Slashdot Mirror
GeekPAC
SgtXaos writes "The newly created American Open Technology Consortium has posted a draft of their position statement online. They propose to change that by forming a real lobbying force to educate and influence congress about issues near and dear to all of us geeks. Here's a chance to put money where our uh, er, typing is." Newsforge (also part of OSDN) has a story and interview with the founders.
It's about time that people with intelligence and money get together to have our say. Even a very small group that is organized can make a difference if their time is used wisely. It's unfortunate but the best way to get our point across is to put our own shills in place in DC to corner the politicos one on one.
e x p e c t d e l a y . c o m
America likes to believe it's #1 in everything. I think that if we showed the senators/representatives and the American people that we are behind everyone else in consumer technology (we ARE ahead in military technology), and that it is because of legislation like the DMCA, that we might start seeing some changes.
If you don't think we're behind you might want to look at some Japanese cell phones http://www.nokia.co.jp or some of those incredibly fuel efficient cars from Europe. I don't have a link for those, but just a normal Fiat is more fuel efficient than an SUV. Gas prices go down! Especially a good idea now with our middle east action.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Sorry, but no politician is going to take an organization with the name "geek" in it seriously. They need to choose a name that makes it sound like they represent the CIO's of major companies. Just think of what a Senator's first impression will be when his secretary tells him, "The gentleman from GeekPAC is here to see you, sir."
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
From the site:
Individual Members: $25.00 minimum donation
Individual members will receive a certificate of membership (electronic) and a monthly newsletter.
Group Membership: $50.00 minimum donation
Individual members will receive a certificate of membership (electronic) and a monthly newsletter.
Corporate Membership: $500.00 minimum donation
Corporate members will receive a framed and signed certificate of membership, the monthly newsletter, and the right to name a member of our "Advisory Board."
Sustaining Member: $2,000.00 minimum donation
Sustaining members will receive a certificate of membership (marble plaque), the monthly newsletter, the right to name a member of our "Advisory Board," and the right to put into nomination a member of the voting Board of Directors.
It's supposed to deal with the congres, so they made it work the same way, the more you pay, the more you can say...
This will create some... interesting... situations in the geek communities. One one hand, the large majority of geeks are well educated, and know that PACs are a downright dirty loophole in the law, and most of them should be struck from the face of the earth.
On the other hand, however, how could it hurt? Geeks are at best minimally represented in the government (despite what Gore may have thought), and we have a voice too - one that needs to be heard.
Such a cruel irony that the majority of the intelligent people in this world are a numerical minority - and headcount - not barincount - is all that matters when it comes to representation. Oh yeah, and money too. We have plenty of that... [/dripping_with_sarcasm]
Too bad representation isn't based on IQ/EQ (Emotional Quotient, not EverQuest =P ), or *gasp* even political knowledge.
Karma: \Kar"ma\, n. [Skr.] (Buddhism) One's acts considered as fixing one's lot in the future existence.
Just a small point, but it stuck me that the more things like the DMCA and other stupid ideas render it difficult or impossible for people to do what they want/need to do to make a living, the greater the chance of them deciding to go somewhere with more sensible laws.
The closest parallel I can think of is researchers working on Human Stem Cells, several prominent researchers have commented, mostly off-the-record, as they don't want hassle from idiotic pro-life religious lunatics, that any ban on human stem cell research will simply lead to them emigrating to a country where such research is allowed.
My point is, what would it take to persuade geeks in the US that their government has gone too far and it's not worth trying to change things?
This PAC, on the other hand, probably couldn't do that anyway, so it doesn't matter. They still will be able to lobby congress and do all that other stuff, and it allows them to save their money instead of trying to throw out 1 or 2 commercials that will get lost in the blizzard of campaign ads.
"Enough is enough is enough," he added. "It is time for people in the technology community to open up their wallets and donate money to the EFF and fund this political action committee ... We've got to do this or we're going to lose, folks, it's that simple."
The EFF had a Washington D.C. based branch, but backed out of it because they didn't like how they were pressured into endorsing really bad ideas inorder to gain clout on the issues they were primarily interested in.
Will Geek Pac work better? If they know going in that this is the way D.C. works, they might be able to deal with it.
Either way, it might be more effective to have two different organizations -- one 'Washington insider' and another clean of such dreck and nonsense.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Sooner or later you'll see this organization filled with MPAA sustaining members...
A bunch of amateurs will never get anywhere no matter how much money they spend. They'd be better off to HIRE a few experienced professional lobbyists and sic 'em on members of Congress who are as yet uncommitted wrt the Disney Act.
"I'm the most loyal player money can buy." -- Don Sutton
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Whilst at one level I think that it's high time an organisation such as the AOTC should be formed I cannot help but be slightly disappointed by this development.
My problem is the "A" part of AOTC. The problems that the AOTC are aiming to address are not limited to America. The actions of the US government in relation to the Internet affects people and companies all around this planet, not just the relatively small population of the USA. Similarly the actions of other governments around the world have an effect on both companies and citizens within the USA.
I really should not need to remind people that the Internet is a global network, and that laws and regulations concerning the Internet have international repercussions. Everybody reading this should already be familiar with the way in which the DMCA has been used to persecute foreign nationals who have done nothing illegal in their own country. It should also be obvious to everybody that if it is passed the CBTPA will have a profound affect on people all around the world; it is not only US citizens that could loose their jobs if this law passes.
Please don't think that the USA is alone in suffering from dumb technology laws. Here in the UK we have our own dumb laws (such as the RIP Act) as well as those forced upon us by the European Parliament (like the DMCA-equivalent EC Copyright Directive). We need our own Open Technology Consortium, both for the UK and for Europe as a whole.
Think a little about what it would be like if the European Parliament passed an equivalent to the CBTPA. (For those that don't realise it, Europe has a significantly larger population than the USA, and whilst we still have national governments we also have a European government which passes laws that all European Community member states must abide by.) Many thousands of US technology companies would be adversely affected by this, and as a consequence many US citizens too.
The ideals, aims, and motivations that the AOTC represents are global in nature. Whilst they may be presently concerned with the activities of the US government if the AOTC is successful then they will eventually be forced to deal with foreign governments in order to protect the interests of their American members. Therefore I would argue that a national organisation for what is an international problem is foolish.
An international organisation with the same aims would have many advantages, and few disadvantages. At a simple economic level it could attract a significantly higher membership. Since the arguments in favour of a more open technology market are globally relevant great synergy could be gained from a global approach. Establishing national groups within an international consortium would significantly help the ability of that organisation to influence national government and policy.
Steve
Would the NRA accept contributions from Handgun Control?
Why not, as long as there were no strings attached.
Having said that, though, I think it would be a mistake for the geekpac to allow generous donors to directly appoint people, as described in the draft.
It could definitely lead to a form of sabotage, where increasingly wimpy people are appointed by those who don't agree with the aims of the organization. Then if the apointees are kicked out, who knows, the donor might sue or something.
Better to do it some other way.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.