Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Fnord.
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...
Well... how about a few thousand Windows programmers? :)
(an obvious choice, I know, but still true
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.
I don't have a sig...Do you??
Sorry to disappoint, but they're not talking about Redmond. ;-)
Found them
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.
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.
smd4985
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.
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.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
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?
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
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.
And don't try telling me that other countries try to control it too - for two reasons:
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!
All your favorite sites in one place!
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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...
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
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.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Oh really? Who signed DMCA into law again? CDA? NET?
All Clinton.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
0-Libertarian.
Consider yourself informed.
<soapbox>
A Libertarian would never pass any law to stifle the Internet, and would never let the government pass protectionist laws for corporate lobbies.
</soapbox>
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!
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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
[alk]
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....
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Tech Public Policy stuff
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.
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
www.madeofwinandawesome.com
Do they have Obfuscated Lawmaking Contests?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
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.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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:
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.
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.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?