Congress' Tech Agenda

A reader writes: "Fox News is running a story on Congress' Tech Agenda. We have all been reading about plenty of legislation as each bill is introduced or considered, but it's nice to see a major news outlet picking up on the larger trend."

Comments

Digital Media Consumers Rights Act

[maharg]

this sounds like a step in the right direction. Fair use and all that.

Careful: Congress and it's position on TIA

[Corpus_Callosum]

A quote from the article:

"Government programs such as the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness Project, data-mining activities, biometric initiatives and various forms of tracking programs have already come under fire for privacy violations.

Congress, however, defunded TIA in the 2003 omnibus spending bill it passed Thursday night. In passing the rule, Congress said it wants a guarantee that the government's database program will not infringe on civil liberties before it approves its continuation."
-----

So this is far from dead and the demand by Congress that they "want a guarantee that the government's database program will not infringe on civil liberties" does not sound, to me, like an effective counterbalance for our freedoms over the long-term. What we should be pushing, lobbying (and fighting) for is EXTREMELY STRICT oversight of any project that involves collection of personal data for ANY reason. But only if we fail to stop the damned projects in the first place.

Warm Safe Feeling

[kahei]

For some reason, I found that reading this article gave me a warm, safe feeling as if it's all being taken care of by wise, kindly people. Sure, they may have their arguments but ultimately they're all working together for my benefit.

Looking closer, I found that the main debate is between 1) Keep the DMCA and enforce it better, and 2) Completely wacky measures like banning unprotected digital media.

But since that's kind of worrying, I think I'll just sink back into that warm, safe feeling now... mmm...

What do you do when...

[lambadomy]

Your elected officials get things half right? Or get half of what you want done. Example:

Backing the entertainment industry, Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., may reintroduce a bill to prohibit the making and distribution of "digital media devices" unless they include government-approved copy restriction technology.

Hollings has said that he really doesn't want the legislation, but some type of compromise is needed. Various tech industry groups and the Recording Industry Association of America recently promised to fight any such mandates and work out the piracy problem.

---

Hollings, along with Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., are also likely to introduce a comprehensive privacy bill to protect online surfers, who before Sept. 11 were pre-occupied with identity theft, but now must add government surveillance to their list of concerns.

I guess with all I've been seeing recently, half right is better than expected. But my frustration with our two party system grows. Too often I see two candidates who both agree with me on half the issues and disagree with me on the other half. I can't send a message by voting for either of them, other than "this set of my beliefs is more important than that set". Other than writing letters, or running for office myself, what really can be done to get the message across?

Good shape - for whom?

[ctellefsen]

"Cresanti said the concern is that lawmakers are putting in too much effort altering the DMCA -- which the industry says is in pretty good shape -- rather than enforcing the existing rules."

I thought the DMCA was used mainly to scare scientists and prevent crypto research, keep DVDs off Linux, hinder free enterprise and free trade, make toner cartridges more expensive, keep lists of store prices off the net, avoid having to obtain court orders to get access to private information, and other nifty things like that. Maybe it is "good shape" for the industry, but it certainly is "bad shape" for everyone else.

Re:attitude?

[runderwo]

I wonder what happened to the great so called ideology "customer is the king" that these companies pretend to practice.

It went away when the "customers" became "consumers" and stopped caring about the quality of product and service that they received.

Capitalists respond to demand. If they can sell their product to people regardless of its quality, then why try to improve it? Obvious exceptions being companies with a real commitment to the customer and commitment to building a quality product, but you don't find those very often in publicly-traded corporations. Mostly because the price of quality would be slightly higher, which causes the consumers to go elsewhere and deal with a less scrupulous company save a buck. Thus, the board of directors demands that sales be raised at any costs, sets unrealistic expectations, and the company cuts corners to meet those expectations, resulting in a product that frequently meets no more than the minimum standards of marketability at best.

The blame can be placed on the poorly educated, dependent, and apathetic consuming public as much as it can on the soulless companies who'd sacrifice any aspect of their product or corporate karma, if it meant saving a dollar down the road. Don't take advertising at face value, don't buy products from people who won't let you examine them before purchase, and don't buy from companies who won't stand behind their products. That's the only way this situation will improve.