Slashdot Mirror
Tech-Conscious Congressmen?
Political Geek asks: "Many times we have seen clueless U.S. Senators and Congressmen supporting technology related bills that hurt consumers and developers when they are passed (for example, the 1998 DMCA, and Senator Hollings SSSCA/CBDTPA) However, there may be some hope for a few of our elected leaders. I have been asked by a staff member of a US Congressman to submit a list of issues that are the most important to individuals active in the tech sector. Therefore, instead of screwing-up this opportunity by replying to this request on my own, I am passing this request on to the Slashdot community: What issues/problems are most important to you and what is necessary to resolve them?" I'm going to keep posting questions like this in the hopes that, when a reader can bend the ear of their representative, that these issues can be heard.
My personal pet is wireless. Free the waves!
humble thoughts from ekent
A congressman...who cares about the interests of individuals in the tech world? This wouldn't be our good old, oft-lauded on Slashdot friend Rick, now would it?
May we never see th
Why is this offtopic?
badly formed maybe, offtopic no.
So much to do, so little bandwidth.
--
Try Mozilla
I agree, I think wireless issues, and in particular the proposals for Open Spectrum and allowing more underlay is one of the top five issues that need tech enlightened legislation (or at least to prevent hostile legislation).
Too many H1B Visas. They need to be reduced or eliminated. The Asian Indiana workers are willing to work for half of what US citizens are making, therefore, drive down wages. They also fill spots that can be filled by unemployed American workers instead.
Politicians clamoring to regulate high tech and ruin it like other businesses got ruined. An example is the auto industry.
Solutions and ideas:
Keep high tech unregulated which encourages it to flourish. That means saying no to Senator Fritz "Disney" Hollings and the MPAA/RIAA. Also saying no to Jack "Fist Pounding" Valenti.
Tax incentives to companies that offer for flex time and telecommuting to their workers. Those are being taken away in the current tight job market.
Tax incentives to companies that buy high tech equipment and software such as more generous depreciation schedules. This would encourage them to stay updated.
Eliminate H1B Visas.
Repeal the DMCA especially the onerous provisions that stifle research.
Tax incentives to telecomm companies that put out high speed connections such as DSL to areas that don't have high internet speed service such as rural areas.
Seriously though, getting this sort of thing out in the open to garner a wider opinion is a good idea(TM).
Being an NZ resident I can't really comment though, we have enough problems with our own government's ass-backward approach to IT.
So much to do, so little bandwidth.
--
Try Mozilla
1. The "Trusted Computing" initiative. That has immense power to be abused, and will be largely in the hands of companies and organizations who are more interested in power and profits rather than privacy and security.
2. The Homeland Security Act (or whatever the official name is). This has gone past security into just plain scary. A national database of every monetary transaction that takes place in the US? Absolute freedom for wiretapping (of all flavors)? Our rights are swirling down the drain, and in this case, technology is making it a bit easier to do it. Let's see some legislation protecting the American citizen for a change.
3. Sort of related to 1. Media and software companies should NOT have the right to do ANYTHING to a person's computer, regardless of what EULAs you agree to. Legislation needs to be put into place regulating the access that any company has to an individual's computer. We have to stop allowing the entertainment industry to dictate legislation here.
4. Campaign finance reform - related to 1 and 3. We all know politicians are slithy toves who are as fickle as the wind. It is their nature. We need campaign finance reform to STOP large companies of all types being able to make large donations (cough cough Microsoft cough cough RIAA). I personally think political donations should ONLY be able to be made by individuals, and should be capped at a level that most people could afford.
Styrofoam IS biodegradable, you're just impatient!
1. Hiring practices in the IT industry (age discrimination, H1B, etc.) Here is a good place to read more.
2. Software licensing practices, UCITA etc.
3. Copyright and Patent issues, especially related to the corporate "land grab" mentality towards ideas and code. This has the most drastic long term effects, while the previous two are easier (I think) issues for Congress to address.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
As the poster above commented, H1B visas need to either be severely curtailed or eliminated. I forgot to mention that. All his points are well taken.
Styrofoam IS biodegradable, you're just impatient!
Perhaps if someone has the bandwidth to spare..
They could host a page that accepts suggestions and a way of voting to rank the issues by importance.
Since perceived importance of the issue seems to be the key to motivating politicians to support the issue.
To prevent bot scripts from manipulating the scale perhaps a "Type in the letters from this graphic" security scheme could be used in the voting booth.
The main concept here is to provide a place where any interested politician can go to see what the hot issues are without relying on their intern who may or may not be on the ball.
1) Finding it very difficult to watch encrypted DVDs on non-proprietary operating systems such as Linux due to laws such as the DMCA. Although there are projects that exist outside the US that let me do this (for example the excellent VLC project), many Linux distributions do not come readily set up to be able to play encrypted DVDs.
2) Attempts to apply laws such as the DMCA outside the US (such as the case of Dmitry Sklyarov).
3) Proposals to pass laws requiring computer equipment to include DRM (digital rights management) hardware, such as that used in Microsoft's Palladium project. This has severe implications for both freedom of information, privacy, and free/open source operating systems and software. If the US were to pass such a law the rest of the world would be very likely to end up using the same technology, even though no such law may exist elsewhere in the world.
Essentially, the main problems I see are about freedom -- the rights of the individual, to use their computer hardware and software in ways they want to, must be protected as a form of free speech.
Yes, copyright theft is illegal, but just because I can break the law doesn't mean I will break the law. By electronically limiting the things people can do, huge power could be handed over to large corporations who themselves have very poor legal records (such as Microsoft).
In my opinion, if freedom is taken away from computer users we will be limited to viewing BigCorporation's approved content. Technological innovation in the US will be stunted and the US will slip behind other countries with more liberal technology laws. This will affect not only the US economy, but those of other developed countries.
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race"---Hans Blix
The DOJ had an airtight case against Microsoft, and then they basically dropped it. Why? Well a change in the Oval Office certainly had something to do with it, but I firmly believe that there are ethical questions here that the American people deserve to have answered.
The DMCA was passed in the House of Representatives by a "voice vote", where no record of individual votes is available. The lack of accountability created by this practice is reason enough to discontinue it. If I get screwed, I at least want to know by whom.
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television don't need Protection. Furthermore, the two are completely unreleated and have no reason to be mentioned together in the same bill. The entertainment industry wants to kill the Internet as we know and replace it with a glorified cable TV system. The Internet is not cable TV. I for one prefer it to stay that way.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
How important is it to actually do something?
Apparently not very, right now at 09:35 this article has 15 comments, the mouse-human hybrid story has 150.
When an article pops up in a month or two saying that Washington has pushed through some new zany legislation, remember you had a chance to contribute here.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
We need to end the DMCA as the number one priority...
After that we need laws that make it illegal for companies to restrict our rights to use content.
Fair use needs to be officially put on the books, not just be out there as a concept.
Unrestricted CD's made the smae way they always have been...
DVD's that can be played on any operating system.
Tivo's that we are allowed to copy the content off of and do what we want with it. (and don't force us to watch commercials)
Computers that don't restrict our rights to do what we want with them.
Ok thats what I can come up with off the top of my head.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
The RIAA is as bad as or worse than Microsoft. They can't be investigated for collusion, price-fixing, or anything else?
Will they run Linux?
He invented the internet!
.... Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks--that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective as stated by the news media as a whole."
.... If people who make their living criticizing anybody and everybody want to add me to their list, that's all right. Hell, they've got to make a living."
And he also seems to have invented a reality-distortion field:
Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media.
"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh--there's a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media
Mr. Gore has been airing his views during a nationwide promotional book tour that marks his re-emergence in public life after a self-imposed exile following his loss in the 2000 Presidential election. Now, as Mr. Gore considers another Presidential campaign, he's determined to confound his ponderous image by unveiling a new Al Gore--one who doesn't hesitate, as he puts it, to "let 'er rip."
Hence his controversial criticisms of President Bush's foreign policy, and his surprise announcement in favor of a government-run universal health-care system. And hence, in a phone interview with The Observer, his extensive criticism of the media, which is hardly a conventional way of launching a national political campaign.
Actually, Mr. Gore may have little reason to hide his views about the media, for his re-emergence, while generating a massive amount of attention, has also inspired ridicule from commentators of all ideological persuasions. Conservatives seemed delighted by his return, remembering his awkward candidacy in 2000, and many liberals have been quite frank in wishing that he would simply disappear.
But Mr. Gore has a bone to pick with his critics: namely, he says, that a systematically orchestrated bias in the media makes it impossible for him and his fellow Democrats to get a fair shake. "Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they'll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they'll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they've pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist."
And during a lengthy discourse on the history of political journalism in America, Mr. Gore said he believed that evolving technologies and market forces have combined to lower the media's standards of objectivity. "The introduction of cable-television news and Internet news made news a commodity, available from an unlimited number of sellers at a steadily decreasing cost, so the established news organizations became the high-cost producers of a low-cost commodity," said Mr. Gore. "They're selling a hybrid product now that's news plus news-helper; whether it's entertainment or attitude or news that's marbled with opinion, it's different. Now, especially in the cable-TV market, it has become good economics once again to go back to a party-oriented approach to attract a hard-core following that appreciates the predictability of a right-wing point of view, but then to make aggressive and constant efforts to deny that's what they're doing in order to avoid offending the broader audience that mass advertisers want. Thus the Fox slogan 'We Report, You Decide,' or whatever the current version of their ritual denial is."
"We understand that Gore is frustrated," said R.N.C. spokesman Kevin Sheridan. "He's the leader of a party without a message. But if he thinks that the Republican National Committee can control the American media, then perhaps he needs a break from the book tour."
Fox spokesman Rob Zimmerman said, "We won't dignify this with a response."
A spokesman for The Washington Times didn't return calls for comment. Rush Limbaugh was traveling and not available for comment.
A Left Hook
Of course, some of the harshest criticisms of Mr. Gore have come from distinctly non-conservative quarters. Mr. Gore seemed particularly stung, for example, by an op-ed written by Frank Rich of The New York Times, suggesting that his new spontaneity was a charade. "When people write a line like one that I read this morning--quote, 'People do not change,' period, end quote--well, there's a difference between learning from experience and self-reinvention," Mr. Gore said. "People do change, particularly in America. If you don't learn from the experiences you have in life, then you're not trying very hard, and if you don't make mistakes, you're not human
Democrats sympathetic to Mr. Gore frequently maintain that "political insiders"--the media, big donors, professional politicians--paint an overly pessimistic picture of his viability as a candidate and suggest that his position has been strengthened by the party's poor showing in the midterm elections several weeks ago. "There are all these people in the party who have been adamant that we need a fresh face," said Joe Andrew, who headed the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. "I think a lot of those people are taking another look at Al Gore now, saying that, 'Well, at least there's someone out there with big ideas, who looks good on TV, who looks more comfortable with himself.' I think it's simply a fundamental reaction to the sense that he is a serious candidate with serious ideas."
But while Mr. Gore has a solid core of support, many Democrats do want a fresh face to take on George W. Bush in 2004. The same formal and informal polls that show Mr. Gore with substantially larger backing than any other Democratic hopeful also show that a great many donors, opinion makers and party leaders are uncommitted--and leaning toward Anyone But Gore.
It's possible that no amount of criticism will keep Mr. Gore out of the race, but there's little question that "Gore fatigue" already has become a rallying point for his potential opponents. "At this point, people are uniformly looking for a different face and a different agenda, an agenda that requires a backbone," Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a potential Democratic contender, told The Observer.
Asked about Mr. Gore's efforts to make a fresh start as a straight-talking, independent-minded Democrat, Mr. Dean said, "I think it will be kind of a tough job for someone who was a sitting Vice President to call himself an outsider."
Mr. Gore acknowledged his image problem among powerful Democrats, and that the onus will be upon him to recapture the loyalties of those who supported him in 2000. "Maybe I bear the blame for some of it," he said. "I haven't been very good about calling all of the insiders over the last two years, and maybe some of them have a beef with me because of that. I know they have been courted assiduously by some of the others who are considering a run for the White House, and it may be that some of them have already signed up with other people. If I do decide to run again, I think there's a lot of support, but I'd also have to work really hard to get a bunch of them committed back to me."
Mr. Gore also reckoned that he would have to prove himself all over again to key political and media players. "I'm well aware that the political insiders and political-journalism community have a considerable amount of influence, and even though I'm stronger at the grassroots level, I think that if I did run again, I would have to convince those two groups that I've learned enough in the last couple of years to run a better campaign than I did last time. I don't think that there's a thing that I could say and no words I could choose that could accomplish that--the way to convince them would be in actually doing it."
For now, Mr. Gore can only attempt to explain what motivates the ceaseless lampooning he continues to face from America's columnists and commentators. "That's postmodernism," he offered. "It's the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism, and that's another interview for another time, if you're interested in it.
"All portions of the Bill of Rights shall be held to apply without reservation to the use of electronic devices."
Really. That's it. That would solve 99% of the problems Slashdotters (including myself) bitch about.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You might need to be at a university terminal to get access to it, or may need access to a university through a VPN account.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Here's a Spam Primer. The Coalition Against Unsolicited E-mail offers plenty of information as well.
I hate call waitin`~+~~~
NO CARRIER
Some of them are barely conscious.
A constitutional amendment that corporations != persons, i.e. they have lesser rights than individuals.
Patent Craziness
... one wonders what was in the minds of the Congress".
Patents should protect "inventions", which have to be truly novel and non-obvious. The PTO has repeatedly been granting patents to things which do not deserve patent protection. An undeserved patent stifles innovation and creativity. Business process patents, software patents, and patents for computerizing otherwise ordinary activities are all stifling innovation.
Copyright
Congress is fundamentally off track. I can only echo Justice O'Connor from the Eldred oral argument: "If the overall purpose of the Copyright Clause is to encourage creative work,
- Copyright is way too long. The Constitution authorizes Congress to protect "authors", not their children and grandchildren. Repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension.
- DMCA. It puts a locked safe around fair use, destroys first sale (which is NOT just the right to resell, but the beginning of full property rights for the purchaser), and creates a very nasty chilling affect for white-hat security research. When applied to software it violates the first amendment. Section 1201 is not a valid exercise of any enumerated Congressional power. Repeal the anti-circumvention provisions now.
- Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) This does not need legislative assistence. NO!
- Clickwrap/Shrinkwrap EULAs: these are not valid contracts, and any attempts to make them so using state law should be preempted by the Federal Copyright Act if the terms seek to unilaterily deny consumers the benefits of the Copyright Act, such as fair use, first sale rights, etc. In particular, reverse engineering clauses should NEVER be enforcable.
Privacy
- Pass comprehensive spam legislation immediately
- Stop companies from sharing data about me unless I explicitly "opt-in". This is especially important with phone records and financial records. This is a commerce power question, not a free speech question. Consumers have a right not to speak. The government can speak for it's citizens to say that they do not want to "opt in" by default. If they can "opt in" manually, there is no free speech issue. Outlaw pricing differently based on the choice.
Privacy
I'll post this one anonymously.
Outlaw spyware.
1) Intellectual property law. Copyright has been ridiculously extended and should be "reset" back to the original limitation. Patents on methods and algorithms should not be permitted. The right of individuals to duplicate their own property should not be infringed by RIAA incompetence and avarice.
2) Software liability issues. Programmers who release software sources with few or no restrictions (public domain or BSD license) should not be in the same legal position as those who create more restricted software (such as GPL) or vendors of proprietary software. Vendors of closed-source, copyrighted software should be held legally responsible for egregious flaws in their products, like any other manufacturer is.
3) Spam. Spammers should be internationally traced and prosecuted. If we can kidnap and try the leader of a sovereign nation (remember Noriega?) we can certainly crack down on spammers.
Visa issues don't matter to me. I am willing to compete for employment in a global market based on my knowledge and abilities.
--boy, I got a few. Here's my top ones, I imagine the file sharing and cd burning whatever will be thoroughly covered by some other guys here.
--OK, here's my #1 biggee-How about gutting the constitution, especially the 4th amendment, using tax payer ripped off money to turn around and spy on the tax payers, follow their every moves, create massive interconnected databases? What gives congress any "right" to do this, what gives this president any right to sign this into bogus law? What gives them any right besides force of lethal threat of arms to create massive domestic spy agencies using any and all available high technology to create some heinous big brother spy state? And ask this congress "person" if they actually read the homeland security bill in total, and perhaps the model states health bill if they voted for it.
--giving high tech pharmco/biology corporations basically a get-out-of-jail free card with regards to the looming threat of forced vaccinations with who knows what in the syringe. And I mean who knows what with their past track record of lying. Might it be because of all the high level connections with these firms and the current administration? We are supposed to believe that coincidence after coincidence is really a coincidence?
--allowing the incredibly stupid move of recombinant gene mixed species GM crops to be released into the wild, including injecting aids material inside corn, and etc. Allowing "roundup ready" plants to be released that are air pollinated and may infect others similar crops, rendering them useless. What's up with this stuff? Just go ahead and do it, who cares what it might cause down the pike? who cares how many family farmers and organic farmers are put out of business as long as a small handful of international companies gain eventual total control over peoples food. who's getting paid off with that? Where's the fda and usda besides golfing and drinking with a handful if international food and drug monopolists and profiteers? The US people are supposed to just not notice how medicine and food is in fewer and fewer hands, that for some reason this is a good thing? and just yesterday vaccine records sealed by orders of some US "court" to protect these vaccine manufacturers to be responsible for their products? hey, throw it right back at them like they are dojg now with the 'war on terrorism". What ya got to hide big government and big corporate guys, what ya hiding that's so bad the records have to be sealed? Where's congressional oversight on this one, where's the tech oversight, out to lunch, gone fishing? Who's getting paid off?
--transfer of high tech developed in the united states to heinous regimes like china. Show me any difference between red china and iraq. Besides red china being much bigger and much more dangerous that is. Why is it "different" for china? And to give high tech US industries tax breaks to do this? This is supposed to be a good idea? Despite our own goivernments intel agency analysis that red china is our #1 enemy and threat? Export jobs, export tech advances, help fund them? Talk about asleep at the switch or actually selling out for money alone, no thought for the future, just short term "profits" for some "investors" and higher ups in international corporations who happen to have their main offices inside the US.
More technology transfers, why is it again we transferred nuclear reactors to north korea? Because they promised to turn into nice guys? Isn't this rather naieve and a waste of tax payer money, does there not exist enough evidence to prove to most anyone that north korea is *never* going to be lead by any *nice guys*, that they are about as nasty a set of chronic liars and despots as you could imagine?
There's more but that's enough for now
They're having a potluck fundraiser, and on the table is food from a supporter who is also a great chef for a big restaurant. There is also lots more good food from lesser talents, and maybe something that has to be thrown out. But there are people watching for that, and good will abounds.
The party is going great, and suddenly Our Lord descends from the clouds and puts two fishes and five loaves on the table. And He says, "It shall be as before. As many as are hungry shall eat." And he blesses the table and makes it so that no matter how much food is taken, the original contribution will not be used up. And He said, "Wheresoever else food from this table is set down, that place shall also be blessed, and the supply shall not diminish, nor shall it spoil." And then He rose again into the clouds.
All were astonished, but a reporter soon spoke up and said, "Senator, this is wonderful! The whole world can be fed! But how are you going to deal with the food industry lobbyists?"
Please tell your representatives to notice that the internet IS ALREADY operating like that blessed potluck table, except with digital "food."
Tell them to try to muster every bit of imagination they've got, or can hire, to meet the challenge of guiding the changes that are happening, instead of just going along with lobbyists who want to legislate against change and restrict the general benefit of new technology to serve uninspired and narrow visions of profit.
Tell them that trying to minimize the pain for those who must adapt is reasonable, but to allow a great general good to be significantly impeded by a few whose present degree of control of supply can only be preserved artificially is wrongheaded, if not immoral.
Tell them to be generous in helping those who are willing to adapt and find a way to become prosperous by increasing benefits to all, rather than by monopolistically restricting benefits to extract a tribute.
And tell them to tell the others, "No deal, because a government of the people is a government of representatives of humans making decisions for the benefit of humans, with due regard for the human usefulness and necessity business, not business representatives making business decisions with some regard for the business usefulness of humans."
did this congressmen leave you a message on your answering machine to ask for your opinion? if so, you might reconsider supporting that person. :)
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
The #1 reason tech is in a funk is that there are monopolies - Microsoft on the Software side, and the Telcos and Cable Companies on the Access side. The phone and cable companies are even worse than Microsoft because they use all the tactics and worse that Microsoft has ever used but no one can tell, because most people are not savvy enough to figure out what they are doing. For example, Cable does not allow anyone to sell Internet access over their network, yet the Bells are required to. Cable sells it below cost (you really think 1.5 Mbps costs 39.95/month?), but you know the price will go up once they put all their competitiors out of business. Same thing with DSL - phone companies sell the copper for DSl at $32-$39 to ISPs and then sell the whole thing (including Internet bandwidth and the copper and tons of other freebies) for $29.95. Microsoft is like a babe in the woods to these guys - the Telco management have been acting anti-competitively for oh, about 50 years now. The point is no one has the money to fight these people in court. The government has to break up these monopolies and bring the "free" back into "free market".