets even richer?
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
Mr Reed:
What's your opinion of organizations providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization? Could this be considered bribing on behalf of the funding organization and accepting a bribe by 'returning the favor?' If not bribes, would you consider this practice ethical?
I ask this question in how it pertains to the situation of organizations with deep pockets such as the RIAA funding lawmakers to create laws like the DMCA and other laws that are currently coming down the pike.
Also, what advice would you give to shallow-pocket organizations such as the EFF or EPIC in fighting to keep the rights of honest, well meaning Internet users?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I am concerned that legislators are not aware of how dangerous the SSSCA is, especially in light of our recent disaster and our coming war. Now more than ever, we need to be concerned about the possibility of losing our individual freedoms.
Are our lawmakers aware of the SSSCA and its dangers? Do you think it will be debated in detail, or will it pass "under the radar?"
A jaywalker CANNOT be convicted of a felony, period. It's just not on the books.
A website defacer, however, COULD be sentenced to life in jail under the ATA. Yes, it probably wouldn't happen, but it COULD, which is really the more important part.
Most burglers are not sentenced to life, but if you break and enter a house and kill someone, then you are eligible for life imprisonment -- just like if you break into a computer and cause someone's death, you deserve at least life imprisonment.
If you break into somebody's house and kill them, you don't get life for the breaking and entering, you might get it for the murder. However, if you deface a website and it kills someone, you can get life without parole under the ATA for the website defacement. Murder/manslaughter would probably be 5 years served.
Reboot macht Frei.
Rule number 1 of writing to your representatives is having a clue of what you're talking about, and not look like a knee-jerk crackpot.
That's certainly true, and if you had one, you wouldn't be playing the ignoramus in this thread.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257
"Most of the terrorism offenses are violent crimes, or crimes involving chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But the list also includes the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that make it illegal to crack a computer for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, or to deliberately cause damage. Likewise, launching a malicious program that harms a system, like a virus, or making an extortionate threat to damage a computer are included in the definition of terrorism."
BTW, this issue was discussed by Prof. Peter Swire of the George Washington University Law School on Declan McCullagh's politech mailing list, and he included a list of past cases that would fall under the "terrorism" category under the new law.
Next time, read first and then write.
mp
"The secret to strong security: less reliance on secrets." -- Whitfield Diffie
How do we start getting anything done, legally and politically, to promote our goals of widely available open source software, non-restrictive computer laws, and the like? What's the first step? That's the step a lot of us are unfortunately stuck on and just can't figure out for the life of us.