Slashdot Mirror
Questions for Town Meeting with Congressman?
tongue asks: "I have
the opportunity tomorrow to go to a town meeting with my Congressman, Gene Taylor (D, Miss.). I'd
like to be able to ask several (preferably intelligent) questions
regarding issues facing the technology industry today, on
bills like the DMCA, SSSCA, etc; but I'm having trouble narrowing
down the field. The research I've been able to do so far indicates
a fairly conservative voting record, although I haven't had much luck
finding a good site that summarizes a bill-by-bill voting record along with a synopsis of the bill." We did a similar question, last month about the CBDTPA which dovetails nicely with this issue. What questions about these and other questionable electronic laws passed over the last few years, would you like tongue to ask Senator Taylor?
Senator, what do you believe constitutes "fair use" of an intellectual property product, such as a DVD, computer game, etc. Do you believe people should be able to make back-up copies of such products?
I'm the stranger...posting to
You may or may not be bitter. But I'll bitchkick anyone that even suggests that you're delusional.
They *ARE* all crooks.
Senator, since the main effect of lengthening the period of copyright and patent protection seems to be to stifle competition, when do you think we will see a move back to the principles established by the framers of the constitution and a _shortening_ of the protection period?
Someone can write this question better and more accurately than me I am sure, but a question to that effect might be interesting to hear answered.
I had a chance to "shadow" ( read, "follow around" ) a senator for NYS a few months ago. Basically, my advice to you is: be very specific with your questions. Do this for two reasons: it assists with their answer, and if a question is broad, they won't answer it. From what I gather, politicians don't like to say anything broad, unless they're trying to get out of a sticky situation. So give a specific question, and demand a specific answer.
;) he does have a tough job. Even if he is as currupt as Swiss Cheese, show him some respect. He deserves it.
Also, don't insult the man. Believe it or not (don't listen to most Slashdot readers
And lastly, if he does refuse to answer a question, find out why. If he's got a good reason, move on - don't try and punch the heck out of him, or he won't be forthcoming in the future. If he constantly refuses to answer questions, however, politely show your displeasure and remind him that he works for you.
Hope that helps - good luck!
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
If you think these townhall meetings are forums to pursuade or convince your Congressman of *anything*, you will be pretty disappointed.
These things are primarily designed to get a nice story in the local paper, and maybe help a few people with "The road near my cousin's house is falling apart" or "I'm getting the runaround from can you help?"
If you are serious about garnering insight or pursuading your congressman of anything beyond the superficial, you need to set up a private meeting with him or one of his staff. (This is not a difficult thing to do, and contrary to the press, you do not need to be a millionaire contributor to do it.)
At the said meeting, you need to have a concise argument ready, provide facts, figures, and documentation. ("I hate Microsoft and think everyone should use BSD" will not cut it.)
Please be knowledgable about your subject. The fact that you're dredging Slashdot for talking points is not a good sign, and will likely do more harm than good when the conversation gets into specifics and fine details. Remember, the idea is to convince, not just spout off your opinion.
Technology issues are a huge body of legislation, and you will more than likely find at least somebody on his staff with experience in such matters, who will be the true path to action. (Staffers are the key to power.)
I can promise you that any townhall grandstanding about any substantive issue will result in a noncommittal "That's really good point, and there are a lot of people who agree with you. Let me look into it."
Pomme de Terre
"Mr Senator...boxer or briefs? Choice of cigar?"
Really, can these recently-submitted "Ask Slashdot" questions get any sillier and unimportant? Probably.
Voting record of Mr. Taylor on ACLU issues
ACLU's Voting Record
Before you go, you should figure out if he received money from any special interest group or corporation. If he's been bought, a good followup question could be "Do you feel that there is a conflict of interest in making a statement on this issue, when you received $xx.xxx from yyyyyyy inc?".
Stop the brainwash
"Mr. Congressman, I slept with you wife last week, and now I have these ichy boils, I was wondering if you could elaborate on their origins?"
But to be serious, I have emailed my Congress-critters and Senators a couple of times about different topics related to tech (minus the wife part!). I get varried responses from each person for each topic, so they seem to DO care about certain topics. It must vary from person to person, but I got a couple of hand signed letters for some things before, so don't despair that everything you send is totally disregarded.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
1. What is the US doing about the terrible state of computer security (one to get him happy and talking)
2. What is the US government planning to do about the consequences this terrible security and lack of privacy laws is having on identify theft and the risk of terrorists using stolen identity (technique 2 - link two things in one question and make it hard for them to give answers heading in a direction away from you)
3 - The DMCA is supressing important research into security technologies, given the lack of security how do you justify this (get him on what he has admitted then force answers)
4 - What plans does the US government have for laws to prevent abuse of end user license agreements, digital rights management and other new technologies (note - you dont ask if there is a problem you state it and ask what they will do. a) this lets you make a point to him about what you see as important b) puts him in a position where he has to justify the position and explain it - the more you can keep them talking on such questions the better 8)
5 - Software patents, meritless lawsuits, high taxes and complex restrictions on exports are making it ever harder for business to justify remaining in the USA and not moving elsewhere. What are you doing to simplify it (same theory as above, and the word 'tax' requires an answer 8))
6 - Copying a protected ebook, even to help a blind user read it now carries a typical sentence higher than that of assault and many other acts of violence against the person. In these times of rising violent crime isn't it about time the US government got back to the needs of the people not the needs of large corporations.
"Congressman, I'm sure I speak for many people in the district in appreciating your efforts on [warm-fuzzy bill he sponsored]. As you may know, S.2048, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, would severely encroach on every person's right to lawful everyday use of industry-standard computers. It's being pushed by the entertainment conglomerates to eliminate digital devices that they don't approve of, even when those devices, such as computers and DVD players, are used to play amateur, independent, or public domain media. To protect the market share of these companies, S.2048 would make it a felony to make or sell... well, just regular computers like we have today.
"What is your position on S.2048? For or against?"
It's very important to stop talking now, as what I wrote is already a little long. Make sure you end your speech/question with this direct yes-or-no-type question.
Also it wouldn't hurt to schmooze the Congressman's staff people before or after the meeting. Just say hi, give them your card, and mention that you're against S.2048.
Your effect might be limited, however; as its name implies, S.2048 is a Senate bill and hasn't yet emerged from Judiciary Committee. There's a decent possibility it will not get to the House in its present form during this term.
Good luck.
How do you calculate the impact of the bills on the global economy?
How come you didnt anticipate that, for exemple, the DMCA could be used to shut down legitimate project that greatly benefit the population? (see for exemple the DMCA used by Sony to shut down the tinkering done to the AIBO, even though Sony realised that tinkering with their Aibo was a good thing and are now pushing it forward).
On issues of privacy, copyright, fair use, etc., liberal vs. conservative is not a very useful way to look at things. Worry instead about libertarian vs. authoritarian.
There are quite a few in both the liberal and conservative camps who would happily bargain away your freedom for a Hollywood fundraiser or a chance to demogogue about porn or 9/11. And there are quite a few in both camps who have a libertarian bent and are tend to defend freedom.
Did anyone else pick up that he is a Congressman and not a Senator?
Though the EFF and the ACLU have *somewhat* one-sided perspectives on such legislation, they're still a great resource. The papers that the EFF produces are always highly detailed and informative in nature. Maybe just stating some choice stats or using the information as background could help you get your point across.
--
"Everybody wants a rock to wind a piece of string around." - They Might Be Giants, "We Want a Rock"
If you want more information about his voting record, just take a look at Opensecrets.org. I seem to notice a high correlation between campaign donations, the people who give them, the issues they support, and the way Senators/Representatives vote. Buying votes - it's called democracy.
:-)
As for questions to ask, I worked for a Senator for a while (I was an intern - nothing exciting). Anyway, it was my job to help set up these town meetings and I'll tell you one thing, Senators are very busy people. They only know what their aides have told them. Not because they aren't intelligent enough to understand the issues (most are very astute), they just don't have time to study every issue. I suggest asking very general questions like:
"Senator Hollings recently introduced a bill that will require every piece of electronic hardware to possess copyright protection. It has been argued by hardware manufacturers and consumer advocates that this will increase the costs of production as well as infringe on consumer's rights; what do you think of this bill?"
In essence, give him some background and try to get him to commit to something. Most good politicians will be able to easily sidestep the issues; however, if the question is clear enough, even the dullest watcher will be able to tell that he's trying to evade the question. Now, if you know his position on a topic, and you don't agree with it - go for the throat, but nicely. Try to get him to commit to an answer. Politicians hate committing to anything - and they hate their voting records to be scrutinized.
Hope this helps and I hope you agree with me on most issues. I hate helping the enemy.
I noticed your rep is on the armed services committee. If you're so inclined, ask him to give his opinion on free software, security, and M$'s push to get open source out of the military. Ask him how M$'s apparent problems with security would 'help' keep America safe.
(I posted this idea a day or so ago in another thread, but I think this could be a good thing to start asking congresspeople about.)
:-), half the money raised from the intellectual
Why don't copyright holders pay an annual tax of 1% on an assesment of the value of keeping their copyrights out of the public domain, like real estate holders do? If they stop paying annual intellectual property taxes, the copyright could revert to the public domain, like real estate reverts to the state when real property taxes are not paid. This would be a great way to increase federal and state tax revenues, while also promoting the public domain.
Essentially, since the "for limited times" bargain has been broken by copyright holders lobbying for extensions, shouldn't the bargain be re-balanced by now taxing all copyright holders for keeping their works out of the public domain? Why are copyright holders so fast to claim they hold so called "intellectual property" and yet they so far seem to remain exempt from any sort of annual "property tax" for the upkeep of the information superhighway that makes their so-called property so valuable, and the public domain of ideas which they draw from to create copyrighted works?
==== more background ====
If the Supreme Court rules against Eldred etc. and allows indefinite
copyright extensions (or even if they don't), here is an amusing idea. I
think I saw the germ of it first in another user's comment on Slashdot
months ago -- and now that I poke around the web and usenet I see that
many others have discussed it a tiny bit. In such a worst case where
copyrights are indefinite, perhaps a property tax on copyright owners
might be enacted as a last resort, where rights holders get to choose an
assessed value for having the monopoly of all rights to the work, and
rights holders pay some percentage (1%?) per year of that assessment,
with the restriction then rights holders have to release the work to the
public domain if a payment to them is made for the assessed amount.
Possibly the assessment would be broken down into rights categories, so
that there could be payments for freeing specific subrights -- like
non-commercial use. This category approach would allow a work to be
bought into the public domain in stages.
For example, if the Theodore Sturgeon Literary Trust puts, say, a
million dollar valuation on the "Skills of Xanadu" story (ironically
about freedom) relative to releasing it into the public domain (say, so
they could pursue movie rights for it), at an "intellectual monopoly"
tax rate of 1%, the trust would have to pay $10000 per year to keep the
monopoly. But if the Trust puts only a $1000 value on "The Skills of
Xanadu" to avoid significant taxes (only $10 a year then), I'd take out
my checkbook, maybe along with some other fans, and it would be free
today.
Note this assessed amount is for release into the public domain, not
necessarily the amount to be paid by someone else who wants the monopoly
transferred to them, which might be higher or lower, just like what real
estate sells for isn't necessarily the assessed rate. Since it it hard
to assess the value of a copyright, let the rights holder do it, as long
as this public domain buyout clause was in place to prevent overly low
self assessment of monopoly value.
If some people call patents and copyrights "intellectual property" (yes,
I know that term begs the question of how to handle them) then why not
laugh at them and just tax ownership of such "property"? After all, just
like real estate owners pay taxes to offset the heavy continual burden
their property puts on society (a need for police, fire departments,
water, roads, sanitation, planning boards, zoning, local schools, etc.),
there is a heavy continual burden on society for enforcing copyright
(prisons for infringers, costs of salaries for judges in court cases,
the time cost to individuals of making fair use determinations,
government subsidized distribution channels like the internet, the need
for the government to maintain accurate records, lawmaker's time, etc.)
which ideally should be born by copyright holders as opposed to the
general public.
Yes, I know such a tax might wreck havoc with the GPL or other freely
licensed software too. Most GPL copyright holders would probably need to
set their copyright assessment prices low and risk public domain
buyouts. And there are issues with previously selling off exclusive
rights separately to a work (although such rights holders could pay part
of the tax.) And there are issues with incrementally developed works, or
works with multiple copyright holders...
Still, the big issue is that the cost to society of the copyright
monopoly on any work is potentially high, and the person who should be
paying that social cost is really the rights holder, rather than passing
on external costs to others, as a form of social pollution. Some would
argue rights holders already paid a copyright tax when they registered.
Yet, people who get real estate pay a title transfer fee (sort of like a
copyright registration or renewal fee) but they still pay property taxes
afterwards too. If there was no records of taxes paid on a copyright,
it could be presumed public domain, or the copyright owner could be
pursued for tax evasion (until they disclaimed it to the public domain,
of course). This would make the state of copyright much clearer than the
current situation where it is very expensive to determine if a work is
under copyright, and if so, who currently owns it and how to contact
them. With real estate, all this is a matter of public record.
When registering to pay "intellectual property" taxes for their
monopolies, copyright holders might be required to deposit a complete
copy of the content and preferred form source in digital format in
escrow. This escrow would be in part to allow people wanting to use
public domain materials to easily search published content against
registered works. Escrow would also be in part to ensure the work would
be available unencrypted and unprotected when it became public domain,
such as if the rights holder stopped paying property taxes on it.
Perhaps the way to win the copyright battle, if all else fails, is to
give copyright holders what the want, then something else too that
naturally goes with it. Microsoft would have to put a price on releasing
the Windows source code to the public domain for example (including all
previous versions, which might have separate prices), and then they
would finally be forced to pay taxes. Yes, perennially people have
resisted taxes on capital, so it's an uphill battle, but it is another
front of the copyright battle to consider.
Obviously, stocks and bank accounts aren't often taxed by the federal
government while held (though some states do like with Florida's
"Intangible Personal Property Tax"),
http://www.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/ippt.html
so the argument would have to be worked through if the taxation was at
the federal level. And of course this makes the government meddle more
in everyone's affairs (at least, those claiming copyrights or software
patents) but maybe that's OK considering the alternative in this case
and how much they meddle already.
And, while I'm dreaming
monopoly tax could be used to fund more free software and free content
(and the other half would go to pay down the Federal deficit).
Note: even with laws like the above, I would support some form of
author's moral rights regarding their works, enforced separately from
copyright.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I think this likely means the senator is not the most technically savvy senator (not that any of them are) and he may not even be aware of a lot of the current IP issues. You might want to try asking the senator a simpler question(s) to show him that his constituents are concerned about IP issues. If you ask him a difficult question he (and the rest of the audience) won't understand it and he'll just side step it.
What process do you have in place to ensure that you are properly informed of the technological issues surrounding congressional bills? What initiatives are you taking to better streamline the feedback process in this increasingly digital age?
I notice your presence on the web is rather lacking. Is this due to lack of funds, lack of interest, or some other problem, and is anything being done to address this issue?
Given that "digital piracy" (etc. etc.) is already illegal under existing pre-digital-age copyright laws, is it really necessary to pass waves of new anti-technology legislation that seriously threaten the digital infrastructure that took 40 years to build?
From THOMAS: Gene Taylor has sponsored or co-sponsored two bills in the 107th Congress. Here they are.
Looking at this, I'd push the impairing-defense-readiness angle. CBPDTA (?), by preventing DoD from procuring GNU/Linux systems offering greater transparency and security and a lower total cost of ownership, does not contribute to the goal of a leaner, more efficient military and leaves the services more exposed to 21st Century asymmetrical warfighting tactics (e.g., the enemy-du-jour 0wning the properly-licensed regimental IIS server).
-- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
He voted for the Communications Decency Act. Ask him how tighter controls on distribution and copying of porn can help fatten the bottom line of the commercial pornography industry.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp ?CID=N00003350&cycle=2002
a sp ?CID=N00003350&cycle=2002
0 22 6&mode=nested&tid=109
...and this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.
Since he's a member of armed services committee, I'd ask him about Microsoft lobbying the pentagon for "higher taxes" i guess. ; )
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/23/032
I'd actually ask if
1) he has any ideas on how Armed Services (pentagon?) can save $gazillion$ due to increased use of open source software and..
2) if he knows that Microsoft is lobbying to prevent this.
3) if he doesn't know that you would be happy to send a member of his staff some information.
He'll likely say 'I haven't been briefed on this' and think 'what the hell is he talking about?' but the seed will be planted......
Cheers,
-b
Given an example of a real-life action that is illegal under the DMCA or SSSCA and ask whether it should be illegal. Then ask him if he's aware of the offending Act's prohibition. For example:
"If I buy a music CD, should I be allowed to copy it to tape so that I can play it in my car stereo? Or, If I buy an expensive game for my computer, should I be allowed to make a personal copy for every day use to prevent wearing out the original?"
When he agrees that you should be able, point this out:
"Both these examples are considered 'fair use' under case law but are being made illegal under the SSSCA. Hardware manufacturers will be forced to make copying for any purpose impossible without expressed permission."
If he doesn't agree, ask him to explain his reasoning.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
I think the hardest part about this battle is that they are so uninformed.
If you feel that they are uninformed, then why not put together a package for them containing an outline of the situation and references where to find out more? Ignorance is only a temporary problem.
Gene Taylor is a member of the US House of Representatives. Mississippi's Senators are Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, both Republicans.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Mr. Senator, why are the rights of the corporations (who aren't really people, btw...) being considered before the rights of the voting public? The DMCA and the CBPTBPABPA (I hate that damn acronym!) were designed to take our rights away to protect the 'oh so valuable corporate property', but no legislation was placed to protect our individual rights.
Right now, it feels like the laws are specifically being passed so that we, the consumers (and tax payers) are legally inclined to pay the MPAA and the RIAA money for absurd reasons. For example, if a DVD I bought gets scratched, I am forced to buy a new one or not watch the movie, all thanks to the DMCA. There isn't a provision that declares that I, as an individual, have the right to take necessary steps to back up the products I invested in. Instead, the big corps were given the right to lock up their precious content and force me to pay again for content I already paid once for.
Why isn't the government looking to preserve our individual rights before passing laws to help out corporations? Please tell me it's not because we're not paying the gov't enough money. 30% of my yearly income goes straight to the federal government.
"Derp de derp."
Check out Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan group which has the voting records on key votes and position information on a large (LARGE) number of candidates. It's definitely not complete on some of the internet issues, but it may be a good starting point.
Whatever you do... don't read this.
Take your pick:
Have you ever chosen not to accept campaign donations from any corporation, group, or individual because you felt that they harbored agendas which were at odds with the interests of voters in your district?
You are officially an employee of the voters in your district, however you receive a far greater amount of money from campaign donors. Describe your present efforts to correct this conflict of interest.
You have consisently voted against tax cut legislation. As a result, voters have to curtail their personal spending to a level which leaves a remainder adequate to cover their tax obligations. Why should the residents of your district vote for someone who would pass a financial burden on to them, rather than work to decrease the costs of maintaining the programs that their tax dollars are spent on?
You currently have made no opposition to the present policy of incarcerating persons in posession of marijuana. If this policy were enforced consistently, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other members of your party would have been ineligible for public office due to criminal records. Describe what you believe the benefits of this outcome would have been.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
Partisan politics above rule of law and furthering the system of Rank hath all priveledges and no responsibility are all that they care about.
We will likely see no change in our party system as long as we have a voting system which specifically rewards it. That must be redesigned first.
When I was an intern in a Congressman's office, I was able to attend a number of informal, off-the-record talks between senators, congressman, and interns (and only interns!)
At the end of the talk, we were allowed to ask questions on any topic, and I got to see first hand what questions work and what questions fail.
Your question needs to be pointed, but not too specific because believe it or not, a congressman votes on alot of bills everyday, and he doesn't have time to read all of them in depth, that's why he has a staff.
So a question like "line 2 paragraph 8 of the DMCA says this, but...." won't cut it, he won't know what the hell you're talking about. But if you are too broad, he will just ramble on about nothing for 2 minutes and then move on to another question.
The best thing for you to do is present one or two simple and well-documented problems/weaknesses with the DCMA, and then ask him how he thinks the problems could be solved.
And, damn, this is the most important of all...don't buy into the media's portrayal of all government officials being corrupt...give the man the benefit of the doubt and give him the respect he deserves
Thank you Dave Raggett
A.) Yes I would ask him that.
B.) What's wrong with what I asked? If you're going to say what I said is stupid, how about backing that claim up? If it's stupid, fine, but give me reason so I can understand why.
"Derp de derp."
Look, I don't live there and it's really none of my business...but...
Given the amount of times industry financing of congressmen's and senators' campaigns are mentioned I would suggest asking a pertinent question on campaign finance!
To this casual observer that seems to be at the root of a lot of the problems the hacker community are facing over there.
The problem is that it's not really a question, it's an angry rant with a few questions thrown in to disguise it as questions. I suppose it all depends on whether you want to ask questions, or whether you want to deliver a lecture.
Not sure if I expressed it too well, but I basically wanted to know what's going to be done to secure our rights.
I personally don't believe that this whole piracy issue can be sorted out until the law spells out what we can legally do. If the law says that we can legally backup a DVD, for example, then the law says that somebody copying a DVD is not a pirate.
Unfortunately, I got a little heated when I started writing that, so I have no doubt that I wasn't very good at expressing myself.
"Derp de derp."
*Nods* I understand what you're saying. I could easily have phrased the question better.
I'm just really frustrated that the Gov't is going at this backwards. I'd really like our rights defined before they go passing stupid laws like the DMCA.
"Derp de derp."
yeah, and all blacks have rythm, all latins wear charro hats and all whites are card-carrying KKK members.
Generalizations are wrong, and serve only to further hate and bigotry.
Consider yourself bitchkicked, whatever the hell that is.
I have to give it to you, tough: You're one of the most successful trolls I've ever seen. I can't believe how many moderators fall for your redneck stupid rants.
You *are* stupid. Redneck doesn't exactly apply to me, and the contention that my statement was in any way a stereotype or generalization is wrong.
Hate? No, I don't hate them, and bigotry doesn't really mean anything in this context either, unless you want to distort the meaning so much it fails to remain useful.
Troll? Well, guilty as charged, though this was one time I wasn't trolling.