The Worst Coders In Washington

spooky writes "The American Open Technology Consortium, 'a nonprofit organization of technologists who have joined together to educate lawmakers and regulators about technology -- especially in regards to The Internet' has compiled a list of the lawmakers responsible for eight bad internet laws. They say, 'These bad coders and their backers have done more damage to computing, the Internet and freedom than all the virus authors, spammers and crackers combined', Do you agree? Did they miss anyone?"

Comments

thank the GOP for this mess

[kraksmoka]

Just remember tomorrow all you techies. When you're at the poll, Just Say No to the conservative right. They are the true enemy. All of these bad laws have been under their watch in Congress. Throw the bums out!

apply flames here:

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[EvanED]

Regardless of this being flamebait, he's right, at least if this site is to be believed: only 18 of the 93 people on the list (assuming I counted right; in any case it's a very small portion) are democrats. Furthermore, only two of the 25 worst offenders are democrats. The rest are republicans.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence that moderation really works. Parent had a +1 score.

Like you're one to vote on the issues with that party line.

Not all "techies" are Democrats. Sheesh. And the reality is, this is not a partisan issue, no matter how much you want to make it be. That was, after all, part of the point of the AOTC listing. There are reps from both sides of the fence; they're all getting paid off.

But, partisans be partisan. Oooo, ooo, economy--some say, "see, Bush's fault!" Reality is, Bushie ain't doing much now (I think he should deregulate markets more, but noooo) for future improvement and present perception, but the current economic climate is not his "fault" in a cause-effect relationship. Heck, given most bubbles were from the Clinton era with a Republican congress, both didn't incite much help or further development. Economists have said again and again that what the present adminitration does in the current term has little effect on the current term.

Then again, the right wing conspiracists are probably all saying the media is run by liberals and the economy is tanking because all the rich leftists pulled their money out of the markets causing the current climate (and hence forcing the political climate change). And someone's probably saying that he'd bet those lousy liberals colluded with the west coast dock workers too!!!

Meanwhile, the left wingers are probably saying that the lower interest rates favor businesses, although it probably favors the housing market even more such that more folks are buying homes (and conversely argued, getting screwed because of generally rising property taxes which they shell out in full whether they have a loan or buy outright).

Lovely this world of politics. I'll vote on the races, not the party line. The party line is what causes alignments to occur between politicans and groups (i.e. special interests), so I'll vote on the issues, hoping that in the chaos of a mixed political body, it'll be more difficult for such "legal limits over free market competition alignments" to occur.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Bartab]

Oh really? Who signed DMCA into law again? CDA? NET?

All Clinton.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate stupidity.

Whenever someone just selectively grab bills and laws then THEN tries to apply correlations to party, you're going to get a skewed outcome. (It's selective by the shear nature they they picked the "worse" bills, which is still subjective.) And then someone, like you or the parent poster, will come along and, without a thought, say "See!" Look, if they had added prominant copyright bills, the democrat margin would be higher than the current 20% margin. And if Clinton hadn't signed the DCMA or Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, this would be a voided question.

And you don't even pretend to take into consideration that the overall current representation count is Republican, due to the dominance in the house, which OF COURSE is going to more Republicans being mentioned.

And OF COURSE if campaign donations from special interests continue to be legal, the media companies are going to shower those representatives in a position of getting bills passed, which in the Senate are Democrats, and in the House are Republicans, which is going to FURTHER push it to the Republicans (as they controlled the Senate until the flip of the one rep, control the House, and are in control at the last lawmaking step, the Presidency). Rest assured, if Dems were in power in the House, the special interests would be showering them with money, and more so if Gore had won.

These bad laws have NO POLITICAL ALIGNMENT because neither party has a strict or well-founded policy or issue guidance on them.

The reality is, the parent post is flamebait because voting should not be strict party lines, not even based on money the person receives, but on the issues and past voting record of the House or Senate rep that you have in front of you. And don't even pretend a web page analysis is going to be really all-encompassing or relevant to what occurs in your local races. Hell, this is just the federal level (we've already seen state laws creating an effect).

Finally, the fact is, both parties screw you. You have to look at WHO in the party does what. If you vote on party lines, all you do is push party alignment on the issue. I don't want another NRA/Republican alignment. If "techies" (what the fuq is a techie really, and when did they all suddenly vote liberal?) were one and did all vote liberal, all the special interests will simply fund Republicans, and vice versa. Don't help them align. Vote on the issues and the voting record, and look at campaign donations to then add relevance to your decision.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[Ryan Amos]

GOP is in bed with big business, the Dems are in bed with the labor unions. This is the way it's always been. This is more partisan politics than anything. Yeah, the GOP writes some pretty nasty bills, but the democrats write equally nasty ones (gun control legislation, etc) they just don't involve the internet.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[StevenMaurer]

The real question is: do you think G.W. Bush would have been less supportive of these anti-free speech laws? Or would he have been more so? Would there have been even more draconian measures stuck into them?

And which party was pushing the most for these corporate welfare bills? Do you think it was the Democrats? Seriously?

Just because Clinton didn't have a perfect 100% voting record doesn't mean we shouldn't give him credit for the 90% record he did have. Compared to our current President, who seems willing to destroy America's freedoms in order to "save" it, he was a strongly positive influence.

I'm just sorry so many Americans are so inattentive to the issues, they allow their precious liberties to be whittled away.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[bnenning]

Compared to our current President, who seems willing to destroy America's freedoms in order to "save" it, he was a strongly positive influence.

Are you kidding me? Who came up with the Clipper chip? Who defended the blatantly unconstitutional crypto restrictions that could make you a felon for typing 4 lines of Perl? (Little-known fact: Ashcroft opposed those restrictions). Who tried to use the OKC bombing as a pretext for censorship? Who presided over the largest ever increase in arrests of nonviolent drug offenders?

I'm just sorry so many Americans are so inattentive to the issues, they allow their precious liberties to be whittled away.

Actually, it seems like too many Americans don't care about their liberties if they're being taken away by the party they voted for. I'm perfectly willing to stand up and say that Bush is wrong on things like the Patriot Act and the drug war. I would hope that liberals could do the same and realize that the Democratic Party is no friend of civil liberties either.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[spirality]

People continue to mention the NRA, (who actually provides online service), in a negative light here. However, the NRA is probably the staunchest supporter of the Constitution, especially the First and Second Amendments.

I'll leave the Second Amendment out of this discussion, as this discussion is definitely a First Amendment issue.

It seems to me that the Democrats are most aligned to the anti-freedom agenda. Unless I am mistaken, all of the mentioned bills that actually became laws were signed by a Democratic president. Wait, don't mention all of the violations of my right to bear arms that he signed into law. Oh yeah, right, we aren't talking about the Second Amendment.

That Clinton signed these bills may be a mere conicidence though. I suspect that ignorance, (or maybe something much more insidious), rules the day with technology laws. Most of the people in office are older and because of that I think have a lesser understanding of technology. For God's sake, Al Gore thought he created the Internet!

Also, you'll notice that the DMCA, which is probably the most oppressive bill on the list had support from both Republicans than Democrats. You'll also notice that COPA had a much larger Republican sponsorship. I would say this was probably because their constituency is made up largely of religious zealots. All I can say is thats the part of the Republican party that reeks. Well, that and their environmental record.

In the end all of this comes down to freedom so I would urge you to support freedom in all flavors. You can't say "take their guns", but "I want to keep my speech". If you do, our rights will be whittled away one by one until we have nothing.
We must pay the price of freedom, responsibility for our own actions, and HARSH penalties for those who shirk reponsibility. The Republicans usually have that right.

All that aside, we are being sold out. Here's how:

The media, which is owned by big powerful companies is supposed to watch the government for abuses. However, the parent corporations of these media outlets have been pursuading our government toward abuse. Because of this the media has a huge conflict of interest. (This is obvious right?). This could be why we don't hear about these things on the nightly news.

Corporations are poised to steal our whole political process. They are doing a very good job of it already. All I ask you is, what have you done about it today?

Are there any issues that are universal in the Slashdot community besides what is pushed by the EFF, and GNU? (If even these are?) I known we are not all Libertarians. I'm not anway, and based upon other peoples comments, there are others who are not. However, how do you all feel about the first section first section, of the Libertarian Platform, entitled "Individual Rights and Civil Order"? You can reply here or email me about this directly. Maybe we can have a little more organization. I think that most of us here are pro electronic freedom and pro electronic privacy. What else matters? The link above describes much of what I believe. I remember reading it and saying, yeah, yeah, they've got it. Then I read the part on economics... ouch.

Thats my three cents.

-Craig

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[superyooser]

I was going to write a little satire in response to your statement that conservatives are the real enemy. Then I realized that your beliefs are every bit as absurd as any sarcasm I could come up with. The humor would've been lost.

Look, we are living in historic times. The opening shots of World War III may have already occurred. (It's hard to interpret history when you're in the midst of it.) Conservatives are trying to cajole the nation into doing what must be done for our survival. Liberals are aligning with Stalinist dictators. Democrats are campaigning from Baghdad, apparently holding a solidarity rally with Saddam Hussein, a supporter of al-Qaeda and a bona fide terrorist himself. ..... And you're telling me that whoever supports the Communications Decency Act represents the biggest evil in the world?! This is why I have trouble taking any this DMCA/CDA/COPA/CBDTPA controversy seriously. It's blown up so big that I tend to shrug off the whole thing out of incredulity. Besides, anything that puts liberals in tizzy must be good. :-)

The CDA et al are peanuts compared with the towering issues of our time. National security, economic policy, and social security should be receiving far more of our attention. (I know this is /., but we are talking about real life elections.) The relevance of the first two issues should be obvious, but SS is important too and not just to old people. If current policies remain, income taxes will have to be increased to 50% to keep SS afloat. How's that for being consumer friendly? You'll have nothing to buy anything with after making your necessary expenditures. We'll be facing a colossal economic disaster if SS isn't fixed.

If the topic of this story is a major political concern to you, ask yourself whether it's in your best interest to be a single-issue voter based on this. Don't get tunnel vision. There are many important issues out there.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[DAldredge]

If supporting the 2nd adm makes the NRA (right extremist) what does that make people that support the other 9 adms in the Bill of Rights?

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[electroniceric]

This is a really interesting post, both content-wise as a benchmark (to use a relevant term of art) of Slashdot.

Content-wise it's interesting not just becaue the poster knows his/her sh*t, but also because it highlights an approaching conundrum - lawmakers all over the US of A love to tout the technology sector as this great engine of economic growth, but clearly have very little understanding of how their actions affect the climate for the tech sector. It's not as simple as tax or don't tax, regulate or don't regulate in tech, and that confounds the parties' standard platitudes. So as the parent eloquently points out, there is not yet alignment of the parties with a particular stance on technology legislation, a state which begs techies to step into politics.

As for this:

Finally, the fact is, both parties screw you. You have to look at WHO in the party does what. If you vote on party lines, all you do is push party alignment on the issue. I don't want another NRA/Republican alignment. If "techies" (what the fuq is a techie really, and when did they all suddenly vote liberal?) were one and did all vote liberal, all the special interests will simply fund Republicans, and vice versa.

Your cynical attitude towards politics in general prompts me to think that you're American (as am I), and it makes me sad. Of course both parties screw you, at the same time as their handing you manna. That's how power and politics have worked since the dawn of time. The military-industrial complex (definitely bipartisan, everyone wants a a lab or a military base in their district) begat DARPA and university network research begat the internet. At the same time, the military-industrial complex strengthed corporate hegemony which begat absurdly restrictive views of ideas as physical property begat DMCA. All brought to you by the same two parties, and quite likely the same cohort of politicians, or at least their proteges.

Don't help them align. Vote on the issues and the voting record, and look at campaign donations to then add relevance to your decision.

Interesting idea that well informed voters will help depolarize politics. I hope it's true, and I certainly support your claim that one should vote on issues, not a party line. I think a few more parties, a few new estates, like the "mythical" techies (who have a reputation for peppering their speech with slogans like "I hate stupidity", and fancying themselves independent thinkers), and perhaps some refined approaches to things like regulation will also help reduce some of this polarization.

To finish my other point... as a cultural milestone, these posts also interesting - just glancing through the responses shows that the site has succeeded in attracting politically knowledgeable people who have learned about tech, or vice-versa. I only hope that this crossover continues, and carries into other kinds of issues, like poverty, equality, and the environment.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[superyooser]

I assume you meant to reply to me and not to kometes. I don't back up my claims when they're based on what I consider to be common knowledge. Well... now that I think about it, the 50% figure definitely isn't common knowlege, but I don't remember where I heard it. It must have come from a source that I trust since I remembered it. More on this later...

The main point about Democrats is that they appear to be doing more that encourages terrorism than that which prevents it. They appear to view conservatives as greater enemies than terrorists whose primary goal in life is to destroy us. True, my statement about the solidarity rally with Saddam was a little over the top (I'm glad you laughed), but the effect of what Democrats are doing really does help Saddam's regime at our expense.

For all we know attacking Iraq could be the downfall of the United States.

Restraint is a sign of weakness and is a big, bright GREEN LIGHT for groups waiting to attack. Cowardice to use our own weapons is akin to self-disarmament. It does nothing but embolden our enemies. Based on what we know, a more accurate prediction would be that failing to attack Iraq would lead to the downfall of the United States. "The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence."

The preceding quote is from the Bush speech to the U.N. two months ago. Click on the link above, and you can read the transcript, listen to the audio, or watch the video. It was all over the news. This is what I mean by common knowledge. I don't have time to deal with willful ignorance or categorical disbelief of information that you don't want to believe. A Slashdot post is just a Slashdot post. I don't have the time to compose a comprehensive dissertation on National Security & Terrorism complete with footnotes and full bibliography section. When I say things like I did in my previous post, I'm expecting readers to recall information that they should already have stored in their memory. If you don't have that store of knowledge to pull up, then you're not getting (or refusing to receive) all the facts. I didn't state any opinions that aren't in the mainstream, so there was no pressing need to direct you to supporting information.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[gl4ss]

how is the system in usa for voting?

here, at least, we have this system that every vote you do for a party(or vote-alliance, which smaller parties can make) counts as well towards other people in that party, in fashion that the man/woman getting most direct votes in a party gets all the votes gone to the party, and the next one gets a little less and so on. i guess in 2 party system you would be kinda screwed with this anyways... this makes it possible for few independant people to get into parliament too, through vote-alliances with other independant people.

Re:thank the GOP for this mess

[glesga_kiss]

if campaign donations from special interests continue to be legal

Personally, I believe that any politician that recieves these bribes should be made to wear a badge for each of the companies/groups that made a donation. Then you will always know where they are coming from.

"Senator Smith was brought to you this evening by AOL, suppliers of Internet access & pop music, and Shell Oil, screwing the Arabs so you can drive SUVs" ;-)

They know what they're doing.

[mazarin5]

Unfortunately, it seems that most lawmakers know exactly what they are and have been doing, and that's why they've been so devastatingly effective. Keep in mind, they're policymakers and politicians, and campaign donations are alway welcomed.

Re:They know what they're doing.

[NickGXZ]

It also seems that they might not know dick about what they are doing. Mind you, most of the lawmakers on Capital Hill are old fashion, and might be afriad of this new tech. They may not know how to handle it the right way, and will panic which will lead them to approve of a unfair law. How do you think the DMCA was able to pass?

Re:They know what they're doing.

[JWW]

Just wait until 60 days before the next election.

What happens then if the CBDTPA comes up for debate then?

It doesn't matter how much money the EFF has, they won't be able to run an issue ad.

Complain all you want about laws that limit code as speech, but don't stand and cheer laws that limit speech as speech.

stevens

[Maskirovka]

For the record, senator Ted Stevens (who co-sponsored the CBDPA if up for re-election tomorrow. He doesn't have any serious opposition though...

Re:stevens

[pnatural]

He doesn't have any serious opposition though...

He never has, and he never will. In a small (population-wise) state like Alaska, it really pays to have as much seniority as the Alaskan congressional delegation does. We've had the same congressional delegation as long as I can remember... 20 years at least.

Full disclosure: I'm an Alaskan, registered voter, and I vote Republican (I consider myself anarchist-come-libertarian-but-still -very-pragmatic :) I oppose DMCA and all that crap, but tomorrow, I'll vote for Stevens. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's more important for me to have my state, a very small and often forgotten place, to wield some degree of power in Washington.

Re:stevens

[3-State Bit]

It's more important for me to have my state, a very small and often forgotten place, to wield some degree of power in Washington.
Fuck you! It's the largest state in the U.S. I wish I had a state that large--but all you do is complain about it. Spoiled brat.

Re:stevens

[pnatural]

What map are you looking at? All the maps I saw in school clearly depict Alaska as a very small state. No bigger than, say, Washington or Oregon.

That's a joke of course, maybe you'd understand what I meant by "small" if you read the whole comment -- small as in population.

But fuck you, too!

Re:stevens

[3-State Bit]

I know, I was just teasin' :)

Re:stevens

[Maskirovka]

How did this get a 5? I may be flamebait, but still...

because I have a bewolf cluster of natalie portman cruisers. How else?
:P

Did they miss anyone?

[JohnnyBigodes]

Well... how about a few thousand Windows programmers?
(an obvious choice, I know, but still true :)

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[EvanED]

Why is sarcasm so hard to spot when it's in print? I've taken many printed things seriously that weren't meant to be, but I at least saw that that was just a joke...

Re:Did they miss anyone?

[EvanED]

Actually that depends on whether the poster intended the post to be a criticism of MS; I suspect this is the case, which would make it sarcasm.

Chicken and the Egg

[Vaulter]

I always wonder about articles like this. Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing. It would be too much bother for so little.

But, unfortunately, the masses found out, and spoiled for the rest of us.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[sweetooth]

That doesn't make the legislators any more right than the abusers. We can have a direct effect on the legislators while it is much harder to have a direct effect on the abusers you list. Beside, if you compare many of these representatives voting records with other bills you will find that they don't just push bad tech laws, many of them push bad laws in general.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[jedidiah]

Drunk driving directly addresses the negative behaivor in question. Most of these heinous anti-tech laws do not.

A more accurate comparison to draw would people advocating a second prohibition in order to deal with drunk driving.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[sweetooth]

Actually your comparison doesn't fit. Drunk driving is potentially deadly. Which is one of the biggest reasons it's illegal. The only harm that comes from the above listed actions is going to be monetarily. Passing draconian laws simply because the legislators are uninformed or because thier pockets are being lined is not acceptable and we should let them know that. This goes for all types of laws not just tech laws. Yes, there are going to be times where actions occur that require legislation after the fact to curb the problem (of course you can debate this too). However, in this case we are going to put handcuffs on a 500 billion dollar industry for the sake of a 50 billion dollar industry. Does that make any sense? It doesn't to me. I spoke with a senetor for my state on Saturday night while at a college convention for my wife. During the discussion I asked how she made most of her voting decisions and I was told that in many cases she only had basic information returned to her from her staff. Summaries. How can you possibly make a good, educated decision from a summary?!?! She couldn't answer that with anything better than "The best I can."

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[4of12]

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse?

Answer: They're both bad.

Yes, people who use their computer power to subvert copyright are bad. They ought to be punished accordingly, but certainly not punished for exercising fair use doctrines.

But that obnoxious behavior by various individuals is no justification for bad blanket legislation that stomps on liberties in an attempt to curtail bad behavior.

It is just as irresponsible for legislators to pass computer laws like these as it is for them to solve problems such as theft and burglary by mandating a police state and requiring everyone to present an internal passport on demand and to show signed receipts for all goods in their possession.

Of course in the U.S., with the way things are going with the "Patriot" Act, perhaps there is some consistency there...

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[GuruJ]

Technology + legislation is a dangerous combination, because it allows automatic enforcement of laws against people.

Compare the process of issuing a speeding fine in the 60s (policeman chases down the person, makes him stop, gives ticket) to today (camera: *click*, infringement notice arrives in the mail 5-10 working days later).

Copyright laws were acceptable in 'the old days' because each abuse had to be discovered individually. Now, bots can send out infringement notices to thousands of websites without a single human interaction. Things get even scarier when you consider the TCPA/Palladium platform, with punishments (ie. infringing material deleted) being potentially handed out automatically.

Online rights require a set of rules that are more flexible, not more rigid. We just haven't worked out what they should be yet.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[LoRider]

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

That's easy, the ones that attempt to limit privileges/freedom. Less freedom is always bad. Freedom comes with a cost, people will abuse it. Just because someone abuses freedom doesn't mean I don't deserve the right charish my freedom and love every minute of it.

I never understand people who wish to remove freedom under the guise of protecting it. If the freedom no longer exists, there's nothing to protect.

No one ever said living in a free society would be perfection and trouble-free. Every once in a while some jackass will say something that pisses you off, you can either some something back or go home and cry about it - you can't take away their right to say it though.

Freedom for everyone or freedom for no one.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[EvanED]

Ah, but there's a difference. Laws that punish misbehavior rarely restrict freedom. For instance, few people (at least outside of /.) would argue that pure copyright laws are unjust. They serve a very valid and necessary purpose: protecting someone else from stealing your work and thereby depriving you of what you should be earning. So legislators limited our "freedoms" (if you want to call distributing someone else's work a freedom) by making it illegal to distribute someone else's work. it addressed the problem without overstepping it.

Now look at the DMCA. This was again intended to curb distribution of pirated material, but it does so by making it illegal to carry out activities that often lead to illegal distribution. This again would be fine if the only reason to do what it makes illegal was to pirate things, but that's not the case. The DMCA was an *overreaction* to the problem of piracy, restricting rights that are not related to any wrong activity. For instance, I cannot use a clip from a DVD in a presentation I am doing--something that SHOULD be protected under fair use laws--without breaking the DVD's encryption, and thus violating the DMCA.

Overreacting to the problem in this example was just as bad as the problem they were trying to stop. This is even more true in the case of the DMCA as it would have only taken one small clause to limit its coverage to further stopping piracy. Just add a "This act is by no means meant to limit fair use rights; such use should not result in the penalties set forth in this act." That should suffice.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[ubrayj02]

Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing.

But, unfortunately, the masses found out, and spoiled for the rest of us.

It is debatable whether or not people have actually "stolen" anything by downloading/spamming/sharing, etc. Most peoples' intuition with respect to theft relies on a material object being taken. It is debatable whether or not copying a piece of information (in the most general of cases) and disseminating it (without the consent of it's author, and with/without payment in exchange) should be a crime in the first place. It so happens that theft in the physical world of objects and property works to the disadvatage of many people - and so it is rightfully considered "theft". However, it remains to be shown whether or not some civilization-wide practical disadvantage comes about through unauthorized, unpaid for, file copying and sharing.
Before blaming "the masses", maybe one should look at whose interests are being served - who is ruining what? Is it the case that downloading this stuff creates a horrible problem for our society? Or is it the case that it does nothing, or possibly makes things better?
What was ruined? If you are referring to your ability to download copyrighted material, then the blame lands squarely on the legislators who wrote the laws, the courts who upheld them, the police who enforced them, and the companies and individuals who lobbied/paid for this legislation.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[lostboy2]

Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse.

Hmmm... interesting question and responses. Just out of curiosity, how many people support gun control? If, say, the US gov't were to propose a law banning semi-automatic rifles (like the one used by the DC/Maryland sniper), I wonder how many /.ers would support it?

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[shepd]

>Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing. It would be too much bother for so little.

But I say this:

Without so many people going "overboard" using napster, etc. we wouldn't have the multitudes of people who hate the DMCA, et al. And the more people on our side, the easier these laws are to strike down.

Right now I can strike the fear of God into any teenager who's getting close to voting age by telling them that because of the current government you could be Hacked, Investigated, and sent to jail without due process in the USA because music companies suspect you of being a pirate when you use KaZaa.

Fortunately, myself being in Canada, this simply puts them off living in the USA. But, if I were in the USA, I can imagine this would be more serious.

Any other topic to do with government and laws, though, and I'd be shrugged off.

IMHO, going public with all this technology was the best idea yet.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[LoudMusic]

Maybe if so many script kiddies/ warez'ers/ napsterites hadn't gone so fscking overboard downloading/spamming/sharing, the legislations wouldn't have any backing. It would be too much bother for so little.

That's pretty much how anything goes these days. Or ever, for that matter. People, sheep as we are, find something neat and abuse it until it is no more.

Moderation is the key to all things.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[blueskies]

"Who is worse, the people who abuse privileges/freedoms, or the people who limit the privileges/freedoms to curb the abuse." Easy, the people who limit freedoms.

They should know better. They have been elected to uphold the constitution which provides for both a limited term on copyright and freedom of speech.

It's like asking who is worse, the teachers that break rules or the students? And it should be clear that the teachers are supposed to be the role models.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[kavau]

Let's compare two seemingly different issues: Guns and Software.

Thousands of people are killed with guns in America each year. Clearly guns are a huge threat to public safety in our cities. Should we restrict guns, or even outlaw them? Even mentioning this possibility infallibly generates huge outcries about "taking away our freedom", "constitutional right", and so on. The issue is one of freedom vs. safety. Freedom wins.

On the other hand, American corporations loose millions of dollars each year to illegal copying of software, music, movies etc. over the internet. Should we restrict the internet therefore? Now the issue is one of corporate profits vs. freedom. Profit wins.

The fact that America chooses freedom over safety in the first scenario, but chooses profit over freedom in the second scenario paints a very gruesome picture of our society:

Profit has highest priority, followed by freedom. Only then comes human life.

Money is more important than life.

Does anyone else think this is scary? I hope it's not just me.

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[ImaLamer]

Napster Napster Napster Napster !

If illegal music distribution** hadn't taken off on the mainstream we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

I mean, when I heard of napster for the first time I thought the Internet would just get shut down the next day. Obviously it didn't, but it is happening slowly.

The problem is people in D.C. don't understand that sometimes innovators appear as outlaws. We could have done this whole P2P revolution a different way, we didn't have to force it on everyone... ...I'm glad about it though

**(you do need a contract to distribute music that is under copyright. I guess that the real people fighting P2P isn't the RIAA per se, it's music outlets, Media Play, Mom & Pop's, Best Buy, etc. When those die the RIAA will just adopt a P2P scheme)

Re:Chicken and the Egg

[ronabop]

Drunk driving is not deadly, unless you've had so much to drink you die at the wheel while waiting for a stoplight.

Running into people, crashing cars, etc, is much more deadly, but it's not the same thing, is it?

Until the US can intelligently think about such silly 'slippery slope' arguments, every thing that could have fatal consequences, based on correlative, not causative, statistics, is up for grabs.

Let's apply that same enlightened thinking of 'drunk driving is deadly" to other items, shall we?

Linux/BSD users are (or will be) crackers, and should be in jail.
People who express anti-government opinions now are future terrorists, and should be in jail.
If you have a single illegal mp3, you are probably a future multi-billion-dollar-pirate, and should be in jail.

By all means, punish those who commit crimes against others, but to arrest someone *only* for drunk driving is to arrest them for future-crime, for the "potential" and "likelihood" of harming others.

I live in AZ, where 'drunk driving' is one (1) beer before driving. And I use good computers, which tend to kill less people than cars, and I own a handgun.

Three strikes against me on future-crime, I guess.

-Bop

Nope, the other Washington, kids

[echucker]

Sorry to disappoint, but they're not talking about Redmond. ;-)

partisan hit piece?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the list of congress critters, one might believe republicans deserve full blame.

Except, of course, that each bill needed a majority vote to pass, and each was signed into law by Bill Clinton, the only person that could have single-handledly stopped them.

Those that voted for the bills (many of whom are democrats) deserve just as much blame as those that authored or introduced them.

What a surprise ...

[BabyDave]

Yet another anti-MS story on /.

What? Washington DC? Where the heck's that?

The list

[_damnit_]

I am so very glad that my Representative and Senators were not on the list. I am surprised to see that Fritz (Hollings) is not at the top of the list. I guess it doesn't count that he just proposes more crap than everybody else, eh?

The Worst Coders In Washington

[Anenga]

Found them

too bad

[bilbobuggins]

AOTC doesn't have a press office. Some day we will. Meanhile you can contact our President, Doc Searls, at doc@ssc.com.

sigh
with a public presence like this, it's just one more well-intentioned group blowing a lot of air without making a sound...

Quick Summary

[fizban]

93 Worst offenders.

74 - Republican
19 - Democrat

Consider yourself informed. We live with a two-party system (mostly). One of them is more consumer friendly than the other. Vote accordingly.

Re:Quick Summary

[dh003i]

Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats -- gave his blessings to the DMCA; he didn't oppose it, he didn't criticize it, he didn't veto it.

Remember that the DMCA was passed almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans, as was the 1998 Copyright Extension Act; likewise with almost all other draconian anti-consumer intellectual property laws, and digital laws.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm only counting 8 votes for the DMCA, and somehow I don't think thats enough for it to pass the house and senate. These numbers are pretty incomplete, so before jumping to such statistical conclusions, you might want to get the full data set

Re:Quick Summary

[dattaway]

I remember something far worse: he signed an executive order stating encryption would aid terrorists and should be criminalized. Now look at how insecure our communications hardware is today due to that wisdom.

Re:Quick Summary

[fizban]

Very true, but I never said Democrats aren't evil. I'm just pointing out who's more evil.

However, telling a democrat lawmaker that a law is anti-consumer garners much more of a concerned response than telling a republican lawmaker the same thing.

But, in the end, it's all about the money. Which is why I'm planning to move to another country... :-)

Re:Quick Summary

[dh003i]

I also find your party-line voting suggestion to be harmful.

Voting along party lines is only for idiots, and will invariably produce undesireable results.

You can only vote along party lines if you agree with *everything* that a party stands for; even then, its not safe, because many Republicans deviate from the Republian platform, likewise with many Democrats. I consider myself Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can just vote for any Libertarian who runs...why? Because there's some thing in the Libertarian platform I disagree with, and I don't know which tenants of the Libertarian platform someone is going to stick to.

The only way to vote intelligently is to research the candidates thoroughly and decide if you like what they stand for, or if you don't. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely; the idea is to vote for the one who's positions and actions are the closest to those you have or you'd take.

Voting along party lines for Democrats might be good in one state, regarding digital freedoms and intellectual property. But in Utah, it might elect Orin Hatch -- a pro-Napster, pro-technology, anti-IP (in its current form) Senator (R) -- out of office.

The best thing to do is to figure out what each candidates positions are on various issues. Attention should be paid to what they say they will do, but you should take that with a grain of salt. More important, is how did they vote on various bills. Firstly, look at their attendance record for voting on bills. If they're absent on half of them, they're not good Senators or Representatives. For those they did vote on, did they vote as you would have? Make a simple list like such. +1 is assigned for voting as you would voe, -1 for voting against your wishes. Add appropriate weights for things which you consider more important.

It is the kind of party-lines thinking that the parent advocates which is a major problem in our system, and why the wrong people get elected; its also part of why third parties -- though usually being superior -- are kept off the voting ballot and rarely elected.

I used to think like the parent, when I was a teenager. I thought of myself as a Republican. However, as I grew older (hence smarter), I realized that I disagreed with the Republican platform on many things which were important to me (i.e., abortion, prostitution, drugs, stripping, euthanasia, gay rights, and religion).

Don't be locked into the "I'm a Dem/Repub" mentality. Determine what your position is on the issues, and vote for (s)he who's closer to that position by in what they say and what they've done.

Re:Quick Summary

[GigsVT]

0-Libertarian.

Consider yourself informed.

&ltsoapbox&gt
A Libertarian would never pass any law to stifle the Internet, and would never let the government pass protectionist laws for corporate lobbies.
&lt/soapbox&gt

Just a note, John Warner is facing Libertarian Jacob Hornberger in Virginia in tomorrow's elections. John Warner is going to win, no Democrat is running.

This is a good chance to show your support for Libertarians if you are a Democrat, or a Republican, but you agree with what the Libertarians are saying about a lot of things. Your vote will almost definitely not change the outcome of the election, but rather than not voting in the race, why not send the politicians a message that they need to wake up and start listening to the people, or they risk losing to Libertarians.

A 10% Libertarian vote in this election will do just that. So hey, nothing to lose, just do it!

Re:Quick Summary

[bcboy]

> Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats

*cough* *cough* *cough*
What?

Don't confuse rabid Clinton hating by Republicans with approval by Democrats. The fact that we don't hallucinate murders or hold him responsible for the criminal actions of conservative corporate CEO's -- as Republicans have -- doesn't mean we actually like him much.

Re:Quick Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Most democrats consider bill clinton "The Best Republican President we ever had". The truth is, the political climate has shifted so far to the right that most of the mainstream liberals are somewhere in the center. But seriously, look at those numbers:
rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep R- | wc -l
74
rez@service01:~$ cat t | grep D- | wc -l
19
(lazy mans way of counting)

They don't lie. I'm so sick of everyone pissing and moaning about Gore's infamous "I invented the internet". Why? Because its not a direct quote, he's never said it and not a single republican whose ever quoted it infront of me could come up with proof its a direct quote. I even saw it used on slashdot today... How shameful.

Yes, Micheal Moore has it right: Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. They're two groups who control our government with the backing of big business. The difference is the extent they're willing to sell their souls to industry. And whilst near 80% of the republicans sold out on thw issue of internet rights (free speech, fair use etc) only 20% of the democrats did. So maybe I am a troll, maybe this is flamebait but still - the numbers don't lie!

Re:Quick Summary

[Jason Earl]

What? You think that money doesn't play a role in politics in other countries? That's hilarious.

Most of the people that I have seen complaining about U.S. politics are folks that never bother to vote. People that vote realize that there is a lot more to a successful campaign than spreading money around. Don't believe me, get involved in your local political scene.

Re:Quick Summary

[Angst Badger]

Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats

This Democrat didn't think he was the gift of god. I thought he was a dangerously immature jerk who sabotaged liberalism in general by smearing it with his outrageously stupid public behavior. His primary contribution to history was making Rush Limbaugh seem reasonable by comparison. Now we're stuck with a public that has swallowed the Prime Directive of the GOP: "Having lots of money makes people virtuous and trustworthy."

Re:Quick Summary

[bperkins]

Appened is an ugly perl hack job that counts up who's responsible for what. I was interesed int he two types of bills, the "What About The Children?" (watc) type (CIPA,COPA and CDA), and "In The Pocket Of The Media" (itpotm) (P2P, DMCA and CBDTPA).

Total: D:19 R:74

Sponsored more than one:2 R:7

Sponsored the DMCA D:3 R:7

itpotm D:9 R:9

watc D:11 R:69

If I haven't made any mistakes, You can see that the republican party is mostly responsible for watc bills, while the Dems are more responsible for the itpotm bills, in fact, given a Republican majority in the House, the Dems have more than their fair share. I believe this is because the media centers are primarily democratic.

OTOH, Republicans are more responsible for the DMCA, which is the most egregious of them all.

Just cat the list of reps to the program to get a tally, if the program gets confused it will stop.

#!/usr/bin/perl -n
#Make sure you don't put in any extra space
# or the program will quit
1; /\(([DR])\-.* (\d) bill/||die;

$party=$1; $b=$2 ;$foo{$1}++;$_=<>;
($2>1) && $morethan1{$party}++ ; /DMCA/&&$dmca{$party}++ ;
(/P2P/||/DMCA/||/CBDTPA/)&&( $MPAA{$party}++ );
(/CIPA/||/COPA/||/CDA/)&&($watc{$party}++) ;

END{
print "bad D:".$foo{D}." R:".$foo{R}."\n";
print "very bad D:".$morethan1{D}." R:".$morethan1{R}."\n";
print"dmca D:".$dmca{D}." R:".$dmca{R}."\n";
print"itpotm D:".$MPAA{D}." R:".$MPAA{R}."\n";
print"watc D:".$watc{D}." R:".$watc{R}."\n";

}

Re:Quick Summary

[dh003i]

My basic point was that both parties (considered as a whole) are evil from everyone's pov in that they represent corporate interests and the IP industry (software, movies, music, etc) more than their constituents. However, despite the flaws of the way both parties act (most aggregious is the way they've conspired to keep 3rd parties off the ballot, thus preventing any real chance), some individuals in each party stand out as different.

I particularly like Orin Hatch (R) and Rick Boucher (D) as stand-out guys who support some sanity; i.e., oppose the neverending expansions in both the scope and duration of intellectual property, and oppose alot of the anti-consumer anti-digital rights laws, such as the DMCA.

Most Libertarians tend to be good on almost all the issues I'm concerned with, though being a little bit cooky on some issues (as much as I hate taxes, we do need taxes in society).

The point is that people shouldn't vote on party lines. Anyone who agrees with all of the tenants of one party is a zealous idiot who's obviously never thought a minute in his or her life, and shouldn't be voting anyways. Even such a idiot shouldn't vote along party lines, because not all Republicans stick to the tenants of the Republican party (refer to mavericks like Hatch and McCain).

People should look at what each candidate has done in his or her past, and compare that to what they say they're going to do in the future. If these two things don't mesh, they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If they have a history of defaulting on campaign promises (more-so-than usual), then they're liars and you shouldn't vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you agree with them, then you should vote for them. If what they say they'll do and what they do matches up, and if you disagree with them, then you shouldn't vote for them.

Proper voting is all about finding the (wo)man who's positions on various issues match your's as closely as possible, accounting for what you think is important.

Here's a brief an incomplete checklist for myself:

1. Abortion. I'm 100% Pro-Choice all the way, and support the right to choose at any time during a pregnancy (though I think that if its late, modern technology should be used to keep the fetus alive). I won't vote for anyone who doesn't support the absolute right to choose, without any hindrance from doctors or husbands/boyfriends, for at least the first trimester.

2. Prostitution. I support the right of a (wo)man to be a prostitute. Her body, her choice, as with abortion. Unfortunately, because our politicians both Democrat and Republican have been brainwashed by Christians, few of them support the right to prostitution. This is why I'm glad for Libertarians. In practice, I'll vote for whoever I deem most likely to be concerned with prostitutes rights, and who-ever's most likely to take steps towards legalizing what should be a basic freedom.

3. Euthanasia. This is one I'm adamant about, and one of the few issues for which I have no tolerance of the opposite side of the idea. I won't vote for anyone who is against euthanasia. My grandmother's brother (my great uncle) died a horrible death, suffering excruciating pain, as cancer paralized him. I hope that anyone who is against euthanasia meets a slow ending as horrible as they'd inflict on those who want to end their lives. Perhaps if Ronald Reagan had known he was going to spend his last years as a babbling moron who doesn't even remember he was President, he'd have supported the right to euthanasia.

4. "Animal rights". I hate this crap, especially the extreme positions espoused by PETA. I consider these animal-rigths nutcases to be just as fanatical as the anti-choice fetus-freaks. They prove my case by engaging in the same type of activity that anti-choice people engage in: blowing up buildings, breaking and entering, and other illegal activities. I don't give a flying fuck if an animal feels pain because of some experiment, or even if some angry person throws a dog out of a car into an oncoming traffic lane. Doesn't mean I'd be cruel to animals; cruelty without cause is stupidity, as Erwin Rommel once said.

5. Intellectual property. I support the drastic scaling back of both the scope and duration of all current forms of IP. I also think that many things currently covered by IP shouldn't be. If a candidate agrees with me on this issue (i.e., Orrin Hatch, Rick Boucher) that's a big plus. If they disagree with me, its a big minus. Again, this is an area where both parties have been bribed and blackmailed by special interests; this time, its the corporate interests. This is part of why I consider myself to be a Libertarian.

6. Digital freedoms. Tied into #5. I'm also against any restriction of our digital freedoms; refer to the anti-P2P bill by Fritz Hollings. The right to privacy and freedom of speech should be just as sacred online as it is in the real world.

7. Freedom of speach. I strongly support the right to freedom of speach. Thus, I am against any censorship laws (especially the vague "community standards of decency and properiety"). I am also against defamation laws, which only serve as tools of the rich to silence criticism.

8. Privacy. Again, I strongly support this right, both online and in the real world. I believe that new Amendments need to be passed to clarify the strong position of freedom of speach and privacy; the founding father's never imagined infra-red privacy-violations. They had a non-resolutional agreement, because these issues never arose in their time. In all cases, intrusions on privacy must be supported by a court order with good cause.

9. Clarity of the law and shortness of the law. Laws are vague because they use bullshit pretentious language and are written by lawyers to be understood by lawyers only. The tax code is some 29,000 pages long. Laws should be short and clear. They should be perfectly understandable by any literate person within a standard deviant of the average intelligence level. What politicians and lawyers have done is conspire to make laws impossible to understand by the average person, requiring fees to lawyers to interpret and understand it. Also, some laws are so poorly written that their exact meaning isn't even known by the best lawyers. Thesea are all bad laws and should be stricken immediately. We shouldn't wait until someone's head is on the chopping block to decide what a law means or if its constitutional (that's basically the way our current system works). Also immoral and unconstitutional is the way that politicians can now draft laws for specific individuals or groups of people. Refer to The Case Against Lawyers by Catherine Crier. Critics disparge it for being a "laymans" treatment of the topic; but they're the same evil lawyers who want everything written so that only lawyers can understand it.

10. Our constitutional system. As alluded to in #9, our current system is messed up. We have to wait until someone's life is on the line before we can decide if a law is constitutional. What bullshit is that? The minute a question arises about the constitutionality of a law, it should be challenged in court. This is the way it works in Germany, and its very good. Unclear laws should immediately be strucken down by courts. If two lawyers need to debate about what a law means, its unclear and unconstitutional, and should be struck down. Void for vagueness. The right to choose was only affirmed after Roe had already had her child; thus, after that right had been denied her.

11. Taxes. We already pay enough money to the government. If that's not enough, too bad. The government always whines about how its needs arent' being met. Cut some of your needs. Don't punish citizens because government officials are too incompetent to get results with the enormous amounts of money we give them. Also on taxes, I support eliminating this lawyers tax-code, and replacing it with a one-tax system: you get taxed on your income alone. Nothing else. This would save billions in paperwork and IRS investigations. It would also save taxpayers, because they wouldn't have to either hire lawyers or spend hours deciphering tax forms. The amount of taxes you pay should be directly proportional to the percent of the national GNP that you account for. If you account for twice as much as the GNP as the next person, then you should pay twice the percentage tax as they do. Thus, the income tax you should pay should be proportional to $earned * $earned/GNP.

There are many others, but the point is, I know exactly what my position is on each issue, and vote for the person who's closest to my overal political outlook. Other people should do likewise. That requires making a list of the issues and figuring out (and re-evaluating regularly) what your position is on each issue.

Re:Quick Summary

[drinkypoo]

A Libertarian would never pass any law to stifle the Internet, and would never let the government pass protectionist laws for corporate lobbies.

A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture. As such, if the world were in the hands of the libertarians, we wouldn't have had one at all until it became so obvious and cheap that companies would have put one together themselves.

Which means, it still might not be there.

Re:Quick Summary

[bnenning]

The truth is, the political climate has shifted so far to the right that most of the mainstream liberals are somewhere in the center.

I only wish. What on earth are you basing this on? Democrats and Republicans are rushing to create new entitlement programs for prescription drugs, Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to create a massive federal education bill, and government spending as a percentage of GDP is perpetually increasing.

I'm so sick of everyone pissing and moaning about Gore's infamous "I invented the internet".

So am I, because it diverts attention from more serious matters such as his cheerleading for the Clipper Chip and cryptography bans. Likewise I was annoyed with the Clinton/Monica fiasco because it diverted attention from his possibly criminal dealings with China (and as we know now, his ineptitude with North Korea).

Re:Quick Summary

[Linux_ho]

Remember that Bill Clinton -- the gift of god to Democrats -- gave his blessings to the DMCA; he didn't oppose it, he didn't criticize it, he didn't veto it.

Remember that the DMCA was passed almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans...

The DMCA was passed 100% unanimously in the senate, IIRC

Re:Quick Summary

[bnenning]

They don't lie.

Yes, they do. Look at how many Republicans are on the list only for co-sponsoring COPA. Certainly this is not admirable, but counting each of them as equal in badness to Fritz Hollings is just a bit misleading.

Re:Quick Summary

[DAldredge]

If you included all that voted for the DMCA it would make the D's look as bad as the R's.

Re:Quick Summary

[Skjellifetti]

One of the reasons why I am not a Libertatrian is that there are too many like you -- absolutists who do not understand that the world is full of complex shades of grey and not just black and white. You sound too much like the far right and far left fanatics who put ideology and theory above anything else.

Take the prostitution example. How many prostitutes have you met who chose to become prostitutes voluntarily. For many (most?) they had no choice at all because they have abusive boyfriends or employers who forced the choice on them. So, ya, sure a woman should be able to "choose" prostitution. Except the police can't control abusive spouses in most places, so why do you think we can here?

Re:Quick Summary

[crucini]

And whilst near 80% of the republicans sold out on thw issue of internet rights (free speech, fair use etc) only 20% of the democrats did.

In that case, you should be able to name at least one Democrat who voted against the DMCA or the CTEA.

Re:Quick Summary

[evilpenguin]

While I agree with you that party line voting produces generally undesirable results, this election more than any other is a possibility for massive change. Voter turnout may be as low as 30%. That means that a mere 15% of adults eleigble to vote will select the winning candidate. Unless you are non-voter and you can get another non-voting friend to join you in voting for a third party. If you are of a conservative bent, go Libertarian or Constitution party. If, like me, you have a more liberal bias, go Green party. If just 3 in 10 non-voters turns out for a third party, there would be a new majority party in the house.

The major parties could certainly use a shock like that.

So, please, do not sit idly by, even if you haven't done the homework the parent poster suggests. You have the power. Check the web site for your local newspaper. You can probably learn enough to make reasonable decisions from those capsule descriptions of candidates and races. You can follow through to the actual candidate web sites.

Political parties were originally created to allow voters who knew nothing about the candidate to make a vote. This worked for many years. It fails utterly today because the modern process of "audience research" used to create a candidates "principles" produces Democrats who look vaguely Republican and Republicans who look vaguely Democratic. I'm fortunate to come from a state with a long history of maverick (some say bizzare) politicians (Minnesota). We've had multiple third-party legislators and governors. Our Democratic party is called the DFL as a result of a merger between the Democrats and a third party called the Farmer/Labor party. We know full well that the "election scientists" can be dead wrong. The nationally famous election of Ventura was preceeded by the much less known election of Arne Carlson, a Republican, who was elected by a last-minute write-in campaign. That's right. Jesse Ventura's predecessor was elected (the first time) on a write-in.

We know nothing is impossible and every vote counts. It really does. I know from several years off and on with /. that there are a lot of political issues that mean something to people on this forum. If you care about Free Software or the DMCA, DRM, better roads, prescription drugs, anti-terrorism, encryption, privacy, preventive detention, human rights, liberty, free speech, anything where the power of the state may intervene for or against your interests, then you should vote.

Voting is your most powerful, if also your bluntest instrument. You should do more than vote, you should write to your office-holders about those aforementioned issues. But don't throw away your most powerful tool just because you don't like the choices, or don't feel you are as informed as someone says you should be. If you really feel that way, promise to do better next time. The whole House is up again in just two years, and if you're voting for a senator, he or she will be up again in six. Term limits? We don't need 'em if you will VOTE. We have term limits. They're called elections. If, as I said way back in this rant, only 15% of the citizens are choosing our government, why are we surprised that our government isn't living up to our expectations? Change that number!!

Re:Quick Summary

[ProfessorPuke]

A Libertarian would never pass any law to stifle the Internet, and would never let the government pass protectionist laws for corporate lobbies.
Nope, Libertarians wouldn't pass any laws at all. In fact they'd defer any but the most fundamental ("force 'n fraud") regulations to private-sector agreements.

That means corporations wouldn't have to lobby for restrictions and go through the motions of democratic involvement- they could just write the "laws" directly.

Seriously, government created copyright was only needed because it's a better alternative than corporate-copyright. Major publishing houses could enforce their own brand of IP by making you buy a "club membership" before purchasing any books. As you sign up, you contractually promise never to copy or resell (or maybe even share) anything they give you. Violation means a stiff fee, revocation of the license, and maybe a blacklisting from other publishers. And of course the cost of this enforcement is passed on to the customer.

Why should publishers make such contracts anything but indefinite? No expiration from copyright into the public domain- if the contract expires or is invalidated, you'll just have to destroy your copies (as they were now obtained by fraud).

Yes, there'd be some free-market pressure to keep the licenses tolerable. The same kind of pressure voters/consumers apply to congress/companies today.

Libertarians are no panacea. In practice, their solutions will wind up to be effectively identical to what a liberal democracy would do (with the same levels of resources and technology). There may be a +/- 5% margin of difference, but we can't predict if that small factor would be for good or ill.

(The "capital L" Libertarian movement is infeasible utopianism, nonetheless I've often supported them, because Congress deserves a reminder that we still value liberty)

Re:Quick Summary

[Rogerborg]

An admirable strategy, but there's one flaw. Your carefully researched vote counts for exactly as much as the one by the guy that voted Republican because his daddy whupped the tar of out him for asking why Democrats weren't better. Or as much as the women that voted Democrat because she believes they'll give her more money for her tribe of little miracles (Destiny Savanah, Connor Storm, Shoshwana Madonna, Keanu Misisssipi [sic])...), or the guy that was drunk, or the woman that couldn't remember which one favoured taxing her SUV less...

The problem with democracy is that it relies on the average person, and Slashdotters (with a few exceptions) are above average. For every one of us bulging brains, there's a herd of sub-100 IQ goobers, each and every one of whom has a vote that counts just as much as ours.

If you want to know why we've got a system that returns the second worst candidate, as yourself who exactly it is that's shouting advice at the tiny people on WWF, Jerry Springer and Oprah. Registered voters, that's who.

Re:Quick Summary

[poot_rootbeer]

A Libertarian would never pass any law to promote the internet, and would never let the government spend funding on such a venture.

A Libertarian would never pass any law, because even when they do get elected they're pretty much ineffectual. The major parties don't pay any mind to a lawmaker who doesn't "play the game".

If you're fed up with "the game" too, by all means vote Libertarian. But just keep in mind that the party has been around for 20 years, and it will be at least another 20 before it gains enough legitimacy to actually have an effect on lawmaking.

Re:Quick Summary

[ProfessorPuke]

I don't know where you get the idea that "capital L" Libertarians support the constitution. Maybe these "Libretarian"s you speak of are a subtle variant of Libertarians.

The lowercased word, as found in your dictionary, means "a supporter of personal freedom".

The uppercased word means either a vague political movement or an American political party.

The names of political parties are mostly just branding- the dictionary definitions of "republican" and "democrat" have little to do with the partys' platforms- no moreso than products called "Zest", "Brawny", or "Coca-Cola" really describe what you're buying.

If you have some other definition of "Libertarian" beyond what is presented on those 2 websites, then I guess we're talking about something else, and you can stop reading here (but I suggest you stop using terms that others will misunderstand).

Now, Libertarian Party candidates might claim they support the Constitution- or rather that they will obey the Constitution, until such time (in a distant, imaginary future) when they have sufficient national majority to pass amendments to re-write it to their liking.

But if anything, they just support the first line of the Declaration of Independence, which is paraphrased on
their statment of principles. Reading that page, you can find this line in principle #2:

we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain

This is in conflict with a number of parts of the consitution, such as "Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations", or Amendment V,
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
which, by requiring it to be compensated, implicitly permits confiscation and eminent domain.

The copyright clause of the Constitution is also a form of "government interference with private property", and thus something Libertarians will oppose. If they consider "Intellectual Property" to be property, and covered under their principle, then the "for a limited time" statement amounts to a declaration of intent to eventually confiscated and nationalize said property. They won't support the Constition on that score.

Or, if a particular Libertarian decides "Intellectual Property is a fiction of the state, and my government will have no part of it", then there's principle #3: ...we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form

and platform #10:
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech,

That means they don't want the government telling you what you can't print. So then they don't want the government telling me that I can't reprint some author's works without his say-so.

Of course, "Libertarians" always support your right to abridge your own rights via contract. Which is why in a hypothetical Libertarian world, corporations would be able to write their own virtual-copyright law, in the form of a giant web of publisher-to-consumer contracts.

I could go on and on, and any of these principles and platforms could be argued either way, but the fundamental point is that just because something's in the US Constitution doesn't mean the Libertarian Party will support it. Whether that's good or bad is up to you.

American ./ers unite

[sprprsnmn]

With the election being just around the corner, this is the chance for we the people to show those we allow to run our country how we feel we should be ruled. Nothing will put a stop to these bills faster than votes in the other candidate's ballot box.

No offense to those not US citizens. In fact, use my state (LA)'s motto (vote early, and vote often), and vote too, esp. if you are dead!

Re:American ./ers unite

[shatfield]

Just because you get more votes, doesn't mean you win.

It usually comes down to how much money is involved.

It's all about the Benjamins.

Internet Laws by Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through the internet, when they have no knowledge of it themselves. I feel like they are trying to regulate it in a similar way as television. However, the internet isn't just in the United States. It's also throughout the whole world. How can we decree what other countries must follow? This is a conondrum that needs to be addressed in it's own arena, separate from the real world, because it is not the real world. If politicians are able to expand their powers through limiting action on the internet, then what's to stop them from gradually throwing out the constitution altogether?
Besides that, I feel that there is too much trust when it comes to the internet. I don't trust media companies, why should they have the right to hack into anyone's computer? I really hope that people are able to keep ridiculus laws from being enacted that are only made by the politicians as ways of gathering support (and money) when they are so far reaching (As the article says). Well. I guess I agree with them.

Re:Internet Laws by Politicians

[FatRatBastard]

It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through the internet, when they have no knowledge of it themselves.

It is the nature of politicians: they don't know a lot of stuff (granted, in the grand scheme of things neither do I, but I'm not empowered to pass legislation directly).

That's why I love gridlock. Let the bastards argue all day and all night. The less laws they pass the better.

Re:Internet Laws by Politicians

[demo9orgon]

Hey, does the original poster of this work write for a term-paper mill? Thank you for your contribution to...this intercourse.

It still strikes me as odd that politicians can create laws that govern so much of what goes on through intercourse, when they have no knowledge of it themselves. I feel like they are trying to regulate it in a similar way as (pot | welfare | taxes | oxygen). However,intercourse isn't just in the United States. It's also throughout the whole world. How can we decree what other countries must follow? This is a conondrum that needs to be addressed in it's own arena, separate from the real world, because it is not the real world. If politicians are able to expand their powers through limiting action within intercourse, then what's to stop them from gradually throwing out the constitution altogether? Besides that, I feel that there is too much trust when it comes to intercourse. I don't trust media companies, why should they have the right to hack into anyone's body cavities? I really hope that people are able to keep ridiculus laws from being enacted that are only made by the politicians as ways of gathering support (and money) when they are so far reaching (As the article says). Well. I guess I agree with them.

Cheers!

What about the good ones?

[smd4985]

it is defn. important to have a list of the worst offenders, but even more useful would be the best of the bunch! knowing who to support is more effective than knowing who to trash - the truth is that this battle is going to need help from the inside, so lets recognize those lawmakers who can help.

one that i can identify is Orrin Hatch. i hear he is very distrustful of the MPAA, RIAA, and others who want to use their lobby money to preserve their dinosaur business models.

Re:What about the good ones?

[Meat Blaster]

You might want to change the people you listen to. Not only would the good senator turn the Internet into a fancy interactive Bible (with ads) given half a chance, he also backed most of the crap listed on the site, including the DMCA.

Re:What about the good ones?

[schon]

knowing who to support is more effective than knowing who to trash

This is a very salient point, that (happily) some people in power are beginning to understand, but people in the media appear to have a hard time grasping .. On a US TV station, I recently saw a debate between two politicians, and one of the questions posed was "why aren't you smearing your opponent" - the moderator repeatedly pushed this, and seemed not to be able to understand the answers the candidates gave (which boiled down to "I want to win - mud throwing detracts from the issues at hand.)

That being said, can anyone come up with a list of "good guys", besides Rick Boucher and Zoe Lofgren?

Re:What about the good ones?

[andcal]

It's nice that you know what Hatch would do if he could. Can you also tell what I am thinking?

Hatch supposedly has changed his mind about IP law, as he sees the media companies as being way too greedy about the whole thing.

http://www.cluebot.com/articles/00/10/12/2055227.s html

Re:What about the good ones?

[Ralph Wiggam]

Orrin Hatch is a published Christian musician. He actually understands the bottom rung of the recording industry because he's on it.

He's a smart guy who seems to really understand the repercussions of the bills in question.

He's also very conservative and very religious.

Don't just vote for the guy because he doesn't like the RIAA. Vote for him because you agree with his views.

IMO, one of the best guys in Congress, Paul Wellstone, died recently.

-B

Re:What about the good ones?

[Daniel]

it is defn. important to have a list of the worst offenders, but even more useful would be the best of the bunch!

Sure, here it is:

That help?

-- Daniel

Re:What about the good ones?

[quintessent]

Yeah, he did some Senate hearings a couple of years back, where he invited some key players, including Shawn Fanning to speak their views. At one point, someone asked the Senator how he would feel if people traded his music online. He replied that he'd really like that.

Re:What about the good ones?

[StormReaver]

"...one that i can identify is Orrin Hatch. i hear he is very distrustful of the MPAA, RIAA, and others who want to use their lobby money to preserve their dinosaur business models."

Hatch was a primary author of the DMCA. When Skylarov was illegally imprisoned (assuming that the DMCA will fall for being unconstitutional), Hatch commented that the DMCA was working exactly as he had intended. I would hardly place him anywhere on the same planet as the best of the bunch.

these aren't all laws

[Anonymous Coward]

These bad coders and their backers have done more damage to computing, the Internet and freedom than all the virus authors, spammers and crackers combined.

Note that these are not all laws. Some are just stupid ideas that are perhaps a sign of things to come if we don't do put up a fight. Well actually they are all stupid ideas, but only a couple are stupid laws.

VOTE AGAINST THE BUMS ON TUESDAY !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote against these guys if they voted for DMCA or P2P bill or overzealous H1B expansions or whatever.
Throw the bums out !!! They do not get it. They only understand bribes. They must be thrown out! Vote "no" on your local incumbent.

Most of them have been kicked out already

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

Bill Paxon, Bob Franks, John Kasich, James Exon, Jon Christensen, Christopher Bond, Linda Smith , Michael Pappas, Thomas Manton, Gerald Solomon, Rick Lazio, Vince Snowbarger, Spencer Abraham, and especially Sonny Bono are no longer Congressmen -- and there's probably more, too.

Considering the amount of entrenched incumbency for Congressmen and Senators, that's a pretty good amount that have been kicked out of office already.

Remember this when you're at the polls, too: the remaining Congressmen are about 90% Republican.

Vote Democrat this November -- if not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets, the racially discriminated, the handicapped, and the gun violence victims.

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[Zoop]

Vote Democrat this November -- if not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets, the racially discriminated, the handicapped, and the gun violence victims.

Yes, I ran over a few on my way to Republican Party headquarters, just for sport. Because they're all over the place you know.

Then I listened to an address by the white Secretary of State and white National Security Adviser.

Then I went up a ramp for the handicapped from that hideos ADA signed into law by that well known Democrat, Bush. Curse him!

Then I drove into Southeast DC and left my vehicle unlocked and jingled my change without fear because guns are outlawed there, so no outlaws have guns.

But fortunately the Senator from Disney is a Republican, so I felt wonderfully secure in my allegience to the RIAA and MPAA.

It must be nice to know that a vague collection of competing interests just happens to be morally pure as the wind driven snow. Wait, you were saying vote Libertarian, right?

Sheesh.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[Alethes]

You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.

"If not for them, for the poor children who are starving in the streets [who would have more money if the Democrats weren't raping their parents and potential employers with taxes and the social security Ponzi scheme], the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans], the handicapped [like me (I'm hearing impaired) who want the satisfaction of doing things for themselves instead of having forced charity (aka "welfare") take care of them], and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves]."

See? We can all play this stupid political rhetoric game. How about we vote for politicians based on the issues that are important to US, instead of to SexyKellyOsbourne?

Me? I'm going to vote for the politicians that want government to adhere to the Constitution and are gravely concerned about the government ever taking any right away from me to live my life the way I see fit, however immoral or environmentally unconscious it might be:

Is that politician going to vote to take away my right to use software the way I want? -- no vote

Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote

Is that politician going to make it illegal for me to light up a joint in the privacy of my own home? -- no vote

Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote

Is that politician going to prevent me from saying whatever I want on my website? -- no vote

Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote

Those are the issues that are important to me. Should you vote the way I do? Hell no! Vote for the politicians that represent your interests the best.

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[OWJones]

You had to know you were going to get flamed with this off-topic garbage.

Hrm. Pot ... kettle ... black?

the racially discriminated [such as those protestant, white males who, through no fault of their own, can't get into college thanks to racist Affirmative Action plans]

1. I'm a white, middle class male.
2. Try being agnostic. At that point you're everyone's whipping boy.

Seriously, though, you're shitting me, right? Yes, reverse discrimination occurs, but what's the ratio of white-against-minority versus minority-against-white discrimination? It sounds like someone has a serious sense of entitlement but a lack of any actual skills to back that up.

Oh, I'm sorry; is this clashing with your view of reality? Pardon me.

and the gun violence victims [who died because the gun control lobby took the guns away from the victims and they were unable to defend themselves].

I see. So it's the victim's fault for not shooting their attackers? I suppose all the sniper victims should have been in full urban warfare mode, ready for an assault from the treeline at any moment. And how the hell does replacing one victim of gun violence (the original victim) with another victim (the aggressor) decrease gun violence? Explain it to me.

Is that politician going to take my money and give it to you so you can feed your starving kids when I don't know you? -- no vote

Well in that case I don't feel like giving you any of my tax dollars. Boy, it's a good thing you don't use any public services like, say, roads or your local police office. Since those are, after all, other people's money. Because if you did I'd have to call you a hypocrite.

Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house? -- no vote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wow. You're part of a real, live militia that's protecting this country. I'm impressed.[/sarcasm]
There are limits on free speech -- such as the imminent harm and "clear and present danger" doctrines; I don't see why owning heavy weaponry falls into that same category. I have nothing against licensed handgun ownership (a la driver's licenses) or even hunting rifle ownership. But, pray tell, why do you (as a member of a militia) need up to and including anti-tank-grade weapons?

Is that politician going to prevent drilling for oil by environmentally-conscious, high-tech American companies so we can be forced to by oil from countries that use rickety ships and could care less about the environment? -- no vote

HAHAHAHA!!
.
..
...
....

*sniff* Ah. Wow. That was a good laugh. I'd be more impressed if these "environmentally conscious" companies -- I assume you're including ExxonMobil, who let their captains drunkenly slalom through icebergs -- would focus on long-term economic growth by exploring naturally renewable energy sources.

Oh, wait, they don't have to. They can line their pockets and let libertarian apologists make their case for them. It's amazing how well libertarians can play the apologetic sycophants to die-hard conservatives. Don't worry, Alethes, one day you might make enough money to actually have the Republicans pay attention to you, too. Keep trolling, and you, too, could be like Ari Fleicher and say that 1 + 1 = 11 with true passion.

It's too bad that I agree with you on the rest of the issues, though. Including the "vote for who you feel truly represents your views." Unfortunately true progressives that want to represent the people (you remember that who "We the People ..." bit, right, as opposed to "We the multi-national conglomerates) and protect the country and our rights don't get on the ballot too often.

*sigh*

-jdm

Re:Most of them have been kicked out already

[YrWrstNtmr]

especially Sonny Bono

Is that supposed to imply some chicanery involved in Sonny's departure from this mortal coil?

Or was it merely the fact that he crashed in to a tree while skiing?

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[CAIMLAS]

1. I'm a white, middle class male.

2. Try being agnostic. At that point you're everyone's whipping boy.

Seriously, though, you're shitting me, right? Yes, reverse discrimination occurs, but what's the ratio of white-against-minority versus minority-against-white discrimination? It sounds like someone has a serious sense of entitlement but a lack of any actual skills to back that up.

Your points are valid; however, he's saying that 'white, middle class Christian males" are being politically, legally and financially discriminated against. That's different than social descrimination - not to minimize your pain and anguish over verbal abuse rendered you for your beliefs (you should be so lucky).

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[OWJones]

Yes, but the whole purpose of needing computers and operating servers would be to form a well organized network (given your analogy).

Let us now go 200 years into the future. Computers are ubiquitous, low-power, and freely available to all. The government provides all necessary computational equipment and a low-power, well-organized network. Which is nice, since we've run out of oil, and ancient computers consumed 250-400W each (as opposed to the 0.01-0.02W models of "today"). These particular computers decrease the stablity of the fragile power grid, causing mass blackouts, sucking down bandwidth with their naive TCP implementations, and in general causing problems for society at large.

Where's the need for these excessively dangerous computers? The government provides computers to all, information is free, and the laws allow you to still own computers up to around 120 years old (which is when Intel finally got its IA-64 out the door). Why why why do you have to insist on owning these dangerous objects?

Re the second amendment, I read it as "The country needs to be protected, and since we need a militia to do that people should own guns so they can join their local militia." Wake up!! This is post World War II!! We've got the largest military in the world to protect the security of our free state. By and large, militias are outdated concepts, and the view that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have automatic weapons in every household is absurd.

Absurd in the same sense that they meant "limited times" for copyright to be 95 years, or life+70. Both the second amendment and the copyright clause contain phrases that can be read literally and therefore naively. Should we read them that way?

Apparently, according to you.

-jdm

Re: Most of them have been kicked out already

[OWJones]

It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.

Well I agree that "free State" could have a few intepretations:

1. The "free State" being the new country, which would require militias to defend it.
2. "free State" actually meaning one of the States in the United States of America. This would mean that the second amendment was telling each individual state to keep a militia (ie, "You guys better be able to defend yourselves").
3. That each person is in a "free State" of being (as you suggest), and they should protect themselves.

Of the three, I would think that the second would be most likely. The National Guard agrees with this interpretation as well; if you look at the FAQ on their site, it confirms this view. Since the national government was more of a loose federation of states at that point, I would lean away from Point #1 (as their original intent). And since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be more explicit rather than flowery language (barring a few places), I would lean away from the third interpretation.

It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.

To be honest, if I had my wish, all guns would vanish tomorrow. However, I still support the right of the citizens to own guns since it is in the Constitution. I just feel that with most amendments there is a reasonable interpretation which can allow for some limits.

• First Amendment: free speech, but we do have laws against slander and libel; petition for grievances, but we do have laws against riots (we'll ignore the fact that police often provoke such riots).
• Fourth Amendment: search and seizure, but we do allow police to seize illegal material that is in plain view when investigating a crime (aka, don't leave your open Bud cans in the front seat).
• Sixth Amendment: trial required in district that crime was committed, but we allow prosecutors and/or defendants the right to petition for a change of venue.

In light of these real-world interpretations of other amendments, why do many members/supporters of the NRA (*cough*AshcroftnBush*cough*) feel that the second amendment should have no limitations whatsoever?

Grr.

-jdm

from beyond the grave...

[edrugtrader]

i find this ironic as hell:

Rep. Sonny Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $0.

someone from the music industry is blamed for sponsoring legislation from beyond the grave, and received $0 in funding for his work. even more funny, there are people on the list BELOW him!! politicians get less done that dead people... proves the old saying, if pro is the opposite of con, what is congress the opposite of?

Bad law, bad!

[MacAndrew]

It's kind of silly to criticize a law for being written and pushed by a small number of lawmakers -- most all laws, including some great ones, are like this. And while log-rolling is certainly important on the Hill, in the end a majority needs to vote for a law, and the President has to sign it. Often the real tragedy is the laws that don't get passed, that die in commitee and such.

Some of these laws were passed for lobbyists (DCMA, P2P...) and other to please or pander to the public (CDA, COPA, CDA...). I think some of them are passed by lawmakers knowing full well they're unconstitutional; they take the credit and the courts take care of the bogus law (the flag burning statue, for example).

But on all of them the accountability is clear, and voters should hold their representatives accountable. A list like this helps a lot; the problem is getting folks to look at it and the alphabet soup of statutes. An honest lawmaker will do that pn your behlaf, hence the idea of representation.

Potent is the idea that special interest "buy" legislation through their contributions. Even when the contribution doesn't affect the lawmaker's judgment -- for example, and NRA donation to an avowedly pro-gun lawmaker -- the appearance of impropriety is terrible. And the more common abuse is the laws you don't see, that are quietly killed. Hence the need for even stricter campaign finance reform, within the limits of the 1st Amendment. Strangely Alericans have been quicker to embrace measures like term limits rather than the stream of money that pollutes the debate and most benefits those without compunction at taking it.

Re:Bad law, bad!

[jedidiah]

It is quite disingenuous to lump in the likes of the NRA in with more corporate lobbyists. Those that don't agree with their politics seem to quite conveniently forget that the NRA remains an organization of interested citzens. It is not exactly Enron you're talking about when you sneer at NRA campaign contributions.

As much as I might despise the Family Research Council, I also acknowledge their right to directly influence the body politic. They certainly have a more legitimate role than any limited liability entity (corporation).

Any grassroots organization made of up of individual kooks, is still composed of individual citizens. That should demand more respect than any corporate lobby.

If anything, the NRA model is probably something to emulate rather than scorn.

Re:Bad law, bad!

[TGK]

Lets remember that what lobbiests buy with their donations is not votes, but access. The evidence just isn't there to suggest that campaign donations influence voting patterns significantly (amazing but true, I didn't belive it myself until I saw the numbers).

Take the NRA for example. It gives money to anti-gun control congressmen in huge quantities. Were they anti-gun control before the NRA ever gave them a dime? Would they be pro-gun control if the NRA stoped handing them money? We don't know. We do know that the NRA also gives money to congressmen who vote against the bills it likes. True, they give less, but they still give.

What we do know, and can prove, is that if you've given a huge quantity of money to a congressman you have his atttention and can demand his time. When a bill comes before the house banning, Teflon coated bullets for example, the NRA can ask for face time with the congressmen its helped get elected. It can be reasonably sure that it will get that time.

I just wanted to make that point. Money does not buy votes. It buys the right to make arguments. If no one argues against you... well.... that's someone elses problem.

AmeriNet?

[teetam]

The way we try and control the Internet using American laws, may be we should just call it AmeriNet or something like that.

And don't try telling me that other countries try to control it too - for two reasons:

1. Countries like China or even Australia don't shout 'Freedom' from the rooftops the way we do.
2. Other countries are mostly interested only in controlling the internet usage in their country (not that that's a good thing...)

We, on the other hand, want to control what everyone else in the world does with the Internet. We wait for them to come to our shores for some conference and arrest them. And all this, after feeding illegal porn into those other countries.

Our politicians must realize that the Internet is what it is today only because it is globally accessible. Attempting to regulate it on our own is in very bad faith!

Re:AmeriNet?

[happyclam]

Thank goodness that with Dubya in office, we won't have to worry about what other countries think any more. After we take over and annex Iraq as the 51st state (which will carry approximately 45 electoral votes), we can start on the other Axis of Evil countries.

My only real concern is what happens when Saudi Arabia, the 65th state, provides more in campaign contributions than the entertainment industry. Ho ho, we should see some interesting laws being offered up about the Internet then!

Sith Coders?

[pbalzac]

How many did a double take after seeing "aotc" in the URL?

show up tomorrow!!!!

[cornjones]

The elections are tomorrow for us in the USA. We can at least vote for representatives that are "on our side" in these issues (Privacy, censorship, pick your favorite issue)

Does anybody have any suggestions, I am looking for NYC/NY State. Any good pages that will give stances and voting histories?

GO OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW!!! But please, do a little research first. 10 mins online will probably put you in the top half of informed voters.

ej

Re:show up tomorrow!!!!

[poot_rootbeer]

Any good pages that will give stances and voting histories?

If you haven't voted yet today, head over to Project Vote Smart and find the candidates you want to vote for. It's a fantastic resource.

This crap will keep right on going down...

[alizard]

If we don't like the idea of legislators making laws that threaten not only our right to do as we please with our computers and the Internet connections we pay for, our options are to keep bleating about it or:

• Build an effective PAC with real money on behalf of the high-tech user community. Startup funding for that in the $500K-$1M range. Without the startup funding, you wind up with GeekPAC. Remember them? If nobody with the money thinks this is worth doing, kiss your freedom and the US economy good-bye, and if you want to participate in new technology, figure out which non-US country you want to relocate to.
• Persuade the high-tech vendors to use their industry PACS to defend their right to exist and our jobs. Since they think they can still do business with the content providers and other enemies of high-tech industry, they can be expected to continue this non-strategy until their legal people tell them that new law and regulations (e.g. Broadcast Working Group-based FCC regs) mean that they can move R&D/production out of the USA or close their doors. By then, it'll be too late to do anything about this. Appeasement always seems more cost-effective than fighting.

Personally, I expect that the US high-tech community strategy is going to be to keep on bleating while it's still possible to do so and watch the leading edge of technological innovation depart for locations all over the world. I include in the bleating community the entrepreneurs who made it big before the bottom fell out of dot.com . When they realize they can't do business here, they'll simply relocate to somewhere where they can. Or retire.

If the US loses high technology, this will be simply due to the lack of leadership in the political wars. As I see it, we've got an army ready to march and no general staff and no reasonable prospect of finding one.

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[Apotsy]

Unlike GeekPAC, this organization (AOTC) actually has a name you can say out loud without snickering. That's at least one thing they're doing right.

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[Tokerat]

Without the startup funding, you wind up with GeekPAC. Remember them?

See Sig.

I think the problem with this is

1. Geeks are not very political, just opinionated.
2. Linux and Open Source has kind of given way to the attitude of "ehh if I can't get it free then forget it" or "If i can't get it free I'll make my own", and as it applies to software, it begins to apply to all technology-related concepts. I'm looking at my credit card, and thinking "AOTC, or a pizza? Damn, I'm hungry, I can always donate later."

So we have apathy and division, not exactly what I'd call an army ready to march.

But we all have the right ideas. We just need to get organized and motivated. How that will be accomplished, however, is a mystery to me (mostly because I'd have no idea how to do something like that at all, anyway).

Re:This crap will keep right on going down...

[smaughster]

Am I the only one snickering when an organisation has an abbreviation which coincides with a popular star wars movie?

Re:what a bunch of whining

[recursiv]

First of all, how many of us have been DIRECTLY affected by these laws?

Let's see... You mean like not being able to connect a dvd player through a vcr?

Me

Most Powerful Weapon on Earth

[RobPiano]

This came up in a conversation I had with a librarian today...

I think that information is the most powerful weapon on earth. The internet is therefore extremly important, and anyone who would control the flow of information is extremely dangerous.

If you really think about it, Sadam isn't likely to churn out a bunch of nuclear war heads. Its not practicle. He'll get nuked too. With that out of the way, you can consider most military moves these days to be more like chess. It is not so much about who will be destroyed, but rather who has the potential for an attack. The potential reality is much more powerful than an attacking reality.

What we need to really fear are the forces that would control information. I think that the people who can ban internet in China, or regulate an ISP are more dangerous than all of your nuclear war heads and biowarefare combined.

Unfortunatly, slashdotters like to call these people congressman, and politians, but the freedom of the internet burdens on its users, and the people who create it.

Rob

So there they are

[loconet]

Oh, so these are the clowns who got payed $1,400,777 to cripple technology.

1. Rep. Charles (Chip) Pickering (R-MS 3rd district) 3 bills $230,900
DMCA, COPA, CIPA
4. Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY 27th district) 2 bills $200,938
DMCA, COPA
5. Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA 26th district) 2 bills $212,991
DMCA, P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
7. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC 6th district) 2 bills $114,747
DMCA, P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
16. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL 6th district) 1 bill $83,500
DMCA
31. Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $76,604
DMCA
41. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA 4th district) 1 bill $55,500
DMCA
65. Rep. John Jr. Conyers (D-MI 14th district) 1 bill $99,110
DMCA
75. Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL 8th district) 1 bill $326,487
DMCA
91. Rep. Sonny Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $0
DMCA

Re:So there they are

[happyclam]

They didn't really "get paid" that amount of money to cripple technology. That money was donated to their campaigns to get elected. If they had taken that money personally, it would be called a "bribe" and would be illegal. Maybe that's what campaign contributions should be considered, anyway. If you like a candidate, pay for an ad or stump for them; Dropping a $250,000 check in their pocket is going to end up with some dirty shenanigans no matter how you look at it.

Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off Capitol Hill.

Guess you don't read Slashdot

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

A week or so ago, Jesse Helms went up to bat for online rights. I guess he isn't a Republican in your book? But Howard Berman is a Republican. Oh wait, no he's not. Also, who was President when the DMCA was passed?

Anyway, "all you techies", don't judge a person by his or her political party. See what they stand for.

problem can be easily solved

[nuckin futs]

Just ask Al Gore to pull the plug.
He did invent the internet, right?
:p

Re:problem can be easily solved

[nuckin futs]

So you think I'm a moron because you thought I was serious. You are brilliant.
BTW, his exact words were:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet

check out CNN

Time to Vote

[FuzzyDaddy]

Now is the time for everyone who complains about congress and laws like this to go out and vote.

As a resident in D.C., I have no voting representation in either the house or the senate (our one delegate can vote in committee in the house - whoopie.)

So vote one for the technies for me!

Support Voting Rights for DC

Re:Time to Vote

[(H)elix1]

Now is the time for everyone who complains about congress and laws like this to go out and vote.

Not sure about your state, but my options suck. I'll still go out and vote for the lesser evil, but still, lets not kid anyone here. Until they can't take payola from soft money (or whatever they call it), they really don't care what I want once they are in office.

Re:Time to Vote

[isorox]

what can you vote for then? This sounds a little like the u.s.-britain relationship before the war of independence. Berhaps a D.C. tea party?

Re:Time to Vote

[gmhowell]

That is basically correct. I am not a resident of DC, BTW. Not only do they have no voting representation in the US Congress, they have no ability to form their own budget. Further, only something like 40% of the land is taxable (all gov't buildings are tax exempt).

It's a serious clusterfuck, of gargantuan proportions. The city also tends to be used by various Congressmen for their own pet projects. In addition, the city is not allowed to count votes for certain ballot initiatives, if the suspected results would not be in accordance with the results desired by members of the House committee on the District.

DC has to perform the functions of a state, a penitentiary being the prime example, without having any of the funding freedoms given to every other state and territory. Not sure if this ever got resolved, but DC had to pick up the bill for an unfunded federal pension. As I understand it, DC was given control and responsibility of the pension of the city employees. But the federal government had 'borrowed' money from the fund and never paid it back.

You could almost argue why Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. have no voting rights. But to deny representation to the people living in the nation's capitol?

You can vote for the mayor, who figures out how best to spend the money that Congress may or may not have doled out. You can vote for the legislative group (council?) who can pass laws that Congress may or may not allow to be passed. That's all I can think of. Perhaps a resident of the city knows more?

I'm going to make my own bill.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever you watch a movie in a theater you are committing a crime. You only paid for the right to view the movie once and yet you watch with TWO eyes. When my new bill passes you all will have to pay for each eye to view the movie or wear a mandatory eye patch. Keep in mind if you watched a pirated movie with both eyes open you will have committed the crime twice! In a "three strikes, you're out" state like california watching 2 pirated movies will count as 4 strikes and will require a life sentence. Seeing a pirated movie and also seeing its reflection will also count as four stikes. In the new empire the rule will be "don't make eye contact."

Not so fast

[nexex]

Hmm,

Representative Howard Berman's (D-Cal.) P2P Bill

This virulent Trojan Horse, written by Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-NC)

President Clinton signed into law a new "sequel" to the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act.

DMCA co-sponsored by Mr. CONYERS(D-IN), and Mr. FRANK (D-Mass)

If anything, Democrats and liberals are just as much a part....

Re:Not so fast

[sv0f]

If anything, Democrats and liberals are just as much a part....

Then why is the list 80% Republicans and 20% Democats?

Ya, ya, ya... the Dems' invented the internet

[ChaosMt]

Yup, Al Gore invented the term "Information Superhighway" in order to explain to his politicial peers the importance of the internet from a legislatures point of view. See, all congressmen love highway projects; take a whiff and smell the pork. This turn of phrase was very clever.

However, I have to take issue this comment in the assumption that these bills are partisan and party driven. Not so. Since, in the eyes of washington, these are minor issues that registered voters don't care enough about to swing their vote, these bills and actions are up to the highest bidder. True, you will find certain types of people, committees and companies tend to have a favorite flavor of congress critter, but that doesn't really make this partisan.

What I'm really saying is, don't vote with your party; vote with your mind. Do your research about what you care about. Look up who their legislative advisor is - get to know him/her. Drop a $1,000 donation to the ones you like, and I your voice with DEFINATELY get heard, and you WILL get to actually talk to the congressman or any memeber of their staff. Ya, I know it's all corrupt and wrong, but politicial donations can be a good insurance policy sometimes.

Yes, it does!!

[MasteroftheVoxel]

Yes, it's right here.

I don't know why they are complaining so much, I thought Episode 1 TPM was much worse.

Out of date list

[Skjellifetti]

Rep. John R. Kasich (R-OH 12th district) left the House in 2000 after running for President. One of his former aides (Pat Tiberi IIRC) now holds the seat.

The tone of the article

[mattsucks]

I read the article, as I'm sure everyone else did (ha!). An observation:

Does anyone else think that the AOTC might have a better chance of getting their point across if the article didn't read like something straight out of Conspiracy Theory? I expected some insight, some indepth discussion about WHY each bill was bad and WHAT chilling effects on various technology areas it might have. Instead, I got FUD. And, no matter how well-intentioned, FUD == FUD.

donkeys are as bad as the elephants

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw both the Democrats and Republicans. Both of them listen only to their corporate masters.

If you are left/liberal, concider voting Green. If you are right/conservative, concider voting Libertarian. If you aren't sure where you are, don't like those choices or there isn't an alternative candidate running in the race you are voting, vote against the incumbant.

As for me, I'm voting Green where there's a Green candidate, Libertarian if there isn't a Green, and against the incumbant if neither a Green or Libertarian is running. If there's no Green, Libertarian, or incumbant to vote against, I'll vote for myself on a write in ballot.

This is a fine example...

[Dark Lord Seth]

... which shows that democracy as it is (not just in the US, I would not be surprised if we Europeans would havce to endure the same things as well in a few years) has horribly failed due to human incompetence and greed. I hope for you Americans that every dumb law will be dropped for something fair to the people, the monopolies and the goverment itself.

Re:This is a fine example...

[Maul]

If you don't want to endure this in a few years in Europe, get on your politicians' cases now about how you don't want to see these BS laws make their way over to your part of the world. And be watchful of the proposed laws you see coming your way.

The DMCA was passed fairly silently here. Even most people who hate the thing now didn't know what it was until after it was too late.

The Party Line

[Lucas Membrane]

>> Voting along party lines is only for idiots

When a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt was once attempting to give a speech, but was repeatedly interrupted by a vociferous opponent shouting "I'm a Democrat." Roosevelt lost patience and deviated from his text to ask the heckler, "Why are you a Democrat?"

"Because my father was a Democrat and his father was a Democrat."

"If your father was a jackass and his father was a jackass, would you want to be a jackass?"

"No, I'd be a Republican."

Re:what a bunch of whining

[RazzleDazzle]

This is really stupid. How would you like the RIAA to remotely erase your hard drive for having a copy of a Britney Spears MP3? How would you like to be forced to buy certain hardware to be able to view DVDs from around the world or just listen to your plain ol' CD from BestBuy because of stupid CD Copy Protection mechanisms blocking you from playing it otherwise.

Just because you have not had FBI knocking on your door (of course the ratio of people breaking laws a little bit to FBI actually coming to get you is small) doesn't mean it wont happen. If there are mega-corporations pushing for more and more of these kinds of laws and almost no one is pushing back, you will feel pretty stupid and sore in 5-10 or more years with your ass being constantly pounded in jail... with a life sentence for seems like something that should be only minor offenses or not illegal at all.

No man is an island

[coyote-san]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but in reality whoever you vote has to work with Congress as a whole. When the balance is close, you may be better off voting for the less desirable local candidate so you have a more desirable national party.

This is especially true this year. Control of the Senate may hinge on a single election, and you have to trade off the consequences of voting for the "good" candidate, but putting the "bad" party in control of the Senate, vs. the "bad" candidate and putting the "good" party in control.

Re:No man is an island

[Jonny Ringo]

Bull shit. Your attitude is exactly why NOTHING will change. Every election for that matter is a attempt to "control the senate". Try voting for the candidate that you actaully think is good (you'll feel better about it). If we all change we will finally be able to see how much better this country could actually be.

What should EU high-tech advocates do?

[alizard]

... which shows that democracy as it is (not just in the US, I would not be surprised if we Europeans would havce to endure the same things as well in a few years) has horribly failed due to human incompetence and greed. I hope for you Americans that every dumb law will be dropped for something fair to the people, the monopolies and the goverment itself.

The UK RIP, Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty, and EU support for American DMCA law demostrates that even with the removal of major corporations from the political campaign funding process, EU politicians are just as capable of stark idiocy as that which US politicians have been paid off to commit. The bad laws you fear are already on the way via pressure from the USA. The good news is that EU governments are heading towards Open Source, which means they aren't necessarily fanatically opposed to good ideas.

The EU, among other places, has an opportunity to seize technological and incidentally, military leadership from the USA in the long run, by simply refusing to pass bad anti-technology laws because the US government and entertainment industry and Religious Right wants them passed.

Getting politicians to do nothing shouldn't be all that difficult. If I were in the EU and trying to get politicians to refrain from passing bad laws on technology and the Internet, I'd be asking questions like:
"Why does [insert your country's name here] need to pass a law which only gives advantage to the USA entertainment industry? Isn't it more important to protect our high-tech industries from them?"

"If America is bent on giving up its high tech leadership with laws like [insert bad US law that your nation seems to be trying to copy] shouldn't you be supporting our high-tech industry by not imitating the worst ideas of Washington, DC? Do you want us to have to buy leading-edge high tech from China, Taiwan, and India in the future? Why should we level the playing field for America when its problems are of its own making?"

Re:What should EU high-tech advocates do?

[alizard]

Internet censorship legislation like CDA and COPA, of course.

Internet censorship is the kind of bad idea that has an unpleasant tendency to spread even without US help, but it spreads a lot faster with the US government encouraging other countries to adopt it for themselves and to help them enforce ours.

How did this proganda get modded so high?

[UncleAwesome]

Vote 3rd Party

It is quite obvious that the democrats are too short sighted on fiscal issues and republicans are too controlling on social issues. Sadly both are influenced by whoever gives them the most money(Few exceptions...McCain,Feingold). Both parties tend to oversimplify the issues. Nothing short of the rise of different parties will rid this nation duopoly on government. How in the world is it possible that the population for the most part only have two strains of political thought?

Do not vote Democrat just for the sake of voting Democrat. It would be too ridiculous.

Re:Worst coders in Washington?

[kbielefe]

Isn't it great when 20 people have the same thought at the same time (within the time it takes to type a post after reading the existing posts)? I've been having fun for the last hour watching this post's parent alternatively modded up as funny and down as redundant. Is there a catchy name for that effect? If not, I think we should invent one.

Go ahead!

[Inoshiro]

Throw your vote away on a first-party candidate.

The only real change in the system will come about if people vote third party.

Re:what a bunch of whining

[recursiv]

It may not have been obvious, but I agree with you. He asked, so I just gave one example of a way I have been affected in real life. I didn't intend to trivialize it. I'm sure it has other effects, but I just used that one to illustrate my point.

One other piece of Legislation

[SupahVee]

There is one other heap of legislation that should get mentioned, and when we look back 10 years from now at the shell the internet has become, paying for every 0 and 1 by the cent, remembering when there were more ISP's than just Aol, Earthlink, and MSN, that we should thank that bastion of integrity, Bill Clinton, for signing into law the Telecommunications act of 1996. Remember, this is the law that allowed free reign of the Baby Bells to walk all over the competition, all the while claiming that they were opening up their networks to Covad, et. al. The same law that allowed the cable companies to lock anyone they chose out of the high speed market, while the phone companies were forced to let anyone who wanted to use their networks, not that they made it easy to do so. The same law that allowed for the beginning of the massive fiber rollouts from companies like WorldCom, Global Crossing. Which of course begat useless VC funding (remember Pets.com?) due to anyone thinking that that internet thing was the answer to all their prayers for a new yacht, house, whatever. Hell, you can still see the glut of MBA's in the market for C level jobs. We all know what happened next, that famous bubble popped, and left thousands of tech workers out of jobs. And while we like to jab at MCSE's everywhere, they didnt deserve to be outright fired just because their CEO's had to choose between 10 good employees, or their own over-inflated salaries.

I spent 8 MONTHS out of work, with a mortgage and an infant, because the CEO of my company couldnt stand the thought of not living in the lap of luxury at almost 300 grand a year. And while I know that wasnt the Telecommunications' act fault, the blame does lie there for planting that huge seed of outright GREED in the minds of the people like her.
Yep, it was definitely such a prudent move on ol' Billy boy's part to let the companies in control of the most important technology of the next 20 years run amok. Wise move, Bonehead.

Last time I checked...

[Karl Cocknozzle]

DMCA co-sponsored by Mr. CONYERS(D-IN), and Mr. FRANK (D-Mass)

Last time I checked John Conyers was from Georgia...

Re:Last time I checked...

[chazzf]

And the last time I checked John Conyers was from Michigan, has been for some three decades now...

The Real Issue at Hand

[stryc9]

These laws really suck. But I think a lot of us are missing the real issue at hand here. It is not that the bad code mentioned in the article would stifle the growth of technology and the internet, it is not that they affect our daily internet/pr0n/piracy binges, nor is it the fact that people with no real knowledge of the technology are making/passing them. The real issue is that although the majority of the american population does not want these laws to be passed a few people with a lot of money are making it happen. Democracy my ass!! And what can we 'the people' do about it?? Nothing.
I am glad I am presently living/working in Canada. Maybe I will stay here ;)

Re:The Real Issue at Hand

[ProfessorPuke]

The bulk of people (call them America's consumers, more than voters) are quite happy with the way things are. They like their creative needs to be fulfilled by professionals employed by a handful of corporations.

They want 90% of prime-time TV to be conflicted cops or wacky families.
They want to pay for new movies about 20 year-old spaceships and 70 year-old superheros.
They want pop music divided into exactly 3 genres (white men, white girls, and other).

Maybe you and I don't like what centralized monopoly control is doing to popular culture. But empirical tests show that the public (of the US, and most of the wealthy world) is just fine with it.

Yes, mobs of teens wish they could download mp3s and divxs for free, and cry when that's taken away. That's the biggest potential support source for anti-intellectual property agitation. But their support for file sharing will dry up if once they figure out that their favorite creators will alter or reduce their output with less financial incentives.

Their hearts may want to copy, but they won't be able to stand on the street corner and justify anything that stops the "performances" of their "artists".

When it comes time to vote on laws, they'll support DRM, "because its right for everyone to pay for Hollywood's work" (even though secretly they plan to go on "stealing" for a while- "but just me, no one else will do this, so I'm not hurting much"). In the same way, lawmakers once prohibited alcohol "because it's obvious, no one should drink", but the majority privately broke the law they'd supported in public.

Regardless of whether or not you believe alternative revenue models are feasible for the entertainment content business, they'd never support the same kinds of "creative products" being produced now. And the public, stuck on a treadmill of "more, bigger, flashier", can be convinced this is what they want.

Someday there'll be a painful period of "Prohibition", where an unlucky minority are punished for DMCA/DRM infractions that everyone does. If we're lucky, this will be a wakeup call leading to a rollback of IP's recent empowerments. If not, then those martyrs will just be the last gasp of freedom before we all get Nielsen chips implanted in our heads.

Re:Libertarian for CA Gov ?!?

[sconeu]

Yep. The CA Libertarian Party has rescinded it's endorsement of the ballot candidate, and recommended a write-in for Art Olivier instead.

Re:I'm a Republican

[sconeu]

I became a Republican because I believe in the values of rugged individualism, less government, and more personal responsibility.

May I suggest the Libertarian Party?

Here's another article I keep bookmarked...

[Pyperkub]

... on this topic (Law and the loss of Internet Freedoms):

http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/

Realistically, the Politicians are clueless, and the big media lawyers are paying for the politicians and writing the laws in this arena. It won't change until campaign finance is cleaned up, and that is really unlikely.

Seattle

[ImaLamer]

Don't worry, I figured they meant Washinton state also... my vote would be for Microsoft programmers as well.

Contest?

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

Do they have Obfuscated Lawmaking Contests?

Two Words: Duverge's Law

[k_187]

In a state with single member plurality districts (SMPDs), which is to say, one canidate is elected by simply having more votes than everybody else, not a majority, the total number of Effective political parties will equal two.

Lets assume that in the first ever election in a district there are three parties, named A, B, and C, and A is liberal, B is moderate leaning liberal, and C is conservative. Results come in and A recieves 30%, B 30%, and C 40%. The canidate from C will then have won. Come next election, because A and B have similar intrests, they will comprimise so their common intrests can be expressed, and some of their individual ones can as well. Then, assuming that there are no major changes in the electorate between the two elections, the new proto-A & B party-D will have 60%, and will defeat C, with its 40%.

A third party on either side of the political spectrum will only serve to marganalize the the larger party, as we saw in Flordia (which is the most prominent example I think) during the 2000 presidental election. If Nader had not been running, his votes would have presumable gone to Gore, as he is closest to Nader ideologically. Gore would have won, and we'd be in a marginally different situation today.

Re:Two Words: Duverge's Law

[Isle]

Hrmmph. No, it explains why you have just two parties in America, not why we have more most other places.

Just miss ONE important concept: Election alliances.

If you live in a country that values the oppion of the people and hates to see votes go to waste, this is a very common concept. Basicaly the two parties A & B would sign the alliance, meaning that whoever gets the most votes gets the votes of both parties. (votes lost in one party are moved to strengthen the other). Not only can it be used in plurality elections like you president, but it can be used in candidate elections as well. A gets votes enough for 23.4 candidates and B enough for 13.7. A lost votes 0.4 and 0.7 are then solved in the alliance and B gets the extra 0.4, and can thus get a total of 14 candidates. The bonus for A is that the otherwise lost votes goes to strengthen his allies and not his enemies.

Re:Two Words: Duverge's Law

[Lozzer]

Thats grossly oversimplified handwaving. It may be close to reality in a system where the politicians desire for power is overwhelmingly greater than the desire for service, but I live in the UK, and I'm pretty sure at all the elections I've been alive for, three political partys have won seats in England. Other regions have seen greater diversity as nationalist parties have also won seats. Each seat is elected by a strictly first past the post system. There is no proportional representation.

Ignoring Canada and everything else.

[Inoshiro]

NDP, Liberal, etc..

Coalition governments. Try reading about them. You'll see that law doesn't apply, except in your two-party system.

And if you didn't realize it, Gore is not a solution. Tipper Gore went after music in the 1980s, saying that everyone should listen to U2 -- it would make the world a better place to do that. The Gore family has been doing a lot of evil. Jello Biafra spoke at length about it. Go get an update on Alternative Tentacles.

Don't believe the lies about Gore, he's just as bad as Bush.

Re:Ignoring Canada and everything else.

[k_187]

Growl, I haven't had to remember this stuff since Intro freshman year. No, the two party system is a result from the election system. As I stated, the US has Single member plurality districts. Canada and other places MPs are elected by proportionallity. IE, the party will give the election board a list of potential canidates, then seats are given by the total number of votes across the whole country, not the individual district.

Yes, Gore is not a solution, but Jello Biafra isn't exactly a voice of moderation either. Canidates, especially in presidential, must campaign on incredibly moderate views as most of america is moderate, the fringes are only important in primaries and fund raising. And I voted for Bush, I only mentioned Gore to illustrate the only way a third party can get their prefrences expressed in a system with SMPDs.

Re:Ignoring Canada and everything else.

[k_187]

What do you think the mergers of the similar parties are? I never said that this would solve stand stills in government, just that two smaller parties would join to form a larger party. Vote splits are a result of the other problem with SMPDs, that a MP or congressman is not responsible to the party orginization but to their constituancy (or campaign contributers, but that's picking nits in this contest), meaning that while Party ID may have something to do with how an MP votes, it isn't set in stone as it is in other countries (IE. the UK)

Senator from Disney

[mikeboone]

But fortunately the Senator from Disney is a Republican...

If you're referring to Fritz Hollings of the SSSCA fame, he's actually a Democrat. But I'm not sure there's really a difference anyway.

Re:Senator from Disney

[Yet Another Smith]

I think Zoop engaging in a little irony there. The National Security Advisor and Secretary of State aren't white either. I think what our bright young friend was trying to say was that the voting Democratic 'for the poor children who are starving in the streets, the racially discriminated, the handicapped, and the gun violence victims,' was a little specious, given that minorities are represented at the top levels of government, that gun control has not necessarily correlated with crime-reduction, and that top-level Democrats are all about whoring themselves to Hollywood at the little guy's expense (not only Hollings, but also Gore - who killed DAT to get the 'parental advisory stickers for his wife, Tipper).

To sum up, tear-jerking in support of the Democratic Party has been met by a cynical laugh.

The mystery revealed

[alizard]

That's why one or a small number of people need to come forward with startup funding and a useful PAC won't happen otherwise. The reason for the small number is to keep arguments on what has to be done to a minimum, to allow focus on specific goals. The $5 and $10 and $100 contributions will come later, and if you want this to work, open your checkbook when the hat gets passed your way in the increasingly unlikely chance that this will actually happen.

What does the startup funding needs to be spent on? Mainly infrastructure and professionals. We can't depend on volunteers to come forward with the right expertise, the expertise largely doesn't exist in our community. We can't expect people to do the jobs we need full-time ... forever to have done without paying them to do it. To start with, not necessarily in this order, what's needed is:

• A DC office in a "good" area. Among other things, to get the message across to politicians that the organization is for real.
• Top bracket political lobbyists. When the organization is legally ready to collect and disburse contributions, we need people who know what they're doing to go and who are known to Capitol Hill and tell the politicians what they need to do for us to get our support.
• A Website capable of handling lots of traffic.
• A high-traffic web-to-fax gateway of the sort the ACLU, NRA, etc. has to allow us to communicate with our Congresscritters and the White House via point-and-click on issues of interest to the community.
• Legal professionals to navigate the intricacies of registering as a Federal PAC and to comply with state and federal law on political fundraising and spending.
• Political organizers / campaign consultants with at least real state-level experience. The organization is going to have to mobilize our community when it needs to be. Get our people to sign up for the mailing list so we know when Congress needs to be contacted, get our people into the field to volunteer for the political campaigns of our friends, make campaign commercials to help our friends and nail our enemies, etc., etc., etc.
• Staff to analyze new legislation and figure out what's of major interest to us, to make sure the e-mail and snailmail gets answered, to make sure that current information goes up on the Website and mailing list. This must be run by someone with relevant experience.
• A merchant credit card account capable of handling lots of small donations.
• A video production facility capable of broadcast-grade work if this can be fit into the budget.

This must be done before a single dollar is raised to help or fight a political candidate, before a single fax for or against a bill is sent, and this list is hardly complete.

I don't think the problem is lack of interest, I think the problem is that... you're angry about CBDTPA. Without a credible organization that's ready to help our political friends (and given serious contribution money available, I guarantee we can make friends in Congress) and attack our political enemies that you can give money to, who will tell you who our political friends are so you can vote for them or volunteer to work for them, who will send you e-mail to let you know that it's time to hit the fax gateway to tell your Congresscritter how you want her to vote, just what the hell can you do other than to bitch and moan in places like this? Start a GeekPAC without funding or the knowhow needed to be effective? Write your Congresscritter a letter without a multi-kilobuck check enclosed?

The people with the money would rather spend it on wiring their houses for home entertainment as earlier articles here have discussed and invest in projects which probably can't be completed in the USA if laws and regulations under discussion become real.

I know where many of the professionals mentioned above can be found, a fact that doesn't really do either me or us a whole lot of good without the funding to put them to work.

Re:The mystery revealed

[Tokerat]

Very well put. +1 Virtual Informative for you., and I agree wholeheartedly.

So how can we begin then? This obviously isn't hopeless, we just need some large money pool... Would the Linux dirsto Co's want in on this? Who else has large sums of money?

That's a rather depressing thought...

Re:The mystery revealed

[alizard]

Red Hat put a good big chunk into Public Knowledge (Yet Another 501(c)3 non-profit) recently in the apparent hope they'd get something going.

One big problem in this context is that the people who have real money and are giving are giving to the organizations like EFF, CDT, Public Knowledge, etc... which gives them tax deductions and a feeling of doing something worthwhile, which in fact they are. However, they will not and can not solve either our political problems or theirs. Tax deductible non-profits not only can't make political contributions, but can't even publish voter guides. These groups have been around ever since the first threats to our rights have been visible, and we're still looking down the barrel of stuff like CBDTPA and BWG, etc.

We need political organizers and lobbyists who can write big campaign checks with our money to back them, not more public-interest lawyers.

While I can't honestly call them part of the problem, neither are they part of any solution which will keep technology viable in the US. No matter how much money is given to these groups, not one politician is going to have his mind changed by this.

The legal battles need to be fought, but without a PAC with enough power to reshape the political landscape, court victories are going to be ultimately meaningless. At least not in terms of keeping technology jobs in the USA.

If I knew the answer to your question, I would already have hit them up for this. Explore your own personal and industry connections is all I can really say, and that's all I can say to anyone else who reads this who isn't in a position to personally write the check needed to get this rolling or pass the hat among a handful of friends / business contacts to do this.

Kind if like the DMCA nursery rhyme

[Skevin]

Jack and Hill[ary]
proposed a bill,
We thought it'd never hold water.
Jack broke down
A Senate clown,
Then bent us over backward.

Original verse by Skevin, 2002
All rights reserved
Any unauthorized reproduction of this verse or reverse-engineering of the provided security protocol key (AKA rot13) will result in retaliation by excessive force to the maximum extent of the law (that is, the law of any backwater third world country of our choice).

Skevin

"East Coast Coders" indead...

[Woodie]

I take objection to the term "East Coast Code"... First off, I note that only one rep from either CT or MA voted - and for one bill each. The rest of the states in New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island) no reps voted for any of the bills. Many votes came out of NY and FL - not too suprising considering the hold that media magnates have there...

I see a whole bunch of votes from CA reps, a few from WA, and a bunch from TX. I'd say one should look in their own back yard before resorting to regional tarrings. The fact that DC is on the East Coast has little to nothing to do with how these bills were legislated; Look where the lobbiests come from - NY, FL and CA - the media hotspots. Plus a good sprinkling from the mid-west, where country is king!

Oh yeah, I forgot, the west coast is where all innovation happens, at least until the bean counters and jackdaws out on the east coast get ahold of it.... ;-)

Kansas

[macdaddy]

Well at least I can say that my state isn't contributing to this shit. Oh wait. Dammit! #24 is from Kansas. Son of a bitch. Well we almost had a clean slate. And we're even fighting MS.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a website geared towards techs and gear-heads that rate politicians on their tech stances. I would love to see that actually happen. I'd love to know which of the people I'm supposed to vote for tomorrow would do the least to screw me and my tech job. I'd like to see it cover all US states and Fed openings. I think it would be a great thing. If we had volunteers from other countries that would like to compile and contribute data, I think they should be more than welcome to have a site for their country. Thoughts? Suggestions? I'd really like to see this happen. Something like this could help me tomorrow because all the possible people to vote for sounds like absolute dumbasses. You would not believe the mud-slinging on my radio right now. Sheesh.

Re:Another DumbAss(tm)

[OWJones]

I said I have nothing against handgun ownership and the right of ordinary citizens to own them. I just said I don't see why people need sniper rifles, hollow-point bullets, and anti-tank-grade weapons. And last time I checked, 100% of sniper victims are shot by snipers with sniper rifles. I also don't see how trading one gun death for another lowers gun violence (which is what the parent posted advocated).

Besides, I read a diverse cross-section of news sources. CNN and their ilk are the tabloids, which I ignore. So where is your 85% figure from, Mr Anonymous Coward?

And I'm glad to see you know for a certainty that all criminals deserve to die, and have solid statistical facts to back it up. I wouldn't want any anonymous people with fuzzy from-an-NRA-pamphlet morals clouding the debate.

-jdm

Ahh.

[Inoshiro]

So it's a basic flaw within the US elections system that grinds towards deadlock at 2 parties? Sounds like something that needs to be fixed.

I don't accept voting against Bush purely to vote against Bush as any beneficial solution, since it doesn't directly speak to the candidate. There is always a third-party.

Prez CAN'T veto a bill passed by voice vote

[yerricde]

Who signed DMCA into law again?

President Clinton could not have prevented the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from becoming federal law in the United States. Both bills passed the House and Senate by "unanimous consent", which means that there wasn't even enough opposition to force a roll call vote (at least 20 percent), and each house voted on the bills by voice (AYE, NO, the ayes have it). Such a voice vote implies at least 81 percent support in each house.

If the President vetoes a bill, it goes back to the House and Senate for a roll-call vote, and if each house has 67 percent support for a bill, the bill passes over the President's veto. Thus, whether or not Clinton signed either of the bills has no bearing on anything important.

I Only See Six Laws

[Captain Chad]

Maybe I'm not counting correctly, but they refer to eight laws and then list six.

We don't vote people into office; we vote them out

[semios]

This is an excellent page, the only problem is if you want to print the page and take it with you to the polls it's over 5 pages long.

So I took the contents of the blog and created this page that allows you to filter the representatives of your particular state. Making it easy to take with you to the polls and stick it to your states representatives.

Re:We don't vote people into office; we vote them

[brett42]

The sad thing is that almost everyone in Congress who runs for re-election will win. Unless they do something incredibly stupid, incumbents have every advantage in congressional elections, and most voters probably haven't even heard of, much less care about, the DMCA.

If you feel the need to learn who is buying your representatives, opensecrets.org is a useful site. I think this is where the article got it's data from.

How odd

[MoFoQ]

Usually, Republicans are the ones in for the quick buck but from the looks of it, most of the Republicans on the list supported the Child Online Protection Act, which had a notable motive but wasn't executed right while most of the Democrats voted for the ones that had a monetary motive aka the right-to-buttf*ck-consumers-bills. Hell, look at California's own Feinstein with almost $400,000. I voted against her every time and yet that b^Hwitch is still here. (same goes for the one b^Hwitch).

Groan.

[c.emmertfoster]

So now I'm sitting here, alone, uh, talking to myself. That's chaos.

Or better yet: Hold on to your butts.

It's way too early in the morning for this.

Yes they do.

[El Camino SS]

Its called the US Senate.

I'm with you, OWJones, I love these guys

[Interrobang]

They believe in the death penalty for break&enter...without benefit of due process. (As in Is that politician going to take away my second ammendment right to own an AR-15 to blow a burglar's head off if he comes into my house?) These are also the same folks who are so upset with the gubmint when they lock away people (with or without mind to executing them) without formal arrest, trial, and due process.

Lovely 'civilized' society these people envision, innit?