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 . . . !!!
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?
"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 ?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
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?
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?
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?"
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.
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.
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--
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?
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.)
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.