Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws About Technology

snydeq writes "As the world gets more and more technical, we can't let Luddites decide the fate of dangerous legislation like SOPA, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. 'Very few politicians get technology. Many actually seem proud that they don't use the Internet or even email, like it's some kind of badge of honor that they've kept their heads in the sand for so long. These are the same people who will vote on noxious legislation like SOPA, openly dismissing the concerns and facts presented by those who know the technology intimately. The best quote from the SOPA debates: "We're operating on the Internet without any doctors or nurses on the room." That is precisely correct,' Venezia writes. 'The best we can do for the short term is to throw everything we can behind legislation to reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment. From 1974 through 1995, this small group with a tiny budget served as an impartial, nonpartisan advisory to the U.S. Congress on all matters technological.'"

Comments

Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[eldavojohn]

This simple act underscored a problem possibly bigger than SOPA: the fact that as with far too many of our elected officials, technology legislation isn't even on his radar.

I don't think you understand SOPA. SOPA isn't a problem with Technology. It's not going to physically break the backbone routers we need for the internet. It's not going to present technological challenges. What it's going to do that is a problem is rape free speech, make user-generated content (like what I'm doing right now) nearly impossible and on par with China's arcane policies as well as a number of other things. It threatens uploading content, it threatens internal networks, it threatens open source software, it threatens DNS, DNSSEC and internet security. And the worst part is that it's going to be completely ineffective at what it aims to do!

You don't need to understand technology to read the pieces on how this is a direct assault on free speech. Screw their understanding of technology, frame this piece of shit legislation as a direct assault on basic civil liberties! Let them chisel into stone memos about their dry cleaning, who cares if they don't use e-mail. Just make sure they understand that this is first and foremost diametrically opposed to free speech when you simply consider the internet as a means of communication and expression!

The best we can do for the short term is to throw everything we can behind legislation to reinstate the OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). From 1974 through 1995, this small group with a tiny budget served as an impartial, nonpartisan advisory to the U.S. Congress on all matters technological.

Another government office or agency? Man, don't we have enough of that bullshit as it is? I think you're deflecting and focusing on something that will sidetrack us from getting this crap shut down. Call your representative and senators and tell them that you feel that your First Amendment Rights are being threatened by H.R. 3261 and forget trying to lecture them about how DNSSEC works.

You want to effectively stop this? Here's a commercial I'd like to see Google air on national TV:

*woman sits behind bars with a look of remorse on her face*
Woman: I uploaded a video less than half a minute long of my toddler dancing to music on Youtube.
*clip of cute toddler jamming out to some pop music plays*
Woman: The video went viral. Then I received a letter in the mail from lawyers saying I owed them the cost of that song for every view. Instead of just taking it down, I'm now in a criminal lawsuit facing bankruptcy and jail time. Please call your representative to stop SOPA and prevent this from happening to thousands of people.

Fight fire with fire, 15 second ad. Let's see it, Google.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[mounthood]

... it's going to be completely ineffective at what it aims to do!

Phew! I was worried about that for a second, and then you mentioned it would be ineffective at what it aims to do. I guess I have nothing to worry about then!

The War on Drugs is ineffective at stopping drugs. That doesn't mean it's without consequences, or should be ignored.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[steelfood]

I don't think you give them credit for what they understand.

I think they understand well that the internet is a means of communication. I think they understand all too well in fact. It is because the internet provides every individual human being with their own individual soapboxes that politicians do in fact want to limit it. It is because now, every minor party from the communists to the greens to the anarchists have an effective and cheap way to communicate their message to the masses.

The internet terrifies them. It's not very effective today, but they're thinking about tomorrow. They're thinking about Web 2.0, and user-generated content, in particular, user-generated political speech. They're thinking about ten million people going to Youtube to watch an untelevised debate between candidates without "R" or "D" behind their name. They're thinking about fifty million followers of the green party's twitter feed. And it's a threat that's going to materialize soon--very soon.

Politicians and companies alike are threatened not necessarily by free speech itself, but speech that is easily accessible. The only difference between the two is that politicians are in it for the power while companies are in it for the money. The fact that their interests just so happen to coincide makes it all the more convenient for the politicans to enact such legislation, and for companies to throw money at it.

Why do you think there is limited opposition to the act? It's not just the content lobbies sweet-talking their politicians with campaign donations. The political establishment itself wants to get rid of speech on the internet.

The worst part is, if SOPA fails, there will be another push for a similar piece of legislation sometime down the line. Should that fail, there will be yet another. It will continue like this until either the populace gets fed up and stops objecting (either through compromise or exasperation), or they smarten up and start voting for candidates that really represent their interests.

If I were a betting man, my money would not be on the latter.

Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[msobkow]

The Greek "politicians" were actually philosophers. They knew they didn't understand everything, so arguments were structured to expose their own ignorance through the statement of assumptions: "Assuming X is true."

This inevitably can lead to more discussion about whether the assumptions are valid, but the approach at least documents the process of working through the details of what eventually would become legislation.

Right now politicians make decisions based on ideology and dogma, not on logic and reasoning. At a bare minimum, Parliament and Congress should be held to a philosophical evaluation of law that starts with "Assuming the Constitution is true" and "Assuming the Charter of Rights is valid". Those foundational documents should always be the core of testing the validity of an argument for encoding something as law.

As long as politicians are chosen by a popularity contest instead of an assessment of their skills, experience, and knowledge, that leads me to conclude that politicians should not make laws at all.

Instead, they should be responsible for collecting evidence from the public, industry, and others concerned about the legislation they propose to prove it's good legislation meeting the needs of the people, not serving the will of dogma and corporate influence.