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

[Anonymous Coward]

Which networks will air this? All those ones that don't support SOPA?

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Aighearach]

I disagree, it creates a conflict of rights and a loophole allowing people to commit harm to others. That is foolish and irresponsible, but it is not the end of the world or the end of slashdot or the end of free speech. If it is abused, then the conflict of rights will have to be resolved in the courtroom. No matter how badly the courts stumble over it, it won't end up with some doomsday "zomg we're China" xenophobic nonsense.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[mgiuca]

I don't think you understand SOPA. SOPA isn't a problem with Technology. ... It threatens uploading content, it threatens internal networks, it threatens open source software, it threatens DNS, DNSSEC and internet security. ... You don't need to understand technology to read the pieces on how this is a direct assault on free speech.

Unfortunately, yes, you do. You just listed four highly technical terms, and explaining how SOPA is going to break those things does require a highly technical understanding. So I believe the original article is absolutely right that the problem is politicians not understanding technology.

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!

But they don't consider the Internet as a means of communication and expression. If they are chiseling into stone tablets, then SOPA isn't going to affect them. To them, the Internet is that thing that lets pirates get films for free, and the MPAA has told them that's wrong. Again, the problem is that they don't understand that the Internet is free speech in one of its purest forms, and this will strangle the Internet.

*woman sits behind bars with a look of remorse on her face*

There's a website along these lines: Free Justin Beiber.
I agree, a 15 second ad would be great.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[DriedClexler]

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 [eff.org], make user-generated content (like what I'm doing right now) nearly impossible and on par with China's arcane policies [nytimes.com] 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!

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!

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Anonymous Coward]

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 more legislators that understand it for what it is - the elimination of free speech - the more likely it is that it passes.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[sunderland56]

Does your mom understand SOPA as well as you do? The point of the article is that (a) our moms and dads don't understand current technology, and (b) their generation are the ones creating and passing legislation.

If you think SOPA is bad, then consider the fact that the next 10 technology-related bills in Congress could be worse.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[grcumb]

I don't think you understand SOPA. SOPA isn't a problem with Technology.

You're exactly right. SOPA is the mere exercise of bare power. The problem is not the politicians' ignorance; they know full well what they're doing. The problem is that they don't care. They've gone to the well for campaign funding, and this is the bucket they brought the water back in. It's really that simple. Technical considerations don't even get a look in.

It threatens uploading content, it threatens internal networks, it threatens open source software, it threatens DNS, DNSSEC and internet security.

"So?" asked the Congressman, "What did FOSS, DNS and DNSSEC ever do for me?"

There are only two levers that can change a congressman's mind: Votes and money. The money (to buy the votes) is behind SOPA right now, so that's where he'll be found.

What needs to be made clear to him, therefore, is that no amount of money is going to be enough to save his seat. And rather than wait for election day (which will be too late), take a lesson from the Tea Party and primary the fucker. 'Tis the season, after all....

Putting together a well-organised campaign to get delegates up in arms about an issue as basic and important as this is neither too hard nor too expensive. Find a clear-eyed, presentable spokesperson who can explain the problem in a nutshell, and start working on your local party committee members to back him. You don't (necessarily) need to get your person (s)elected even. Long before that, you can be sure that your candidate will have a moment of epiphany where suddenly the problem becomes clear and his position switches accordingly.

This approach can't easily be countered by lobbyists, because they don't have a significant presence outside of Washington, they don't know the local ground nearly as well as you do, and they simply don't have enough money allocated to counter every primary challenge.

Tactically, this is insurgency warfare. Look to Iraq and Afghanistan for some indication of its effectiveness.

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

[modmans2ndcoming]

try making DNSSEC work in a SOPA world. How about the fact that the fundamental enforcement tool is to perform a mandated man in the middle attack on DNS. that is pretty fucked up and breaks the internet.

What will happen is these criminals will simply move to a more robust DNS solution and a new internet will be born which makes it nearly impossible for the powerful to stomp out.

Silk road anyone?

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[GodInHell]

This. 1,000,000 times this.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[icebraining]

Come on, politicians aren't all cavemen recently defrozen either. The average age of a member of the House is less than 60, and they didn't come from the Amish either. While I don't doubt most don't understand how most of the technology works behind the scenes, there's no reason to assume they're that ignorant about how the Internet enables Free Speech and how dangerous a tool like SOPA will be.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[icebraining]

DNSSEC works fine in a SOPA world: the ISP can just drop the reply instead of forging it. The end result is the same.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[The Snowman]

What needs to be made clear to him, therefore, is that no amount of money is going to be enough to save his seat. And rather than wait for election day (which will be too late), take a lesson from the Tea Party and primary the fucker. 'Tis the season, after all....

Since when do incumbents face primaries? I've heard about it for very unpopular candidates, where even their own party won't back them for reelection, but not otherwise. I could be wrong -- I'm not trying to be a dick, I am curious.

I think you have the right idea though, issues like this need popular support. That is very difficult to do given the size and population density in this country.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[im3w1l]

Another problem that should be identified is that the people understanding technology are libertarian aspies unwilling to compromise. "No we have to have absolute freedom, we can never give up _anything_. Fuck you we'll move our servers to Sealand nenene try to stop me trololol".

By taking this immature all-or-nothing stance, we are rapidly approaching the latter.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm all for EFF et al's campaigning. It is just that we, as a group have way to few vocal moderates.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[thoughtlover]

Which networks will air this? All those ones that don't support SOPA?

All those that would accept a big fat paycheck and run the ad for Google's dough before caring about whether or not SOPA would pass. So probably all of them.

Just because you have the money doesn't mean the network will take your ad.

e.g.

ManCrunch SuperBowl Ad REJECTED: Gay Dating Site Ad Denied By CBS (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/mancrunch-superbowl-ad-ga_n_440773.html

Affairs Site Ashley Madison Super Bowl Ad Rejected By Fox

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/ashley-madison-super-bowl-rejected-fox_n_811512.html

FOX Sports Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring John 3:16

http://www.christianpost.com/news/fox-sports-rejects-super-bowl-ad-featuring-john-316-48759/

There's more, but you get the idea...

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[fpoling]

There are only two levers that can change a congressman's mind: Votes and money.

Unfortunately in US political life votes becoming less and less important. Why care for reelection if the lobby promises sweet positions in the corresponding industry or will pay millions for lectures or for writing book etc. just after two years in the Congress?

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[mgiuca]

I consider SOPA a reason to assume they're ignorant about it, if nothing else. You might attribute that to malice. ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.") I think it's a mixture of both.

I don't doubt that these politicians have been completely bought out by the likes of the MPAA, and that they are acting in the interests of lobbying groups. But at the same time, I also don't think they have a clue, for example, what we mean when we say "SOPA will break DNSSEC," and nor do they care.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[saint0192]

We may not end up in a doomsday scenario, but the overhead of SOPA builds a strong framework ripe for abuse. I feel it is a better idea to draw the line now and say no regulation before a monster like SOPA is passed and we have to see our rights whittled away case after case. Leave the Internet open and place the burden on the content producers to build a FAIR framework for anti-piracy if they want one. The current model plus SOPA will place huge financial burden on people even in "fair use" cases. It is an unfair battle for all but the content owners. This is a greedy, money-making model built by the companies with money to twist the Internet to their ends. Say no with your dollars and to your congressmen before we lose control of our Internet freedoms.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[cjcela]

You do not need a network to air anything these days. Put it on YouTube, and allow for linking. Post it on Slashdot, Reddit, and 10 or 20 more popular websites. Post it on Facebook, tweet about. Link it from the comments on articles about SOPA in news websites.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[grcumb]

Since when do incumbents face primaries? I've heard about it for very unpopular candidates, where even their own party won't back them for reelection, but not otherwise.

You just answered your own question. Make the candidate unpopular, and the primary has to happen. Register a lot of new members, stack the committees, or lobby them, or both, and make it clear that for as long as your representative stands by SOPA, his survival is far from assured.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Runaway1956]

Sure, it can be resolved in a courtroom. Some one uses SOPA to take down your site. Your site is down, so your revenues are down. It takes two years to get your day in court. By this time, you have, by necessity, moved on to something else. So, finally, your day in court is an inconvenience that interferes with your current job/contract/consultancy. You're screwed no matter how you look at it, and the MAFIAA wins.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[MacDork]

Right, because that ad is just ham fisted crap. Now if Google tried to pay CBS to run this instead, I would wager CBS would say no... because the ad points out CBS is guilty of distributing filesharing software and encouraging users to pirate music with it. The very thing CBS claims to be against, they did themselves. The very thing that the SCOTUS ruled was illegal in Grokster, but where is the DOJ? Where is the investigative journalism? AOL teaches and encourages you to steal music so Time Warner can sue you in court for thousands of dollars per song. Oh, and they made a fat profit in the software distribution deal too.

Face it. There are two classes in the USA. One group is opressed/enslaved by these laws. The other is exempt.

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.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[mgiuca]

Really insightful. Regretfully, I agree with you.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[CrimsonAvenger]

Does your mom understand SOPA as well as you do? The point of the article is that (a) our moms and dads don't understand current technology, and (b) their generation are the ones creating and passing legislation.

Having read the text of the proposed law, I expect that I understand it as well as anyone.

And being about the age of the average Congresscritter, I'm aware that MY generation is the one creating and passing legislation.

So, no, it's not about ignorant people passing bad legislation. It's about people whose objectives are different than YOUR objectives passing legislation.

You want free speech, they want money (and the votes that money can buy).

When your desire for free speech translates to money/votes, they'll care. Until then, they will ignore you.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Sardaukar86]

...it won't end up with some doomsday "zomg we're China" xenophobic nonsense.

Yeah, by all means play the race card. Never mind that the GP's argument had nothing to do with race.

In my country (New Zealand) we're very familiar with your particular flavour of Politically Correct Arsehole. You pricks are always there ready to drown out intelligent conversation by screaming "RACIST!!" without taking a nanosecond to actually understand the argument. You're also usually wrong.

Of course, you won't let that alter your behaviour for even a moment.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[tombeard]

Yea, like drunken airline passengers could never be charged under terrorism laws because they were only meant for real terrorists, not drunk airline passengers. Pick your link. The people in charge of incarcerating other people have taken any excuse to do so, no matter how torturous the interpretation of the law. And the courts have, since they are in the same business, decided this is just fine. So be very careful what you allow.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Skapare]

That DOES break the internet ... with respect to making the internet more secure and reliable. What SOPA should do is use outside means of law enforcement against the violators. The very serious problems with SOPA is that it requires breaking security integrity for ISPs to comply with the possible orders they could receive. It also will cost the ISPs substantially more money. And this is being done without the proper judicial due process the US Constitution requires (we can only hope this gets quickly knocked down by SCOTUS if this law passes).

It also breaks the fabric of the internet as a social medium, not just the technology. Companies like Facebook (disclaimer: I don't use Facebook) might well have to shutdown or go to a paid subscription model in order to finance the massive scale of review needed for uploaded content. And without uploaded content, what good are these social sites?

Facebook would end up being replaced by a fragmented gauntlet of fly-by-night services at various random locations around the world. Someone will invent a Torrent-like social medium infrastructure that will have many serious limitations, but will be better than nothing. In the end, it will end up driving more and more underground. Copyright violations won't stop. They will continue to increase.

SOPA is one of the most destructive stupidities to ever come out of Congress. And this is 2012.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Phoghat]

Maybe, just maybe, we should vote for Scott . Seeing as how there are so many pointy headed bosses out there. Hey, he could be as good as Al Franken, and look where he started.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[master_p]

Yes, they do. It's not that difficult: if a site infringes on copyright, a notice is enough to block access to it. There is no need to involve any technical definitions in the explanation.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[jez9999]

Unfortunately, SOPA will stop you doing this. :-D

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[HopefulIntern]

From Aesop:

Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down.
"There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"

"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."

"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"

"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."

"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out: "Any excuse will serve a tyrant."

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[elsurexiste]

I don't think you understand SOPA. SOPA isn't a problem with Technology. ... It threatens uploading content, it threatens internal networks, it threatens open source software, it threatens DNS, DNSSEC and internet security. ... You don't need to understand technology to read the pieces on how this is a direct assault on free speech.

Unfortunately, yes, you do. You just listed four highly technical terms, and explaining how SOPA is going to break those things does require a highly technical understanding. So I believe the original article is absolutely right that the problem is politicians not understanding technology.

Heh, that's creative editing and quoting. Those sentences aren't even in the same paragraph. GP's point is that SOPA's main problem isn't about technology, although it causes a few tech issues. SOPA's main problem is that it attack civil liberties.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[tbannist]

So, no, it's not about ignorant people passing bad legislation. It's about people whose objectives are different than YOUR objectives passing legislation.

I think it is both. I would strongly suspect that most people in Congress have little idea about technology and little interest in it. Congressional elections select for those who can convince a small group of primary voters to select them often based on their success in raising money for their campaign. That means most representatives have two areas of expertise: fund raising and convincing people to vote for them. They may have some other areas of expertise, but it's not guaranteed and most of them probably won't have overlapping areas of expertise. So on any issue, you might have a handful of subject matter "experts" who are qualified to understand and comment on the issue, and over 400 other people who want to get camera time, serve their own political empires. Add in the problem that there is no real way to identify who has expertise on an issue and you might begin to see why American laws are almost always a mess. You might think committee members would have a higher comprehension of the committee subject, but they're often used a political rewards which inevitably leads to non-experts being appointed to them.

It's not just that they have different objectives, it's that they have different objectives and collectively no understanding of anything other than begging for money and telling people what they want to hear.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Andy Dodd]

There are laws regarding acceptance of advertising - the networks will do all they can to find loopholes, but they can't explicitly block it for being anti-SOPA if the person pays for the ad and follows certain rules and regulations.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[walterbyrd]

No kidding, people who do stuff like that are hard-core criminals. Such people deserve to be financially ruined, and incarcerated.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[eam]

They can't. You own the copyright on the script.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[KiloByte]

It's long proven that Hanlon's Razor doesn't apply to Microsoft and politicians.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[KiloByte]

The only difference between the two is that politicians are in it for the power while companies are in it for the money.

Power is money. Money is power.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[ryanov]

I don't even know or care, I'm speaking generally here.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[mcgrew]

Agreed. Plus, the summary (at least) is a bit stupid. "Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws About Technology". WTF? They're LEGISLATORS. Without laws against technologists fucking me over, what's to stop them from fucking me over?

The problem is that the politicians are beholden to the corporations, not that they don't understand technology. They don't understand medicine, either, but like with technology they listen to people who do.

The problem is getting politicians to listen to WE THE PEOPLE who don't have billions of campaign bribes.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[V for Vendetta]

Let's try this again: If YOU didn't create it, DON'T USE IT.

Yeah, like no movie ever got shot in some public places with humans, streets, cars, buildings etc. all being visible in that scene although none of it was created by the film crew and therefore shouldn't have been used!

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[datavirtue]

They're thinking about ten million people going to Youtube to watch an untelevised debate between candidates without "R" or "D" behind their name.

In Washington, that is akin to spawning an inquisition.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Sardaukar86]

...and there's the "race card"'s companion card, the "he's playing the race card" card. In my experience, the person making this argument (rather than bothering to argue why something isn't race-related) is the bigger asshole.

Ok, fair comment, however in this case it's pretty obvious that race had no part in this discussion. I believe this should be apparent from the GP's post.

I see the GP has responded similarly which suggests to me he shares my opinion of Aighearach's post. Whilst that doesn't automatically make me correct, it may go some way to illustrating the inappropriateness of Aigherach's 'U R da RAZIST!!1' comments (which I obviously found highly objectionable).

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Sardaukar86]

I don't even know or care, I'm speaking generally here.

Can you generalise to the point where anyone objecting to a racially-based argument is automatically wrong and an 'asshole'?

I'm not going out of my way to be a dick, I just feel that there are more shades of grey to this argument than you appear to be suggesting.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Em Adespoton]

That'll get it in front of the people who already care.
You need to get it in front of the people who don't realize that it impacts them... having it go viral on Facebook might work, but to make ti stick, it has to leave the Internet, and be seen as a "real world" problem.

A run of ads along the lines of "I used to own a Mom & Pop import website, but with SOPA, all it takes is one lawyer and no more "Hello Kitty"." and "I'd love to tell you what I think of large corporations on my website, but with SOPA, I won't be able to. View the QR code to find out why."

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[mcgrew]

I consider SOPA a reason to assume they're ignorant about it, if nothing else. You might attribute that to malice. ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.")

I think mcgrew's razor supersedes Hanlon's razor in this case. Never assume stupidity for that which is adequately explained by greedy self interest. Politicans want power or they wouldn't be in politics.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Aighearach]

I didn't call you a racist, that was a blatant and absurd false accusation on your part.

What I said was that it was xenophobic to turn to China as a monster to say, this is equivalent to something awful: China.

I don't care if it is like China, or not like China, what I care about is, is it unicorns and butterflies, or piss and vinegar?

People shouting, "zomg! China!" in response to SOPA, which has absolutely nothing to do with China (zero, zilch, nada) are just getting in the way of serious discussion about how stinky it is.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[mgiuca]

"creative editing and quoting?" I thought it was pretty standard practice to remove unimportant parts of quotations using the "..." to indicate that you have removed text. "Those sentences aren't even in the same paragraph." You say that as if I pulled two random quotes out of context, when really, the two paragraphs were right next to each other (I only removed two sentences). If it really bothers you that much, here's my post again, without any text removed from the original quote:

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.

Unfortunately, yes, you do. You just listed four highly technical terms, and explaining how SOPA is going to break those things does require a highly technical understanding. So I believe the original article is absolutely right that the problem is politicians not understanding technology.

Was that less "creative" for you? As far as I can tell, my point is exactly the same, only it's harder to read because you have to wade through parts of the original quote that aren't relevant for my reply.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Sardaukar86]

I didn't call you a racist, that was a blatant and absurd false accusation on your part.

Well of course you didn't, I'm obviously not the GP and thus your statement makes no sense.

Following your logic, is this the time for me to say that you are making blatant and absurd false accusations that I'm making blatant and absurd false accusations?

What I said was that it was xenophobic to turn to China as a monster to say, this is equivalent to something awful: China.

Wrong. It is not xenophobic or racist at all to demonize a group of people maltreating their own. Jesus, do you think it's xenophobic to reference Tiananmen Square and say "That's fucking horrible! The Chinese government treated its people very badly! That's a horrible situation and I wouldn't want that to happen to me"? Well, guess what? that is the sort of thing people are thinking about when topics arise. It's obviously on people's minds or it wouldn't get mentioned.

Most people don't hate the Chinese, they hate the perceived injustices and governmental cruelty. I say 'perceived' because everyone has their own opinion on the Chinese situation. It doesn't make them racists to use China as a yardstick to measure their own country's behaviour, yet you're determined to see this as an attack on their culture or the people themselves.

People shouting, "zomg! China!" in response to SOPA, which has absolutely nothing to do with China (zero, zilch, nada) are just getting in the way of serious discussion about how stinky it is.

Yeah, they're shouting "zomg! We're gonna turn into China if shit like this gets passed!" which seems perfectly on-topic to me. It's exactly this sort of vile rubbish that over time will leave us with an oppressive government! If you really think this is a statement about anything other than the shitty way their government behaves and the mindless oppression they perpetuate then you're just looking for reason to be offended and my remark that you're a typical PC prick stands.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[ryanov]

I have legitimately never seen someone say "he's playing the race card" and have an actual argument... as if suggesting that anyone thinking that the issue might be racially charged were playing a card and not actually making an argument.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[ryanov]

He isn't obliged to explain it, but I'm not obliged to think he's not a moron if he refers to "the race card."

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[careysub]

> *clip of cute toddler jamming out to some pop music plays*

Is this so hard to understand: the music was NOT HERS TO USE.

Let's try this again: If YOU didn't create it, DON'T USE IT.

Easy to see why this is a Anonymous Coward posting - the poster is a corporate shill.

Believe it or not - creative works that are copyrighted and sold belong to the public also - not just the copyright holder. It is an explicit contract written into the U.S. Constitution in extending the privilege of copyright protection, paid for by the taxpayer, to the creator and whosoever the creator sells the copyright to during its limited period.

The creative work thus becomes part of the culture/society/civilization and is available to all, subject to the term of copyright. This was originally for reasonably short time 28 years at most, and there is also the principle of fair use -- even within the copyright period non-commercial uses of copyrighted material is permissible. If said mom isn't selling "Dancing Toddler" DVDs or downloads, she should have nothing to worry about.

The real problem here is that immortal corporations have been buying up all the copyrights they can lays hands on, then have broken the original contract with the public by having copyrights extended for an effective 130 years or so after the fact and are trying to deny the existence of fair use -- thus stealing cultural property from the public.

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Aighearach]

Jesus, do you think it's xenophobic to reference Tiananmen Square and say "That's fucking horrible! The Chinese government treated its people very badly! That's a horrible situation and I wouldn't want that to happen to me"?

I'm not sure how you're getting so far off the rails but... Tiananmen Square is in China. SOPA is not in China, or a Chinese proposal, nor would it cause my American flag to suddenly morph into a Chinese flag, or a magical communist firewall to materialize and start censoring slashdot. In fact, China is not involved in SOPA at all!

Re:Author Misidentifies Core Problems with SOPA

[Migraineman]

In the US, Law trumps Contract. If you look at Article 1, Section 8, and actually read the words the way they are written, you'll notice something specific.

Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Consider a slight modification to the original text:
"Congress shall have power ... To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries in exchange for the aforementioned works entering the public domain at the terminus of the exclusivity period. "

That second version is an actual contract - offer, acceptance of offer, and consideration. Doing so would have broken the "Law Trumps Contract" construct necessary for the legal system to work. The guys who authored the US Constitution were pretty smart. They didn't promote a contractual structure to be a peer of Law. The official wording makes no mention of an offer or consideration. It's just a statement - Congress may do "this." That statement is most certainly not-a-contract.

So while you may want to interpret it as a contract, which I believe was the implicit intent, it legally is not. That's unfortunate, because all of the retroactive copyright extension legislation would be in material breach of contract ... if there was a contract.

As for stealing our cultural heritage, yeah, they're doing that ... only it's not "stealing" because the law allows them to. Copyright legislation is busted, and without significant change, the situation will persist and worsen. However, I'm not sure how you fix it without elevating a contractual construct to that of Law.

Re:You could make this argument about all laws

[0123456]

Bingo. Politiicans know practically nothing about anything other than getting re-elected, which is why most Western nations are just about bankrupt right now.

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.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[CanHasDIY]

Heeey, that's dangerous talk, Citizen; someone might hear that and accuse you of ThoughtCrime.

No sweat, though, just head on down to your neighborhood re-education center and we'll scrub those subversive thoughts right out of your cranium!

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[Overly Critical Guy]

What's funny is that Slashdot and all the other tech blogs was pro-net neutrality all last year, and posters like me who criticized that kind of government intervention were downmodded into oblivion because it went against the opinion of the hivemind. Now with SOPA, people have seen just what it's like when politicians try to regulate the internet from Washington, and suddenly it's cool again to keep politicians away from technology! My head gets dizzy sometimes from the back and forth in trends.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[1zenerdiode]

Right now politicians make decisions based on money, not on logic and reasoning.

There. Fixed that for you. Otherwise, I generally agree with you.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[Alphathon]

Apples and Oranges. Net neutrality is about regulation of those that deliver the internet (i.e. ISPs) so as to prevent them from, for example, blocking or throttling sites/content from particular providers or that use particular protocols as it suits them. SOPA is about regulating what goes on ON the internet which is entirely separate. Net neutrality is about competition, while SOPA is about content control.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[hitmark]

Citizen? How archaic. It is consumer these days...

Now get back to consuming! *whip snap*

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[fyngyrz]

Slavery is like sex. It's perfectly fine if you've given informed consent, which, presumably, you would only do if you felt doing so was worth it. The very mention of it -- again just like sex -- terrifies the politically correct crowd, who specialize in reacting without thinking, but -- again like sex -- there's nothing wrong with the concept. It's all about implementation.

And always remember, the 14th amendment provides the government the authorized power to enslave you. Where do you think your license plates come from?

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[icebraining]

Consented slavery is an oxymoron. If it's consented, it's not slavery.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[fyngyrz]

If I present you with a contract that says I own you in every respect, and you consent in an informed manner, you are a slave. Believe me, it's 100% slavery, and has both the same worth and the same consequences for you.

Just as when someone who turns themselves in for a crime gets imprisoned; it's still imprisonment. Volunteering doesn't change the nature of the thing. It just reflects the degree of liberty you're allowed to exercise. Here, you cannot consent to such a thing; your liberty is more impaired by that than it is by the opportunity to simply say "I consent."

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[opinionbot]

The different ancient Greek states had quite different systems, but variants on the Athenian one were common:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

Membership of assemblies was either by lot (similar to jury duty now), or consisted of those who wanted to be there (sort of like a parish council I guess). Public offices were often allocated by lottery from a pool of people who nominated themselves. From the wikipedia article:

Selection by lottery was the standard means as it was regarded as the more democratic: elections would favour those who were rich, noble, eloquent and well-known, while allotment spread the work of administration throughout the whole citizen body, engaging them in the crucial democratic experience of, to use Aristotle's words, "ruling and being ruled in turn" (Politics 1317b28–30). The allotment of an individual was based on citizenship rather than merit or any form of personal popularity which could be bought. Allotment therefore was seen as a means to prevent the corrupt purchase of votes and it gave citizens a unique form of political equality as all had an equal chance of obtaining government office.

Whilst there are good things about this system, I'm not 100% sure it's preferable to the current system. At the time it was criticised for allowing the many to tyrannize the few (mainly the rich).

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[msobkow]

The Old Testament talks about slavery in those times, and it didn't have quite the same connotation it does in modern times. For thing, if I recall correctly, you were only allowed to keep a slave for seven years, not a lifetime.

The other thing is that voluntary slavery was used as a means of paying off debts. If the debtor didn't have the money to pay a debt, they would become slaves to whoever made the loan.

Some might say that working for a living is a form of voluntary slavery, if they were a hard core communist. I don't think that way, but I can understand the perspective.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[Carewolf]

Slavery is like sex. It's perfectly fine if you've given informed consent,

That is not slavery, it is servitude, and it is not perfectly fine in ANY way. Look it up. Servitude and slavery are closely related, but neither are good in any way.

There are reason contract laws today prohibit selling yourself for one time offers.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[icebraining]

The other thing is that voluntary slavery was used as a means of paying off debts. If the debtor didn't have the money to pay a debt, they would become slaves to whoever made the loan.

Well, that's only voluntary depending on the options he had. If the alternative was prison or death, it's hardly voluntary.

Some might say that working for a living is a form of voluntary slavery, if they were a hard core communist. I don't think that way, but I can understand the perspective.

I don't think a Communist has any problems with people working for a living; work is glorified in Communist theory. Their position is that a worker is a slave because they live to increase the wealth of the capitalist and the bourgeois.

But again, that's hardly voluntary.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[operagost]

And always remember, the 14th amendment provides the government the authorized power to enslave you.

How's that?

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[operagost]

No, that's voluntary servitude. A person can walk away from that "contract" at any time.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[fyngyrz]

Law trumps contracts.

Law doesn't trump the chains on your ankles and the cell you're in, though, unless you can GET to the law, and since you let the contract holder put you in there... well, there you go. Good luck with your legal distinctions -- too late now.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[fyngyrz]

Not if you're in chains and a cell, you can't.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[fyngyrz]

Not really too concerned what a book of superstitious nonsense has to say about it. If I was, I wouldn't eat crab, lol

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[fyngyrz]

How's that?

13th amendment, sorry. Actual typo there, I know the difference. Anyway:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So, you spit on the sidewalk. or pee on a bush, or drive 26 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, etc., they convict you of same, and bingo, the 13th amendment exception applies to you.

Re:Rephrase: Politicians should never make laws

[careysub]

Not if you're in chains and a cell, you can't.

And thus your claim about "voluntary slavery" collapses from the blow you yourself delivered.

OTA

[jfb2252]

Killed by Newt Gingrich in 1995.

Re:OTA

[plover]

Of course it was killed. It was non-partisan. Anything that reduced separation of the parties got in the way of their real message, which is "elect me, I'm different from them." And in this case, it was a non-partisan board that happened to arrive at recommendations based on reality, rather than politics, which are often at opposing ends of the spectrum.

In today's contentious environment, if you're not with us (meaning if you're not contributing to our campaign), you're an ENEMY OF THE STATE AND MUST BE KILLED. That leaves no room for rational thought.

Structure.

[headkase]

The sad fact is that it doesn't matter if there's a resource for politicians to get sound information from to make decisions. With the structure of today's congress/senate what you need are actually lobbyists - lot's of them and bribes, err, campaign donations too!

Look at what happened to Microsoft: they didn't lobby enough and found themselves on the wrong-end of an antitrust suit. Now they lobby enough that that's not a problem anymore.

You're right...

[afabbro]

Politicians should never make laws about technology. Which is why machine guns should be free for everyone to own.

Re:You're right...

[trout007]

If you have half a brain you can take a look at any semi-automatic rifle and figure out how to make it fully auto.

Now I still haven't had a chance to see how they make the M4 have a 3 round burst.

What I'd like to know...

[mark-t]

Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?

It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement? Will free software start to also suffer a similar fate?

Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?

Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in supporting widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it arguably easier to bypass such censorship?

Re:Why no IT union?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions are organizations whose primary purpose is to protect the jobs of individuals who could be either easily replaced or marginalized. Most IT folk either operate under the idea that are uniquely skilled, their replacement would be cost prohibitive, or that the job for which they are working is temporary. In all of those cases, there is no reason to organize towards job security. What does help and provides a voice toward information technology workers, are political advocacy groups, such as the Electronics Frontier Foundation.

IMO: more corruption than ignorance

[walterbyrd]

Politicians are basically owned by the big money corporations that put the politicians in office. The politicos don't know about tech, and don't care either. The lobbyists write the bills, and the give the bills to the politicians to pass - along with a big campaign contribution, of course.

Do you actually think SOPA started in congress? Some congressmen, all of the sudden, thought it was important to save the content providers?

All the stuff about "politicians don't understand tech well enough to make laws about it" is just silly. Congress doesn't even read the bills it passes, and congress certainly does not write the bills.

All JMHO, of course.

Xenophobia? Are You Insane?

[eldavojohn]

I disagree, it creates a conflict of rights and a loophole allowing people to commit harm to others. That is foolish and irresponsible, but it is not the end of the world or the end of slashdot or the end of free speech.

When did I say it was the end of the world, the end of Slashdot or the end of free speech? And, yes, it could affect my Slashdot posting as I might inform you that I have parodied Dr. Suess and movies and songs in my posts. Should a rights holder decide that those are too close to their original material or even just decide that I probably couldn't defend their lawsuit, they could sue me instead of issuing a DMCA and demanding it be taken down.

If it is abused, then the conflict of rights will have to be resolved in the courtroom.

Well, unfortunately, those with the most money often win in the courtroom and which side do you think is going to predominantly be the big dog? The conglomeration of all record labels known as the RIAA? Or the single mother?

No matter how badly the courts stumble over it, it won't end up with some doomsday "zomg we're China" xenophobic nonsense.

Wow, if you think my criticism of an oppressive tool such as the Great Firewall of China is xenophobic then you truly are ignorant. Don't you get it, I want to help the Chinese people enjoy the freedom to say and read whatever the hell they want! I want the Chinese people to enjoy the freedoms I enjoy like being able to say "Fuck the United States Government and that wasteful war in Iraq" while being a citizen and not worry that there is a death van awaiting me on my return to my home tonight. That's not xenophobia, you idiot! It's a desire for freedom! I suffer from oppressive-government-phobia!

How can I use SOPA to wreak havoc?

[pclminion]

There's a quote by a politician (perhaps a US President) which I can't find exactly, but I can paraphrase it: The best way to expose and destroy an unjust law is by rigorously enforcing it. If anyone knows the exact quote please tell me.

I've always been of the same view. If SOPA passes (I pray it does not), what can I, as an individual, do with it to cause chaos? Could I force Amazon to remove all of my product reviews? Mess with eBay seller feedback? Post copyrighted material in comments on Whitehouse.gov and get the site shut down?

Re:How can I use SOPA to wreak havoc?

[FSWKU]

There's a quote by a politician (perhaps a US President) which I can't find exactly, but I can paraphrase it: The best way to expose and destroy an unjust law is by rigorously enforcing it. If anyone knows the exact quote please tell me.

I've always been of the same view. If SOPA passes (I pray it does not), what can I, as an individual, do with it to cause chaos? Could I force Amazon to remove all of my product reviews? Mess with eBay seller feedback? Post copyrighted material in comments on Whitehouse.gov and get the site shut down?

That's a nice thought, and fine in theory. However, it won't work that way in practice. You see, should SOPA become law, it will be enforced on the little guy when some corporation needs to shake someone down for cash or silence criticism. The politicians who actually vote for it will likely be exempt. Sure, you COULD try to call out a supporter when you see them committing willful infringement, but since they voted FOR the measure, everyone will look the other way. Can't have the lobbyists biting the hand that fed them exactly what they wanted, can we?

Re:How can I use SOPA to wreak havoc?

[pclminion]

I wasn't talking about using SOPA against pro-SOPA companies. I'm talking about using it against individuals and innocuous websites to cause general chaos. If the law allows it, why not? That's the whole point -- expose the bad law by inflicting terrible consequences upon innocent people.

Technology is a synonym for MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians will continue to make laws about technology because `technology` is a synonym for `money` (in one context or another), and there are a whole lot of corporate interests that are concerned with it. Content, delivery (via network or by spectrum), technical labor ... all of these things drive cost/profit one way or another, so expect to see this trend continue.

Never heard of this group before....

[Tanuki64]

Office of Technology Assessment.

..but since I am not American, this is not really a failure on my part. But I am just wondering... where they somehow involved in the betamax case in 1984? Sensible ruling. Enough reason to get 'disbanded' in 1995.

Re:Never heard of this group before....

[Dyinobal]

Ya if we made it again politicians and lobbiests would just stuff it with their buddies and use it as a means to pass what ever laws they wanted.

Please no committee - and I call BS on quote

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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.

Only bad could come from its reinstatement:
1) "Buy IBM and Microsoft and contract with (insert major defense contractor) and (well-connected Indian body shop) for services - that's all you need to worry about."
2) Usual government bureaucracy means we'll get specs for good technology ten years after consumers have moved on

Very few politicians get technology. Many actually seem proud that they don't use the Internet or even email

I call BS. 1999 wants its quote back. Everyone in Congress and almost every politician with any pull has a smart phone and those use...the Internet and email.

Re:Please no committee - and I call BS on quote

[geekoid]

Bullshit.
There have been many. many examples of non partisan government agency being of great value.

Yes, it should be reinstated.

That's not what the agency does. Do you now how blindingly stupid and ignorant you sound?

Re:Please no committee - and I call BS on quote

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Do you now how blindingly stupid and ignorant you sound?

Is this your first day? I understand "Blindingly stupid and ignorant" was the second-choice slogan to "News for nerds, stuff that matters."

Re:Please no committee - and I call BS on quote

[Sardaukar86]

Do you now how blindingly stupid and ignorant you sound?

Is this your first day? I understand "Blindingly stupid and ignorant" was the second-choice slogan to "News for nerds, stuff that matters."

Just a sad case of the pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid.

Geekoid is more than intelligent enough to know better but too damn lazy to act better. He reminds me of those pricks that jump through all sorts of hoops to justify their failure to indicate when driving. Because it's all just too much effort to flick that little plastic stalk..

Broaden your thinking

[Tokolosh]

The preceding discussion is based on the term "technology" being used in a very narrow sense. However, the argument still applies when the term is used broadly, and hence to probably 80% of modern life. How many politicians (and lumpen proles) understand enough to make informed decisions about stem cells, oil pipelines, radio spectrum allocation, chemicals, water treatment and distribution, combustion, electrical networks, etc., etc. But yet laws and regulations are passed every day.

The politicians can learn from the medical profession - "First, do no harm." Of course, that rules out about everything.

OF course the should

[geekoid]

The issue is they aren't informed.

conversely

[nomadic]

Technology experts are frequently completely clueless about the law.

Re:conversely

[nomadic]

That leaving technology lawmaking to them will bring its own set of problems.

Re:conversely

[Alsee]

Technology experts are frequently completely clueless about the law.

I'd wager that tech experts on average know more about law than legislators know about tech. However that's not the real issue.

The real issue is that if a tech expert is responsible for some decision and needs to know about the law to figure it out properly, the tech expert is vastly more likely to actually look up the information he needs to know, and he is significantly more likely to actually understand the new information.

And for the record, I am a tech geek who has read the entire United States Code Title 17 Copyright Law, in addition to studying many of the key court rulings in the area.

When I post here, in front of a techie audience, one of four things typically happens. (1) Quite often another knowedgable geek posts nitpicking over some detail of law that I glossed over or simplified. (2) Techies recognize and respect knowledge and expertise. (3) They read any law links I provided to confirm/learn for themselves that my information was correct. Or (4) they ask me to back up a linkless part of my post, I provide a link, and we move back to case (3).

Legislators rarely exhibit that sort of respect for tech expertise, nor do they often make a personal effort to investigate and understand tech things for themselves.

About the closest the SOPA congressional hearing came to knowing, respecting, or studying the tech side was when when one of the SOPA supporters tweeted "We are debating the Stop Online Piracy Act and Shiela Jackson has so bored me that I'm killing time by surfing the Internet".

-

The real problem is stupid voters...

[rs1n]

Instead of electing educated scientists and engineers (see China) to office, we instead elect people whose qualifications are in social sciences. That is, the politicians we often end up choosing are mostly good at manipulating people with their rhetoric (and the masses fall for it); but they are pretty stupid when it comes to technical details. Furthermore, your average Joe is intimidated by the nerds (hence the term "nerd"). We often say "Oh I suck at math" when that term is brought up, and that is too often the typical response by the average American. We're too proud of being stupid, and then we elect stupid politicians to office to run our country.

Re:The real problem is stupid voters...

[hedpe2003]

That's because, it seems, that everytime there is an actual scientist or engineer that can bare to run for office... he makes an ass of himself.

Re:Like in Texas.

[interval1066]

Like in Texas.

The only state where gun ownership such as you're obviously refferring to that is effective is Arizona. In every other state it appears to be a criminal offense to simply talk about gun ownership, the consequences being that only criminals have guns, and Texas is a consequence of those views. Only in Arizona are people allowed to carry without QUITE AS MANY restrictions as in all the other states.

Let's generalize:

[fyngyrz]

"Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws"

Because history shows they consistently do it WRONG.

Re:Let's generalize:

[wiedzmin]

So, would you care to do it right then? Just playing devil's advocate here...

Re:Let's generalize:

[icebraining]

False dichotomy, you left out another option: nobody making laws.

Not that I believe this would work better.

Re:Let's generalize:

[wiedzmin]

I don't think this is possible in human society. Even anarchists have laws.

Re:Let's generalize:

[icebraining]

I didn't say having no laws, I said making no laws. We already have plenty of laws, so if from now on nobody made them.

Re:Let's generalize:

[wiedzmin]

Very controversial notion, granted, but again it wouldn't work - with new technologies, laws need to change to accommodate them, or you will end-up having to apply telegraph-era laws to quantum computing (or in a more recent scenario - export laws to cloud computing)... The problem is not with creating laws in itself, it's with not having qualified subject-matter experts involved in creating said laws. Goes for granting patents as well, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Let's generalize:

[grainofsand]

Unless of course they were the "founding fathers" who never did any wrong. I remain amazed by how often the anachronistic laws set by a group of largely uneducated men over 200 years ago are defended as being untouchable.
     

Re:Let's generalize:

[xmundt]

Unless of course they were the "founding fathers" who never did any wrong. I remain amazed by how often the anachronistic laws set by a group of largely uneducated men over 200 years ago are defended as being untouchable.

   

Greetings and Salutations...
          Hum, I take it you mean the Constitution of the U.S.? If so...exactly what clauses from this would you erase? And...more importantly, how would you justify your decision?
            To put it simply enough that it is clear (I hope)...the Constitution is vital to the structure of the country and its government because it clearly defines and limits the powers of the Federal Government has over its citizens. If you think today's losses of freedom are bad, you should consider what it would be like without the Constitution and its defenders to at least TRY to keep it in check.
          If, though, you mean something else, then, please, enlighten me about these laws, and, again, both why they are bad and why you would eliminate them.
          as for the educational level of the founding fathers of the country....I suspect that, in a general sense, their level of education would be the equal to, or possibly superior to, the state of education in America today. They might not have known about computers and software and such, but I would not be surprised to find that many of them were flexible enough of mind that they could pick it up quickly.
          pleasant dreams
            dave mundt

Re:Let's generalize:

[walterbyrd]

Yeah screw those founding fathers with their freedom of expression nonsense. We will much better off when the major corporations dictate what we can, and cannot, say.

Re:Let's generalize:

[operagost]

The founding fathers realized they may have made mistakes... that's why the Constitution has a process for amending itself. But progressives do not like using this process. Therefore, they instead set up straw men ("Constitutionalists think it is untouchable") or ad hominems ("the founders held slaves", "the founders didn't allow women to vote") to convince people to allow them to surreptitiously mold the government through unconstitutional legislation and "legislation from the bench".

Re:Let's generalize:

[mcgrew]

I remain amazed by how often the anachronistic laws set by a group of largely uneducated men over 200 years ago...

You mean like Thomas Jefferson?

At age 16, Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, and first met the law professor George Wythe, who became his influential mentor. For two years he studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small, who introduced the enthusiastic Jefferson to the writings of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton.[7] He also improved his French, Greek, and violin. A diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields[8] and graduated in 1762 with highest honors. Jefferson read law while working as a law clerk for Wythe. During this time, he also read a wide variety of English classics and political works. Jefferson was admitted to the Virginia bar five years later in 1767.[9]

Throughout his life, books played a vital role in Jefferson's education. Even during the American Revolution and while minister to France, Jefferson collected and accumulated thousands of books for his library at Monticello. A significant portion of Jefferson's library was also bequeathed to him in the will of George Wythe who himself had an extensive library. Always eager for more knowledge, Jefferson's education would continue throughout most of his life. Jefferson once stated, "I cannot live without books."[10]

Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independance. I hope I've left you less largely uneducated ;)

Re:Let's generalize:

[seantide]

If there is a prize for most idiotic posting, you just won.

No one every said they never did any wrong. Jefferson frequently violated his own stated principles and admitted to it and commented on it.

What part of the laws they created are anachronistic? Most of them are more modern and progressive than any of the ancient bullshit modern liberal and corporations are trying to impose on us. The whole point of how they framed the Constitution was to make it as ageless as possible, by stating basic principles and limitations on government to guide us in the future. Its not their fault we strayed so far from it.

As far as education goes, most of them were better educated than the world population today, in addition to being largely self-made, self-sufficient, brave, honorable, etc. If you actually read *ALL* of the founding documents of the USA, and the materials the Founders referenced, you'll find its way beyond the education level of most people today, our politicians included.

Re:Let's generalize:

[Alamais]

Seriously? Read The Federalist--some incredibly intelligent, thoughtful individuals shaped The Constitution. They did as much as they could to limit the powers of the Federal government, and really, they did a pretty good job--it's taken over 200 years for apathy, ignorance, power, and money to degrade things to their current state, and I think there's still some hope that things will turn around.

Or you can elect Ron Paul

[Sean]

The whole point of SOPA is to control you. Your current government just can't allow you to continue engaging in free speech. Enough of you might find out what your overlords are up to and vote them all out.

Sure, Ron Paul is against the idea of "net neutrality". That means big corporations can screw around with your traffic. But remember, if evil ISPs mess with user traffic it only opens them up to fierce competition in the most profitable markets: High density urban areas.

Or you can continue to support, either actively or by your own apathy, the existing establishment who will in time make your internet resemble the Chinese version.

Re:Or you can elect Ron Paul

[trout007]

I just got a ad today from a Satellite internet company. Also now 4G is pretty fast.

Well what is a contract? It's an agreement between consenting people. Why should law trump that?

Re:Or you can elect Ron Paul

[dkf]

Well what is a contract? It's an agreement between consenting people. Why should law trump that?

Because some people are deceived or coerced into agreement, rather than truly agreeing in full knowledge of the consequences of that agreement. Moreover, two people agreeing to do evil to a third does not make it right or legal; laws trump contracts precisely to stop a whole range of truly nasty abuses. (If only there were fewer bad laws, but that's separate from the nature of contracts.)

Re:You could make this argument about all laws

[Curunir_wolf]

Bingo. Politiicans know practically nothing about anything other than getting re-elected, which is why most Western nations are just about bankrupt right now.

Once you understand that then politicians become very easy to train. They respond as reliably as Pavlov's dogs to the right positive and negative reinforcement. You can do it with money, or you can do it with grassroots. Grassroots is more work, and there has been far to much complacency by the constituent population of late, which is why money is winning so often. But it doesn't have to be like that. Very small amounts of money and an informed, involved, and organized group can actually do it better.

Groups like Demand Progress, Campaign for Liberty, Fight for the Future, EFF Activism, and many other groups (even the 9/12 Project is mobilizing on this) understand that dynamic. They know how to apply pressure, and most of them also know how to follow up during election time to back up their promises.

And that's why things like the DISCLOSE act (and other efforts sold as "campaign finance") are so popular in Congress but despised by grassroots activists. They don't really take money out of politics, they serve to enhance the role of money and make things really difficult for small issue-advocacy groups. Especially when it comes time to remind voters of all the bad things the incumbents voted for while in office.

Because people are waking up to the issues in Washington, more and more people are finally starting to get involved. The politicians don't like that, because it can cause bad press (negative reinforcement), challenges during elections (negative reinforcement), and other bad consequences.

Don't blame politicians for behaving that way - they don't have souls.

Re:Like in Texas.

[gmhowell]

Like in Texas.

The only state where gun ownership such as you're obviously refferring to that is effective is Arizona. In every other state it appears to be a criminal offense to simply talk about gun ownership, the consequences being that only criminals have guns, and Texas is a consequence of those views. Only in Arizona are people allowed to carry without QUITE AS MANY restrictions as in all the other states.

I believe New Hampshire is the least strict in the nation regarding gun ownership.

not new

[Sperbels]

Politicians Ignore Constituency...news at 11.

yeah...right

[FudRucker]

I bet they all use the internet, and they do a lot trolling forums and message boards anonymously trolling pro statist and pro big government points of views

You're making this too easy Slashdot

[nickdc]

I didn't need to RTFA or RTFS. Just RTFT and you can agree, it's a no brainer...

Re:You're right... they should

[lister king of smeg]

I'm good with that.

half right

[circletimessquare]

"As long as politicians are chosen by a popularity contest instead of an assessment of their skills, experience, and knowledge..."

wait... who is making that assessment? all you have introduced is another corruptible source of power. "We have found politician XYZ to be without skills because we got $15M in our bank accounts to say so." i know what you are talking about in theory, but in practice, you are just introducing another point of failure and corruption in the power structure. there is only one valid source of power: the people. so only they should determine who rules them via, i'm sorry, a popularity contest. not because they always vote with the best intelligence and interests. but because any other source of arbiting power is worse

"Instead, they should be responsible for collecting evidence from the public, industry, and others concerned about the legislation they propose..."

and this is exactly right. they don't know everything. but they know how to assemble bright minds to help them decide. unfortunately, the concept of bright minds helping them decide is being replaced by pay-to-play in our democracy-rapidly-becoming-plutocracy

Re:half right

[yuhong]

This is why I suggested this:
"Actually, randomly selecting people from a state or province, similar to a lottery draw, may be a better idea. The key is to make sure it is a large variety of people."

Re:half right

[msobkow]

Worse, there's a tendency in government on both sides of the border to IGNORE the advice of any critics and proceed with a goose-step down the dogmatic path the politician's vision has laid before them. It's been a long time since rational thought and evidence-based decision making had anything to do with government.

Roughly a decade, in Canada's case.

I'm talking about politicians making their education and experience a core part of their platform to prove to the people that they have the skills and qualifications to do the job. It would still be up to the people to learn about who they're voting for, but at least the focus might shift to a skills based assessment instead of an "I like his dogma" decision.

Re:half right

[Lexx Greatrex]

"Actually, randomly selecting people from a state or province, similar to a lottery draw, may be a better idea. The key is to make sure it is a large variety of people."

An idea even more radical is to place term limits on the Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court. It will require a change to the Constitution, but the mood for such a change is reflected in the dismal 11% approval rating of Congress. Use your vote to favor a government that does not have at is heart a stagnating core of dinosaurs who every year fall increasingly out of touch with "the people" and further into lock step with the status quo.

Re:Why no IT union?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK has a Communication Workers Union.

So does the USA. There are several others.

The problem is not the lack of unions. The problem is the media machine that gets people to believe a union is evil, and that the work isn't important, but instead that the workers are lazy leeches.

I'm sure some are. But so are politicians and CEOs.

Go figure.

CORE PROBLEM?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

CAPTURED BY INDUSTRY.

Reinstating OTA won't solve the problem, when the office will be populated by revolving-door industry flacks, just as regulatory agencies are, today.

But isn't this true for everything politics?

[derfla8]

Isn't this true for most decisions and legislations passed by politicians nowadays? What do politicians know about the environment? Did they study environmental science? What do they know about health? Were they trained in health care? What do they know about education? Were they study and practice as educators? I think you get the hint. Sure they could employ and rely upon experts in the field, but in reality what do they do? Sell their votes to the highest bidder....oh I mean lobbyist.

Funny how people freak out about China and communism, but if you think about it...democracy in it's current form doesn't really work. Does your elected official know your name? Know what you need? Hmm..then how do they "represent" you?

Re:You could make this argument about all laws

[Lexx Greatrex]

Because people are waking up to the issues in Washington, more and more people are finally starting to get involved. The politicians don't like that, because it can cause bad press (negative reinforcement), challenges during elections (negative reinforcement), and other bad consequences.

Don't blame politicians for behaving that way - they don't have souls.

I think you have struck on key issue... Politicians don't like the idea of a free Internet, they just don't fully understand why right now. The answer is pretty simple, people engaging with each other via social media leads to a population less tolerant of soundbytes and rhetoric. As society becomes more involved in the issues, it demands greater accountability. An activist is born when a personal connection is made to an issue. I for one view SOPA and PIPA as a personal affront to my liberty and will not be satisfied by a hearty speech or weasel words of justification or apology. I want Congress to reject the notion that the US Government has the authority to eliminate free speech anywhere in the world without due process. Especially given that the approval rating for Congress is hovering around 11%, meaning they do not have a mandate to act "for the people" in any case. It remains to be seen if the President is going to act responsibly and veto these bills or kowtow to Congress like he did with by signing in the NDAA -- another liberty smasher that he passed into law while the world was celebrating New Year's eve. The TV channels may not be interested, but politicians can't escape the scrutiny of an entire population via the Internet... at least until they make social media nonviable by enacting something like SOPA, of course.

Re:You could make this argument about all laws

[yuhong]

I once proposed this idea: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3161455

What politicians actually made this law?

[Bryan Bytehead]

Somebody (RIAA, MPAA, or other *AA) PAID somebody to introduce this bill, a bill that the entertainment industry had already written for them, and then proceeded to pass out checks to the rest of the congresscritters to get it passed. It's all about the money in this case.

If the congresscritters had any kind of actual understanding about what this bill does (we can argue that they should, but I very much doubt that most of them actually do understand any bill that they are voting on in any kind of detail to actually make a rational decision, but it's not going to change the fact that these idiots will remain idiots in the near future, and probably in the long term future as well...), they would be up in arms about it. All it will take is a takedown notice on somebody's reelection site (you know that somebody's going to screw up and put non-cleared copyright material on their site at some point) and the idiots will find out how well and screwed they (and the rest of us citizens) are over this stupid law.

Re:What politicians actually made this law?

[dsgrntlxmply]

Even if the lobbyist associations did not directly pay anyone off to get the bill introduced, it is very likely that they wrote most of the language.

Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment to require that the authorship of each section of a bill, be clearly and accurately identified.

I've Been Saying This for YEARS

[Compulawyer]

See my sig. Of course, no one ever listens to me.

Re:Why no IT union?

[trout007]

I would suggest a guild similar to the original free masons. One of the reasons the masons could be free is because their services were in high demand. If you were a king or despot and treated your masons poorly you could count on never getting anything built again.

Re:pretty sure congress is supposed to make laws

[trout007]

Why is there such a thing as prescription drugs anyway? It was laws that doctors got passed to give themselves a cartel. You can't get the medicine you need unless you pay tribute to a doctor. Nice scam.

any book on totalitarian states

[decora]

will have a paragraph or two about the amoral technocrats who enabled it.

then some authors, like goth and aly, or black, write entire books about technocracy.

Politicians are not people they're a process.

[Karmashock]

A better way to think of politicians is not as people but a process. They're a system. A committee of blind people that gets all their information from thousands of little braille cards that are handed to them. These cards indicate polling information, funding, demographic surveys, etc. What they're actually talking about from one second to the other rarely matters. What matters is whether voting one way or the other will improve their chances of getting reelected.

If you want to talk to politicians... don't try to explain. That's like showing the blind people a picture. They don't listen on anything. Why should they make regulation on the finance industry when they don't understand that either? Why should they make regulation on medicine when they don't understand that? Why should they make legislation on war when they don't understand that?

They don't understand anything. They're not even good at law and most of them have passed the bar. That's now how they work.

Just send them little braille cards that make it clear they'll suffer in the polls if they do that and they'll stumble blindly in the opposite direction.

Doesn't address the problem

[nilbog]

The problem with congress is not that they lack good information or sources for good information. If we reinstate the office of technological assessment, it will simply add to the voices of industry people who are already there. However, the real problem (the money), will still be there, and the senators will still vote whichever way the company who makes generous donations to their campaign dictates.

Re:pretty sure congress is supposed to make laws

[azalin]

I seriously hope this is trolling. Do you honestly believe everyone should have full access to all drugs in all combinations? Worse than giving everybody root access to the one and only server your company depends on and not keeping backups or handing out knifes and loaded hand guns to toddlers.
We are not talking about harmless stuff with minor consequences here, prescription drugs are often very dangerous if used in the wrong way or combinations. Do you honestly believe you and Joe Sixpack understand enough about ALL the drugs available to make an informed decision? I doubt that.

But this is what the US IS.

[WOOFYGOOFY]

And this is different from deny global warming how exactly?

You have a populace and politicians in the US who cannot understand the technical, highly interconnected world they live in.

Instead they fill that gap with Christian Evangelism, isolationism and a belief in the free market magic bunny .

This is what the US is. The same heads in the sand types kept the US out of WWII until it was almost too late. They don't know and they don't want to know . Trust me I live by these people.

They've gotten away with it for this long, but i'ts catching up to them and they will not be able to change in time. Reality in the form things like the climate and technological advances has it's own timetable and it really could give a shit about your domestic politics. Accept and adapt or die. How do you like that for social Darwinism?

Oh that's right, you don't believe in Darwin.

Did I read online that software developers are electing to forgo the American apps market for far of being sued under the regressive software patent regime instituted at the behest of and for the benefit lawyers and large IT companies who fear real competition from small startups?

I knew I did:

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-app-developers-withdraw-from-us-as-patent-fears-reach-tipping-point/

Re:Why no IT union?

[ryanov]

I am a member of a union that represents IT workers. It is not that easy to get people involved, actually. I think a lot of it's culture and the fact that many are young and there's not much taught about unions anymore (and plenty bad "taught" by ignoramuses).

Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws

[roman_mir]

Why Politicians Should Never Make Laws

- Fixed that for you.

Politicians *are* informed about technology.

[master_p]

They do not just admit it. It is easier for them to say "I ignore technology" in order to justify their anti-technology laws.

I suggested this to my representatives

[ubrgeek]

I even volunteered to assist in explaining technological things. They were good enough to send me a nice form letter thanking me for contacting them. Of course, they also didn't like my suggestion that they be forced to wear NASCAR-like suits that have patches for all of their "sponsors." Go figure ...

What motivates politicians?

[tchdab1]

In the USA, politicians are constantly seeking funding for the next campaign. Their actions and the legislation they sponsor and support are largely driven by people, corporations, and organization with deep pockets that contribute to their campaign funds. Of course that is moderated by what their voting base will tolerate. The pols will vote in congress as they are paid to vote.

This goes for SOPA too.

If you want politicians to instead vote for the public good, you will have to work to eliminate private campaign financing as a major motivator. I am not saying this casually.

Re:pretty sure congress is supposed to make laws

[GofG]

The useful part of this idea (making all drugs OTC) is that the consequences are negative enough for natural selection to take effect.

That is, people who go to their drug store and buy $100 worth of methylenedioxypyrovalene are going to *die* and will not reproduce.

So, unlike most other 'remove-the-warning-labels' arguments which will simply inconvenience everyone because there are no REAL negative consequences in today's society, people will become more intelligent.

Assuming the trait 'researches drugs before taking them' has a 10% advantage over the control 'does not research drugs before taking them' trait, it will only take around 380 generations before all humans research their drugs. And because this advantage would be hardcoded into our genetic material as opposed to relying on the memory of society, it would be a true improvement.

380 generations is only like 7600 years! We should get started.

Re: The OTA...

[rnturn]

Politicians with an axe to grind -- or a bribe in their pocket -- would ignore the OTA just as they now routinely ignore (or decry as being partisan) the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) when its findings are in conflict with their agenda and/or whenever it makes for good theatre in a press conference.

Just ignore the problem

[coldsalmon]

Politicians are even more ignorant about banking, so we better not regulate that either!

Politicians...

[thejynxed]

Get the lawyers out of Congress and you'll stop getting stupid laws that only benefit lawyers.

Over 90% of the members of both Congressional Houses are lawyers by profession, and you wonder why stupid things like SOPA even get proposed. These stupid bills are nothing but cash grabs for their profession.

Stop voting for them. There's a few smattering of other professions, like Ron Paul being a doctor, but he's in the minority.

Another issue is that they keep putting unqualified yahoos on these committees. Is it dealing with the FDA or committees dealing Pharma regulations? They should put a few doctors on that committee. Why the hell are they stuffed full of lawyers and not a single member of Congress from the business or medical profession is on those committees?

It's Their Job...Get Over It

[dcw3]

By the same reasoning, politicians shouldn't create legislation for the military, healthcare, agriculture, or banking. Should we also disallow judges from working cases outside of their expertise? While it's not a perfect scenario, these people don't work in a vacuum. They have advisers, who draft the bills for them...I doubt any bill in recent history was actually written by one of our congressmen. You can view nearly every politician as a small team because they always come with a group of people, and they should be judged by who they surround themselves with. And for those who claim to be non-judgmental, this is an exception that you need to make to that rule when you vote.