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 the political future of the internet sales tax exemption?
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
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.
If you could give one piece of advice to this group, what would it be?
Since our government represenatatives seem to be somewhat lacking in basic know-how of technology, is there anything planned to somehow educate them of the existing and future technology (in layman's terms, of course) and the implications of laws restricting it?
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
Given that politicians who may not understand technology are continually trying to regulate it, and that interested parties (like the RIAA and MPAA) are going to push their points of view (with lots of money)...
What are the best ways for people to communicate with their politicians to inform them of their views and opinions on proposed legislation?
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Everyone here is aware that more and more broadly-worded laws are getting passed, making all sorts of formerly innocuous computer activities "criminal." I've just emailed my representatives regarding the "hacking is terrorism" nonsense that's being looked at, and I've informed them that laws like this cause me to re-evaluate, on a yearly basis, whether or not I should continue working in IT, or find some job in a safer field which is not under seemingly continuous legislative attack. My question, after all that, is do you think the representative will look at that and care? My state is trying very hard to draw technology workers here, which I'm sure is the case in every state in the union except California and Oregon. Would an appeal to the simple "I'm afraid to do this anymore because it's becoming legally dangerous to work in computers" be of any use, or did I waste my breath?
Outside of congress, what do you believe the president's current take on technology and freedom is?
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?
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
I was curious as to what Morgan that the chances were of the SSSCA (Security System Standards and Certification Act) actually becoming a law?
I know that polticians have a lot on their plates right now and I'm worried that it might slip through with little discussion. As a canadian, I'm not very intimately familiar with the legislative process in the US, but US laws invariable affect me.
-Derek
Did any (or most) of the politicians that voted for the DMCA know what they were doing, or care? Or were they just persuaded by other lobbyists that it was a good idea?
How clueful are politicians when it comes to technology, what tactics are likely to impress my representatives to make intelligent tech-related decisions, and what can I do to steer the course of legislation which could affect my freedoms?
324006
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Considering the growing technical nature of our society, with the ever-increasing complexity of information and copyright laws, is there hope of better-educated lawmakers making important decisions that will affect not only our current lives, but the way our near-future society grows?
I know that Alaska's reps (Ted Stevens and Neil... I mean, Don Young) are just good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm. But, they are also rather ignorant about technology and information. Is this changing? Are lawmakers *choosing* to become educated about the topics on which they make important decisions?
Or, do they react only to questions and concerns of money? (Does it all come down to the dollar, in the end?)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
What would you say are the top five issues that *need* an effective lobbying effort at the moment ?
Do you think Democrats or Republicans have a better grasp of things? Or are they equally clueless?
When actively lobbying on behalf of a client, do your personal views on technology issues ever get stepped on ?
Many slashdotters expect the government to regulate spam and Microsoft, but remain hands-off with things such as encryption, free speech and copyright. Do you think that it is reasonable to draw a line like this and expect Congress not to cross it, or should we take a more consistent stance and push for the government to stay further away from the Internet and technology all together?
As technologists, we appreciate the international scope of the Internet, and its constituent components, e.g. Linux was originally developed by a European, Mandrake and SuSE are both produced outside the US. The communities that have built up around these technologies are non-geographic, as is the readership of Slashdot.
How is this factored in to legislative decisions which will undoubtedly affect this international culture? I'm speaking specifically about matters of encryption, privacy (currently with Echelon and Carnivore the US is in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, at least Article 12), censorship, online trade, free speech, and the recent Voyeur Dorm case in Florida.
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.
Is this for real, or is it just a sop by Hollings to the corporate donors who have lined his pockets for years?
sulli
RTFJ.
With complex issues pitting Large Corporations with deep pockets against loose coalitions of groups of citizens without those same resources, do lobbyists such as yourself have an undue influence on the legislative process?
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
What is the best way for a "normal" person to convince/persuade their representitive to make the "right" choice.
That's a good name--ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me?
I do not ask this question as a joke. It is very common for the people here on slashdot to assume that since there have been no strong laws to protect users rights in cyberspace that congress does not care and does not listen. Occasionally we win a victory by getting a law knocked down or not passed but I have never seen a "User rights in cyberspace" bill. So I ask if the people in congress that you get to talk to discuss peoples rights in cyberspace or if that is just add-on-feel-good filler for campaign speeches while they are in california.
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
I already tend to badger my own representatives in congress over anything offense, like the SSSCA, etc. But I don't feel like I'm making enough of a difference. What's the best way to really impact the thought process of a congressperson to persuade them to take my viewpoint on an issue? Does the best methodology change if I have money?
And, if it is, can it be categorized? Reading the posts of Sept 11, 2001 one can see sharp political disagreements from Slashdot participants who, perhaps only the day before, were in agreement with each other on things technical.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Do you see the patenting of business models and computer code as a problem? If so, what is the best way to correct the problem? Through the judicial branch (patent courts)? Through the legislative branch?
drphil@ptd.net
given the increasing cynicism we (and not just the /. crew) feel towards out elected representatives, i would like to know how much a congressman costs? how about a senator? for instance if i stand to gain $100M from a piece of legislation, how much is the expected "donation" and to who? from the point of view of shunning the money grubbing status quo, who are the public officials who deserve most respect? (i.e. who can't be bought?)
cloak of invisibility not working, there are squirrels everywhere
Like many (most?) /. readers, I live outside the US, and am not a US citizen; in theory, US laws should not concern me as long as I remain outside US jurisdiction. Reality proves otherwise, however (witness Jon Johansen and Dmitry Sklyarov, for example.)
My question is this: can non-US citizens help to influence US decision-makers for the greater good, and if so, how?
What tactics from the general population do you fear most?
Specifically, what can US citizens do to make their point more attractive to a congressperson vs. a lobbyist with a massive bankroll (who's offering tons of perks!)?
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
The DMCA and other recent legislation place a great deal of power in the rights of license holders at the expense of the greater population. It also seems to limit research and intellectual freedom to study security and encryption such as the recent Skylarov (sp?) case. I think that most of us on /. believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction in regards to these issues.
Why is this? I can think of a few reasons:
1. They are following the money. Philosophical arguments are great but they have to raise $xx,xxx per day for the reelection campaign.
2. They don't spend much time thinking about these things and the license holders who benefit from such legislation do a very good job of informing and educating the legislators to encouraging them to think their way.
3. The legislators have thought about these issues, understand the arguments and are well informed. Their philosophical beliefs lead them to believe that this is the right thing to do.
Why do you think that this type of legislation has been passed and do you agree that it will be harmful to the country in the long term?
I just always thought it would be cool to be a tech lobbyist. How did you get your job?
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I would love to know how we the Public cane gain back or right to have a say in our own govenment when it comes to the issues we believe strongly in. What should we do to convince the govenment, and out law makers that they have gone the wrong way with recent legislation that does not benifit the American people and only seems to benifit the American people. My Question is specifially related to the DMCA, SSSCA, and other such acts that have been passed or are in danger of being passed. How do we convince them to take another look, and do something to reverse these terrible laws? The letter, and spirt of some of this legislation threatens the very community we have formed here, some ways of reading the laws could very well be used to build walls against open source development.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Films are full of hackers who sit in from of brightly colored GUIs and watch as graphical representations of doors open to them as they break into secret computer systems. Out here in the real world, we know that cracking a system can take days, weeks or even months (that's cracking a system, not hacking a VB worm), and the work is boring text.
In the real world, criminals can easily use one-time-pad, unbreakable encryption that'll never be broken in the 30min allowed for a Hollywood plot, and they would never resort to public key technology that the rest of us want to simply make it harder for the gov to spy on us.
Do our representatives have any concept of what real computer work, and real cracking consists of? Do they have a clue of how encryption can work? How would I educate my reps that killing public key tech would do nothing to hurt mafia/Bin Laden types?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Does an email carry the same weight as a paper letter?
As a professional lobbyist, you probably have a better idea of what it takes to be heard in Washington than most folks here do.
What advice would you offer to those trying to organize the "Slashdot Lobby?" How can they best go about forming their organization, raising money, and then turning that money and human capital into actual political influence?
It is dominated (according to the cartoon) by powerful rent-seeking corporations, spending big money to defend big interests, manipulating legislators who are desperate for ever more campaign contributions and ever more local feel-good stories.
So:
A lot of /.ers like email and tech forms of communication. Can you give us any insight into which methods work best? I've provided what I think might be a ranking order, from best to worst, in terms of methods of communicating with a legislator on a bill, based on my experience, but could you give us any ratios?
An example might be: 1 personal appearance at his office = 2 conversations at a house party = 100 handwritten letters = 200 handwritten postcards = 1000 typed letters = 50,000 emails.
Here's my list of methods I can think of:
A. talking with legislator when he's gardening or fixing the car on a bill;
B. lunch or coffee (one on one);
C. personal appearance at his office (phoned in ahead, as a constituent);
D. personal conversation at a house party or fundraiser (more than 1 minute);
E. question at a constituency open house (as advertised in local papers) (usually have 20-40 people);
F. handwritten postcard with cool pics on other side;
G. handwritten postcard found free in coffee shop or movie house;
H. handwritten letter, hand addressed;
I. typed letter, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
J. typed postcard, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
K. fax, hand signed;
L. actiongram faxed letter like on EDF or EFF;
M. actiongram email, modified from boilerplate in own words;
N. actiongram email, boilerplate;
O. wierd knick knack gift, like a techie toy we have tons of, wrapped up in a box and sent;
P. wierd knick knack gift, connected to issue;
Q. boring gift, like stapler remover from local Kiwanas
Anything I missed?
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
It seems to me that a proper long term solution is in the education of the lawmakers. I don't mean too sugest that we take an old fossil like - name any long term legislator - and attempt to educate them. It's too late for that. Consider - most lawmakers are lawyers or at least collage graduates. Let's start the process early and require much more CS work as undergraduates in Poly Sci or whatever degree that goes into goverment(pre-law?) and in Law Schools. Good idea or will this process take too long?
zenray
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?"
Do rational explanations by a few educated people have much effect on the opinions of lawmakers, or is the only way to get heard to form a large coalition to lobby for changes?
Last post!
Some U.S. congressman said recently that we shouldn't consider outselves to have any expectation of privacy regarding the e-mail address and URLs we use. Does he realize the implications of this, and does precedence back him up?
k nowledge_pulls_the_mask_off_1.html (to pick fairly benign examples in both cases).
He was probably thinking of sites, rather than URLs. It's one thing to worry about whether I visit dailynews.yahoo.com; it's another to worry about logging something as specific as http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20011004/tc/zero-
The example people are citing is "LUDs"; the ability for police officers to get a list, without a warrant, of all the phone numbers of people I've called or who've called me. Any legal theories on which is closer, sites or URLs?
This whole thing strikes me as fairly bizarre. I think there are legal precedents about my expectations of privacy for the videotapes I rent, or the books I borrow from the public library. I don't know how accessible they are to law enforcement, but no one can publish such a list in the newspaper. (Right?)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
It seems to me that one of the main reasons ridculous tech-related laws are getting passed is that lawmakers know that the voters are just as ignorant on the issues as they are. They can pass/not pass legislation based on their own self-interests (money), confident that the voters will bend over in blissful ignorance.
That said, should not the education of the general populace be a high priority in getting reasonable legislation passed? After all, if peeople really understood how they were being affected, would they then not put more pressure on their congresscritters?
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
Secretary Ashcroft has been complaining about the existing U.S. wiretap laws.
On the one hand, he says a phone tap warrant applies to a phone, not a caller. If I'm the subject of a legal wiretap, I can buy a disposable phone from the 7-11, and no one can listen in on the new phone without a new warrant. Do that every day, and legal wiretaps are obsolete. Expanding the scope from the phone to the party sounds fair. Are there hidden traps? (Would the FBI now be authorized to listen in on my next door neighbor's phone, just in case I dropped by to use it?)
On the other hand, when he's not talking to the press, Mr. Ashcroft may be asking for a lot more. What's the spread between the public and private faces in this action?
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
most of the laws that they pass in the US expect that it applies to the whole internet
but really the internet is global
say I downloaded something from a china firm with their servers in china there is nothing in the law that says they have to support or even offer me a refund
do they realise this I mean they say spams illegal in places but really who cares because it sure is not in china
do they get that its not a US thing anymore
and you cant legislate for that (or tax it really)
regards
john jones
As a hardcore free-market driven Libertarian, every problem I see posted on slashdot (and other sites) that has to do with the government intervening or not intervening seems like its caused directly because we've allowed government to get too involved in our lives and our businesses.
Does it ever occur to anyone that reducing the size of government to that of the Constitutional limited variety would really help us? We're talking about through copyright extensions out (100 years + the life of the author???) back to the basic 7+7 years maximum. We're talking about dropping the idea of intellectual property. We're talking about getting rid of "Limited Liability" for corporations, so that shareholders can hold CEOs and other officers liable for corporate errors and misjudgements.
It shocks me that people totally ignore this. How is it for the lobbiests? Are any lobbiests out there looking to REDUCE the size of government and the intervention that comes from it?
To some degree this is like writing a resume; when there is a stack of hundreds, you want to be able to make an impact in the first ten or so seconds.
The question is:
What would the most effective means of getting through for the average geek, given the signal to noise ration is probably insanely high for your average Rep or Senator?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Is it possible to successfully convince lawmakers that mandatory backdoors in encryption software will never work? To me, ideas like this are just absurd. Just like gun control laws. They have absolutly no effect on criminals and only serve to hurt law abiding citizens. Just as the gun control laws are not going to prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun, government backdoors are not going to prevent the bin Ladin's out there from using strong encryption. While a criminal mind is at work, they are not going to stop and say, "Gee we better not break the law and use the encryption that the U.S. government has a key to and we better post our images with the 'this image contains a secret message' label."
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Yes, I know "1 personal appearance == 50,000 emails", but you should at least have email properly represented on the list!
A couple variations you missed:
R. personal (not "actiongram") email;
S. personal email with in-district postal address for reply;
I presume that everyone in politics, with a few exceptions, is primarily interested in bettering society through public service. However, the desire to do good requires reelection, which can override their best judgement and make them do what is politically desirable.
Some of these tech issues are clearly headline grabbers, not well thought out policy. Additionally, our "capitalist" society (I use quotes because of the growing amount of government intervention, on behalf of companies and on behalf of consumers) places a tremendous value of the creation of wealth.
Given the slogan, "it's the economy, stupid," it clearly is hard to argue to our politicians that we should hurt the economy (reducing trade = reducing wealth) on the basis of strange fair-use arguements.
Yet at the same time, many of the proposals and passed legislation borders on absurd. As people sworn to uphold the Constitution, it is also disturbing to see unconstitutional legislation passed and the buck passed to the judiciary.
How many issues facing technology that we care about here even matter to those in Congress? The major technology bills aren't things we hear about, because they mostly involve research and tax policies, and industries tend to lobby exclusively for hand-outs.
Some of the draconian laws are beneficial headline grabbers, but some are just draconian. How many of the laws are every things that the politicians care about? How many of them CAN the politicians care about? How do we appeal to the desire for reelection? How do we appeal to their civic goals for improving society?
Alex
I'm currently working with a group of folks trying to start an Open Source lobby (http://opensourcelobby.org).
One big debate: How do we present ourselves to lawmakers?
One faction is pushing for, what I refer to as, "pablum": simplistic sweet anecdotes your grandmother could understand.
I'm of the ilk that would rather dump arguments and facts, like my acerbic http://home.graffiti.net/orrinhatch/IPIdiots.html diatribe. [side note: I actually noticed that I recieved more detailed replies when I wrote them a letter referring to the "Damn DMCA"; where swearing is supposed to be bad in such communications.]
What is the proper method of convincing lawmakers?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I have been told that the best way to talk to someone on the hill about legislation is not to, that it is better to talk with a legislator's staffers instead, as they tend to be the people who choose what bills to give attention to, and how said bills are written. Is this true, and if so, what is the best way to contact and work with the staffers of Capitol Hill?
Mr. Reed:
When the RIAA decides to pursue a service for copyright infringement (first Napster, now Grokster and MusicCity) they have the ability to amass untold financial and legal resources which cannot possibly be matched by the creators of the software or their allies. Since the RIAA's lobbying power is so strong, they can prosecute, seek court injunctions, pass more stringent laws, etc. The inevitable result is the destruction of that service.
Yet, GPL'ed code is ripped off all the time. However, those writing such code rarely have the resources needed to pursue what is usually a large corporate entity that has pirated free or open source software and incorporated it into their own proprietary products.
As a lobbyist on the front lines, how do you see this situation changing for the better in the future? How will the open source community ever be able to compete with the vastly more powerful corporate lawyers and lobbyists who care only about protecting proprietary software and services?
Dictionaries are for loosers.
Why are politicans so clueless when it comes to government-held, key escrow encryption? Has no one told them what a futile move it would be to outlaw "regular" crypto? I'm curious if you can shed some light on the extent of their pie-in-the-sky mentality. Has no one told them that public key encryption is already in the public domain and installed on literally tens of millions of computers worldwide? Are they honestly so deluded as to believe that they can just make all that just go away by the sheer force of their own will?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
What advice would you give us to help us in our goal?
Miko O'Sullivan
/EJS, do they *really* understand how the very nature of a "press" has changed in the past 5 years?
Have you ever been hired to lobby a position that you knew to be tech ignorant? If yes, why did you take the job?
What can be done (either by organizations such as the EFF, or by citizens acting individually) ro raise the 'cluefulness' of our legislators? Do they listen, or are our voices simply overwhelmed by political reality? How can we get our message through?
This brings up a simple (and probably naive) question from me - what factors have made "intellectual property" law so convoluted?
In this case, my first thought is that "Mickey Mouse(tm)" and the various representations thereof, are, taken together, one form of "intellectual property" called a trademark. Personally, I DON'T have a problem with TRADEMARKS being owned by a company for as long as they are in use (after all, should Microsoft be allowed, for example, to call some future version of Windows "Windows LINUX" even if it has nothing to do with Linux, just because the trademark on Linux expired?).
On the other hand, "Steamboat Willy" (as I recall, the very first Mickey Mouse cartoon from sometime in the late 1920's(?)), as a specific work, ought to definitely have entered the public domain years ago [but for good old Sonny Bono and his 'Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act' (as I heard one IP lawyer call it), as it falls under "copyright" and not "Trademark."
'course, this then gets complex - if it were in the public domain as it should be, you would be legally allowed to make as many copies of it as you liked, create derivative works, etc...but you still couldn't take an individual image of Mickey from it and use it as a "label" since that would infringe on the Trademark....
And, of course, if we throw the DMCA into the mix, if Disney Corp releases "Steamboat Willy" on an encrypted DVD, even if Disney misses a payment to the legislators and Steamboat Willy is finally allowed to hit public domain, we'll still be flung in jail if we try to GET the public domain copy of Steamboat Willy from it...
So, in short, my question is - who's fault is it that the simple principle of "don't make unfair use of someone else's work" has resulted in this mess of rights-restricting and near-incomprehensible mass known as "intellectual property law"?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
It seems that some of the congressmen (and women) view rights online as a "second rate" issue. Others seem ignorant of the implications of their powers in this realm (Jud Gregg comes to mind).
Who are the main proponents of Online Rights in congress, and do you feel they represent the minority or majority of these people?
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
Speaking of IP law and legislators - which hot-button 'issues', key phrases and buzzwords, etc, do legislators seem to respond most favorably to in the area of IP law, that might be used in communications with them to help them understand better what's going on?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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.
I've heard it said several times that our (US) legislators are sincerely trying to do good on behalf of their constituency, but that most tech lobbyists work on behalf of groups with specific agendas. What hope is there for 'White Hat' tech lobbyists to make their mark in Washington's political scene, and what would you suggest to anyone with thoughts of becomming a lobbyist?
In twenty-seven parts.
Knowing that there is virtually no way to guarantee direct correspondance to our represenatives my question is how many of our elected officials keep tech-savy staff onboard to advise them? What has been your experience with these people? Is there a way to communicate our concerns to them and get a more direct line to our elected official?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
A couple variations you missed:
R. personal (not "actiongram") email;
S. personal email with in-district postal address for reply;
I was assuming that any personal email would be in-district and that a modified actiongram email (where you rewrite it in your own words) was the same thing, but good catches.
And is it actually
1 personal appearance = 50,000 emails? Thought it was about 1 = 1000.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
It seems to me that this is simply organised corruption. We see the results every day in the DMCA and similar broken laws. In your opinion, is this really democracy? At what point should a nominally democratic system be seen as a facade?
(DISCLAIMER: I am a defendant in the California deCSS case.)
I can't imagine an instance where mere website defacement could credibly be considered terrorism but it is easy to see instances where it should properly be considered a felony.
Neither can I, nor can anyone else I've talked to about it. Why, then, should this law cover such cases? Why should it cover any but the most severe cases that could plausibly be considered terrorism? We have bank robberies, shooting sprees, murders, etc. None of these are considered terrorism. Why then should any computer crimes be considered terrorism unless they are actually causing serious death and destruction with the intent of causing terror in the US?
All that being said the definitions in the ATA are loose and that opens the door to potential abuse by overzealous prosecutors.
This is absolutely true. We have a big enough problem with overzealous prosecution under the DMCA and other laws already. This law is horribly overbroad and should not be passed in anything resembling its current form.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ask Morgan 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.
Umm, okay I'll ask if you're too shy.
Fried ice cream is a reality. - George Clinton
- Script-kiddies, Worms and Viruses;
- Corporate security, protection of customer information, professional crackers & industrial espionage, encryption.
- Personal security, privacy rights, safety of personal information, security of off-the-shelf products (responsibilties of vendors)
- Internet infrastructue - bandwidth costs, redundancy, reliance on international parties
- Internet politics - ICANN & IANA, IP and tradmark rights, accountability & responsibility of overseeing bodies,;
- Pros and cons of open source vs closed source for business, for government, for education, for consumer;
- ISP's and telco's legal and ethical responsibilities, spam.
And so on...b) How are their decisions on technology issues affected by foreign countries? Are there some areas where policy is home grown, and others where they look for others to lead? How can non-US people affect US policy? How do the international organisations such as the World Trade Body affect policy?
c) How important is the role of non-elected state employees and consultants. Are there maybe some policy areas that, due to technical copmlexity, the politicians will just do what they're told. If so, how do lobbyists take this into account?
d) Only if you're really bored... run through a Geekcode generator, and imagine how the average politician would answer.
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
I don't want to "draw a line", I want the lines that have existed for over a century to be enforced!
Spam, for example, comes in three forms:
1) Unsolicited email with no return address, which I can easily block.
2) Unsolicited email with an accurate return address, to which I can send a form letter reply and cost the spammer more than he cost me.
3) Wire fraud.
Is it too much to ask that wire fraud be prosecuted?
How about Microsoft? Am I the only one wondering why the DOJ is basically dropping a case it's already won against decades of clear, repeated violations of antitrust law by a company that was ignoring previous court orders in the process?
How about encryption and free speech? How is it that Adobe is able to fraudulently advertise a broken encryption system, but I am not allowed to honestly describe how it breaks?
And copyright? I'll grant you that the interpretation of "for limited times" has grey areas, but we're well past those grey areas and into the black with current laws.
Is it so damned unreasonable to expect the United States government to just follow it's own laws, especially the rules laid out in the document that legitimizes it's existance?
In the early days of the automotive industry, GM was effectivly immune to lawsuits (what's good for GM is good for America!). In the earliest part of this century, there was an attempt by the publishing industry to prevent the resale of books. Similar events are now happening in the tech sector with attempts by the BSA to ward off liability issues related to software, laws against software resale, and even new problems such as patenting of genes and other expansions of IP law inconsistent with the goal of moving information into the public domain while rewarding its creator.
My question is; will the influence of the software industry fade as these new technologies become less new or will these trends, which seem to contradict legal precedent, only gain legitimacy as they establish a precident of their own?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Honestly, I've written letters to my Senators and Representatives about increasing choice in computing, and although I get friendly replies on occassion, nothing seems to make any difference.
If anything, Microsoft seems to be strengthening on all fronts...home, professional, embedded. They're rolling over the planet, with no end in sight.
I know software is expensive to make, and techies are tough to deal with, but do our careers really have to be so extensively deprofessionalized by this horrid mixture of Government and Corporations?
Let me put it this way: When your opposition is a Corporation or other powerful entity, do you ever win or even get significant concessions?
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Not to be demeaning, but most of our elected public officials have little background in technical issues.
Which is a shame, of course, because these officials are in positions of authority that can make life miserable if they happen to choose wrong-headed policy.
In your experience, given that our public officials must make policies for an environment that they don't natively understand, are these officials thereby more susceptible to being hoodwinked by vested interests than they are for other, more easily understood issues?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I wonder if there are equally capable committees or subcomittees in the house or senate, that are good forums for hard problems...
In Canada, where our Senate is appointed for life (and is "called the house of cronies" by the sarcastic), there are some very capable standing comittees, but they have limited powers to write legislation...
In effect, I'm asking where in the U.S. government one applies pressure by bringing forward facts, not just opinion or numbers...
davecb@spamcop.net
I'd like to know why some congressmen think that hacking is an offense that should be punishable by death, or rather why do they seem to consider computer related offenses more criminal than criminal offenses? Is it because they are so ignorant of the technology that they fear it and its capabilities?
Are they only given examples of worst case senarios of the abuse and misuse of computers? How do we make sure they know the purpose things like hacking serve (sometimes its for good!), how many people do these types of things, how easy it really is in most cases, etc. or even why its done.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
How often to you see someone trying to twist or stretch technical issues to push the issue to one side? IE: How many companies/lawmakers do you find trying to pull a fast one on non-technical people in office?
It's good to hear that email counts a little higher because mail-bombing my congressmen with 50,000 emails would probably get me arrested as a terrorist under the upcoming PATRIOT law.
I could probably talk my way out of 1000 emails by pretending that the emails were simply due to a bug in the pre-beta version of Evolution that I used to send the message. But 50,000 is a little over the top.
The increasing number of overbroad patents in the software/internet area does not promote innovation, it stifles it. I don't think it's true any longer that patent applicants have incentive to police their own applications to avoid future patent invalidation - most patents are issued or owned by major players who merely wave the patent and make a big noise, confident the other guy will go away without a fight.
Is there any support in government circles for an overhaul of patent office procedures, to address the anti-competitive effects of making things like "clicking" and "linking" patentable?
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
All this leads too...
If a chilling effect is effectively established, and our standing in the international field of computing is diminished do to new legal standards, what responsibilities does the federal government have to reverse such legislation? What reasons could they use to justify ignoring a chilling effect?
And ultimately...
Could a investigation into the negative effects of soft money contributions occur, if it was shown that a chilling effect on an industry was caused and ignored by politicians serving the needs of a few well moneyed companies in that same industry? Who would conduct such an investigation?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
As some other readers have pointed out, one of the biggest reasons that poor technology regulations get passed is that our Congress-critters don't understand the technology. However, the real issue behind this is one of priorities; if the Congressmen thought it was important to know what was going on with the technology, they'd at least take the time to learn the very basics.
Our world shapes itself around the technology that we develop. Ten or twenty years ago, you could not have even begun to imagine the shape of the world today, and it will continue to change at a rapid pace in the years to come. It's vitally important that those who lead have an understanding of some of the basic concepts of modern technology, even if they don't understand the nitty-gritty details.
How can we convince them of this? And is it worth spending the effort to convince our leaders that technology should be a priority issue, rather than fighting individual battles for every issue that comes up?
I would be interested in advancng the usage of free software, for several reasons.
First, it reduces favoritism of the government to particular private parties. Second, it puts the work of the government in publicly documented file formats (how many agencies have old MS backup files?). Third, it creates support for non-proprietary standards. This will increase competition in government contracts by cutting the chain of proprietary dependencies: file formats to desktop OS to network environments and apps to consultign services. Finally, as a taxpayer, I believe we can save a bundle in licensing or rental fees.
I expect that many people are using free alternatives in government agencies, but I also know that government agencies are also some of the most policy-bound entities in the world. How can citizens make it easier for people in the government to use free software?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Mr. Reed:
Various technology industry and trade associations continue to report an ongoing IT worker shortage while at the same time, thousands of computer, internet, telephony, and other technology workers remain unemployed, with more being added to these ranks, in just my city alone. Technology recruiters are telling me jobs have for the most part dried up. Web job boards which have together reported as many as a million available jobs just 2 years ago, have way fewer than 1/10th of that number now.
Could you tell us what is happening to explain this difference, such as, is the industry trying to generate the appearance of more shortage to try to convince the government to even further flood the pool of available candidates in order to drive down salaries?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars