foreign legislation does in fact compel action in US
They do it for their own convenience. The EU law has real penalties and real enforcement behind it, so they cannot flout it like they can with so many American regulations.
They should be compelled by comparable privacy protections in the US, either by law or by FCC regulation. How is this country no longer a leader in protecting its citizens' rights?
We're protected from corporate abuse by fear of European laws rather than our own laws. Pathetic.
And people will take advantage of companies all the time. It's how the world works.
Companies can set return/exchange and warranty policies as they see fit to avoid abuse. Customers have little say in the matter. They could vote with their wallets, except most companies have settled rather closely around a status quo that isn't really great for consumers.
Maybe once in a while a jackass will return a box of rocks to Best Buy instead of a stereo receiver. But the company will quickly write a policy that forces all customers to wait while customer service reps inspect all returns. The companies have the power to stop abuse.
One man cannot fix an abusive company unless the law is on his side. Consumers can only stop bad companies through collective action of some sort---boycotts, class action suits, regulation, etc. There is a huge imbalance of power, and pretending that it somehow balances out because "people do it too" is hopelessly naive.
Is this another successful treatment with CAR-T, similar to previous work? Or is it something completely new?
Research doctors have been using the immune system to fight cancer for 5-10 years now. It would be nice to know if this in an adaptation of existing techniques or something truly innovative.
The article indicates "we are on the ‘cusp of a major revolution’ in being able to target cancer with immunotherapy", but there is nothing that puts this particular treatment in context.
This is the age of digital communication. It's time to update the communications protocols; if our solution is political rather than technical (e.g., we rely on reactionary regulatory agencies or Congressional "inquiries"), then we're fucked by definition. We can do better.
Upgrading the PTSN switches to support authentication or CAPTCHAs will be very expensive.
And you pretty much have to do them all, otherwise callers from a switch without authentication support won't be able to reach people on the new hardware.
So you're faced with a classic externality. The phone companies are the only ones who can fix the problem, but they aren't really being affected by it. They see no reason to spend the money. Traditionally, these issues have been addressed by regulation.
This is why America needs a functional federal government without partisan identity politics. Stop the constant screaming about liberals or privilege (whichever side you're on), and only support politicians who will work across the aisle to fix problems that affect everyone.
The fundamentally insecure and broken POTS/cellular infrastructure is one of those things. It shouldn't matter whether you're a D or R---the protocols are so outdated that there is no justification for using them anymore except rampant greed.
Facebook is not content with spying on your behavior on their web site, your mobile device, and "partner" web sites. Now they want your lifetime purchase history---in full or in part, whatever they can get.
Hell no.
This is pretty ballsy, especially after the way they flailed around publicly in response to the Cambridge Analytica fiasco.
I love when partisans (regardless of affiliation) display poor comprehension of the facts and their consequences.
Wasserman Shultz interfered with the democratic primary and GAVE IT TO CLINTON without giving Sanders any possible consideration.
That's an internal party matter; there is no applicable criminal law.
If you experience and don't like it, you can demand new leadership or leave the party. Or push for a law, if you really think it's necessary.
Personally, I think that a party should be free to mismanage itself out of office.
How did classified State department email end up on the PERSONAL LAPTOP of the pervert husband of Clintons top advisor that got swept under the rug?
"The report prompted a criminal investigation and Weiner's laptop was seized. Emails that were pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email controversy were discovered on the laptop..."
The article says "pertinent" not "classified". Your claim is not supported by the report.
LOL there's you're PROOF that the 2016 elections were interfered with BY DEMOCRATS and the FBI
1. The Democrats were free to shoot themselves in the foot.
2. Comey did his job by concluding the investigation after reviewing the original evidence.
3. Comey did his job right by reopening the investigation when the FBI discovered there could be more evidence on Weiner's device. (And closing it again when they found the emails were duplicates of what was already on the server.)
If Comey's actions had any effect on the election, that's too bad. He did his job properly.
Two spaces after a period was standard for printed text when fixed-width text was common. E.g., typewriters and older presses.
One space after a period became common once electronics entered the picture. Between proportionate width and kerning, you could make text eminently readable without resorting to "hacks" like an extra space to emphasize the end of a sentence. If anything, kerning is more relevant here---but it's essentially standard with proportionate fonts anyway.
This study should have compared twice-spaced Courier with once-spaced Times New Roman, if the comparison was to be made on a historical basis.
Or better yet, test Times New Roman twice-spaced vs once-spaced, so the comparison is made with modern fonts (the vast majority of which are proportionate).
Half of the gig economy is companies trying to cheap out on traditional worker benefits. Uber is one of them, and they can suck it up.
A worker-centric gig economy isn't managed by the platform: the workers should decide whether/how they deliver the goods or services, have some meaningful control over prices/profits, and be able to accrue a meaningful reputation.
If the gig platform forces its workers to behave 90% like employees, then yeah, round that number up and call them employees.
Why shouldn't Microsoft pursue him to the limits of the law? Sending him to prison sends a message: you pay Microsoft their licensing fees and adhere to the licensing terms, or you go to jail.
Copyright controls the right to make copies, so the lack of permission is the problem.
Most FOSS projects give everyone permission to download and distribute their code/binaries, but proprietary shops don't. And there's no rule that forces them to grant permission just because the product is free or no longer available for sale. (Maybe there should be, but that's not how it works right now.)
E.g., Disney routinely cycles through their movie catalog, so some titles are out of print for years at a time. If you want a copy when they're not selling it, that's too bad. You can wait or buy a used copy, but you cannot make a new copy.
The 'damaged' party should be in the position of suing/not suing and the government shouldn't be doing criminal case for something like this.
You are fundamentally wrong here. Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, so look into it yourself if you feel I'm mistaken.
Only the government can prosecute crimes. Damaged party suing = civil case. Government prosecution = criminal case. Maybe Microsoft could have just sued the guy in civil court, but he did violate criminal law so it is not just a civil issue.
Microsoft's civil case will be easier if the government prosecutes first. They no longer need to establish the fact that he violated their copyright---they can point to the guilty verdict. Now they only need to argue what is reasonable compensation for their damages. I've seen a former employer of mine do the same thing, so this isn't particularly clever on their part. It costs time and money to get witnesses and evidence together for a civil suit, and the criminal trial has a higher burden of proof anyway. Plus, the government pays for most of the criminal investigation. From a business perspective, it's almost a no-brainer to let the government go first if they're willing to prosecute.
Maybe you believe his actions shouldn't be considered a crime. If that's the case, then you'll need to encourage the amendment or repeal of the relevant criminal law. Clearly, the courts believe he committed a crime, as his 15-month sentence was just upheld.
He was burning copies of the software and selling discs to people who had licenses. He wasn't authorized to distribute the software, and he was making money doing so. Those are the requirements for criminal copyright infringement.
If you wanna play with other people's code, you have to follow their rules. Sorry, but that's how proprietary software works in the US. You opt into that system when you decide to buy or sell it.
Personally, I think it's stupid to send him to prison when he was honestly trying to offer a service to others. Maybe he's not allowed to offer that service, but he wasn't trying to hurt anyone either. I believe a minimal fine is reasonable---just enough to say "you're not supposed to do that". The prison sentence is especially pointless when a threat of repeat fines would deter him---he's a businessman, after all.
For example, it's possible to throw bricks through my living room window but so far that hasn't been used against me.
That's a nice, pithy example, but it's not really relevant. There is no benefit to throwing bricks through your living room window, but there are well-established means of monetizing user data.
This is especially true since fingerprinting can offer data that cookies don't. For example, fingerprinting may expose a user who has cleared his cookies, switched browsers to segregate his activity, or used Incognito Mode. Fingerprinting can link an unknown/new user to a preexisting cookie or advertising profile in some cases. It circumvents existing privacy measures and exposes information that was never available before.
It is both bad and difficult to stop. Most fingerprinting metrics are exposed by the browser because they were useful to web developers for legitimate reasons. Almost any attempt to stop fingerprinting will break something else. Legal prohibitions are probably necessary, and even that won't stop some people.
Everyone should be entitled no to be searchable from a search engine.
The search engine is only exposing information that is available elsewhere. Maybe the law should state that search engines are exempt, and you must correct or remove bad information from the source.
What happens when John Smith in AZ wants to be searchable and John Smith in IL doesn't? How does a search engine know which sources refer to which person?
What about that arrest report in the Las Vegas newspaper---which John Smith was that? It didn't include enough personal information, so it could apply to 143 different men named "John Smith". Who decides whether the search engine should delete this one?
You can make a simple claim like "people should be able to opt out of searches", but that doesn't mean you'll can pass a law easily that makes it work the way you want it to. Sometimes doing nothing is better than passing a bad law.
Take these matters up at the source, rather than shooting the messenger (Google).
If dozens or hundreds of sites posted information, it may be easier to cull it from the top search engines than from each source. The source may also be anonymous, unreachable, or outside of jurisdiction.
Stop trying to export their laws outside their own borders
The US is a chief "offender" here.
We're spreading our copyright regime all over the world with TPP. We are detaining foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay who never set foot on American soil before their detention. We have conducted military operations in Syria and other nations without the consent of the relevant national authorities.
If we want to talk about people staying within their own jurisdiction, then we need to reevaluate our behavior as a nation. Otherwise, we need to accept that this is reasonable to some extent and then start negotiating limits.
That's not the real problem. This is the real problem:
"But he rejected a separate claim made by another businessman who had committed a more serious crime."
Google doesn't know what it needs to purge. That means a case-by-case review on every request, a potential law suit if the requester doesn't like their response, and potentially legal penalties on top of that when they're wrong.
The EU needs to make this simpler. They need to create a clear set of guidelines for what types of information must be "forgotten" and how a person can invoke their right.
The difference is that there can only be one town square. If there is problem, you can't just magically appear in another town. You can have as many social networks as you want though.
If one forum has rules that you don't like, you can move to another instantly or build one yourself. Try doing that with a town square, a sidewalk, or a street. See the difference?
These are fundamentally different things, so they can have different rules. Site owners should have complete control over what it allowed on their servers. The public already has the ability to protest or boycott anything they disapprove of.
And who gets to draw this line between "offensive" and "incendiary"?
For private venues and platforms, the owner chooses what to allow.
For laws, the Supreme Court decides whether an element of speech puts it outside the protection of the First Amendment. There are already exceptions for speaking or writing certain things such as threats, blackmail, extortion, libel/slander, and fraud.
Personally, "incendiary" includes threatening elements such as intimidation and incitement to commit violence, even in the absence of a direct and specific threat.\ We can always find statements that fall into a grey area, but just as often someone clearly crosses the line. This applies to extremists on both sides. Opposing views do not justify threats or violence, and injustices never justify violence against innocent people.
Where do you draw the line on "Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome priest?" type dog whistles and Pizzagate conspiracies?
The law shouldn't try to draw the line itself. People will try to weasel around written rules, so explicit rules become obsolete in short order.
Many laws use "reasonable person" standards and leave the interpretation to either the judge or jury at trial.
I honestly don't have a better idea than what we already have---letting 12 people decide beyond a reasonable doubt if there was an intentional threat or not.
It's almost a reboot rather than a straight adaptation. It did keep me engaged throughout even though I read the books, once I realized it was a different story.
The change to Quellcrist and the Envoys will have effects down the line if they continue the series. Apparently Morgan was involved with the production, so I'd hope there's a good plan to address that in the future.
This is why I liked the Altered Carbon series on Netflix better than most movie adaptations, in spite of some changes. The world and plot was slightly different than the novel, but it did the story justice in a way a 2-3 hour film could not.
A longer series could have avoided the heavy-handed exposition of the virtual/stack technology. And allow more time for the characters to shine, which is usually possible with the depth available from the novel.
With on-demand streaming becoming more popular, I hope to see more novels adapted in this fashion.
We can accept some things as gridlocked at the federal level. Those issues can be eliminated as effectively irrelevant regardless of their importance, at least in the short term.
Large numbers of people taking a stand on an issue is what leads to change. If established D/R politicians are afraid of losing votes, they will bend.
The best case scenario is that both sides decide to repeal the CLOUD Act, and then everyone can comfortably vote their normal preferences anyway. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that enough people will care. Unless someone is clearly being hurt on national TV, most issues just don't resonate with the public.
Slashdot Mirror
foreign legislation does in fact compel action in US
They do it for their own convenience. The EU law has real penalties and real enforcement behind it, so they cannot flout it like they can with so many American regulations.
They should be compelled by comparable privacy protections in the US, either by law or by FCC regulation. How is this country no longer a leader in protecting its citizens' rights?
We're protected from corporate abuse by fear of European laws rather than our own laws. Pathetic.
And people will take advantage of companies all the time. It's how the world works.
Companies can set return/exchange and warranty policies as they see fit to avoid abuse. Customers have little say in the matter. They could vote with their wallets, except most companies have settled rather closely around a status quo that isn't really great for consumers.
Maybe once in a while a jackass will return a box of rocks to Best Buy instead of a stereo receiver. But the company will quickly write a policy that forces all customers to wait while customer service reps inspect all returns. The companies have the power to stop abuse.
One man cannot fix an abusive company unless the law is on his side. Consumers can only stop bad companies through collective action of some sort---boycotts, class action suits, regulation, etc. There is a huge imbalance of power, and pretending that it somehow balances out because "people do it too" is hopelessly naive.
Is this another successful treatment with CAR-T, similar to previous work? Or is it something completely new?
Research doctors have been using the immune system to fight cancer for 5-10 years now. It would be nice to know if this in an adaptation of existing techniques or something truly innovative.
The article indicates "we are on the ‘cusp of a major revolution’ in being able to target cancer with immunotherapy", but there is nothing that puts this particular treatment in context.
This is the age of digital communication. It's time to update the communications protocols; if our solution is political rather than technical (e.g., we rely on reactionary regulatory agencies or Congressional "inquiries"), then we're fucked by definition. We can do better.
Upgrading the PTSN switches to support authentication or CAPTCHAs will be very expensive.
And you pretty much have to do them all, otherwise callers from a switch without authentication support won't be able to reach people on the new hardware.
So you're faced with a classic externality. The phone companies are the only ones who can fix the problem, but they aren't really being affected by it. They see no reason to spend the money. Traditionally, these issues have been addressed by regulation.
This is why America needs a functional federal government without partisan identity politics. Stop the constant screaming about liberals or privilege (whichever side you're on), and only support politicians who will work across the aisle to fix problems that affect everyone.
The fundamentally insecure and broken POTS/cellular infrastructure is one of those things. It shouldn't matter whether you're a D or R---the protocols are so outdated that there is no justification for using them anymore except rampant greed.
Facebook is not content with spying on your behavior on their web site, your mobile device, and "partner" web sites. Now they want your lifetime purchase history---in full or in part, whatever they can get.
Hell no.
This is pretty ballsy, especially after the way they flailed around publicly in response to the Cambridge Analytica fiasco.
I've got three words: Fuck the Zuck.
I love when partisans (regardless of affiliation) display poor comprehension of the facts and their consequences.
Wasserman Shultz interfered with the democratic primary and GAVE IT TO CLINTON without giving Sanders any possible consideration.
That's an internal party matter; there is no applicable criminal law.
If you experience and don't like it, you can demand new leadership or leave the party. Or push for a law, if you really think it's necessary.
Personally, I think that a party should be free to mismanage itself out of office.
How did classified State department email end up on the PERSONAL LAPTOP of the pervert husband of Clintons top advisor that got swept under the rug?
"The report prompted a criminal investigation and Weiner's laptop was seized. Emails that were pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email controversy were discovered on the laptop..."
The article says "pertinent" not "classified". Your claim is not supported by the report.
LOL there's you're PROOF that the 2016 elections were interfered with BY DEMOCRATS and the FBI
1. The Democrats were free to shoot themselves in the foot.
2. Comey did his job by concluding the investigation after reviewing the original evidence.
3. Comey did his job right by reopening the investigation when the FBI discovered there could be more evidence on Weiner's device. (And closing it again when they found the emails were duplicates of what was already on the server.)
If Comey's actions had any effect on the election, that's too bad. He did his job properly.
Might not be breaking and entering. Probably still trespassing and theft.
I suppose that's great because it's really easy to tweak the UI and make incremental changes.
But really, who cares which tech is used for a UI that you're not using on a daily basis?
As long as it works for its intended purpose, they could write it in COBOL for all I care.
Two spaces after a period was standard for printed text when fixed-width text was common. E.g., typewriters and older presses.
One space after a period became common once electronics entered the picture. Between proportionate width and kerning, you could make text eminently readable without resorting to "hacks" like an extra space to emphasize the end of a sentence. If anything, kerning is more relevant here---but it's essentially standard with proportionate fonts anyway.
This study should have compared twice-spaced Courier with once-spaced Times New Roman, if the comparison was to be made on a historical basis.
Or better yet, test Times New Roman twice-spaced vs once-spaced, so the comparison is made with modern fonts (the vast majority of which are proportionate).
Half of the gig economy is companies trying to cheap out on traditional worker benefits. Uber is one of them, and they can suck it up.
A worker-centric gig economy isn't managed by the platform: the workers should decide whether/how they deliver the goods or services, have some meaningful control over prices/profits, and be able to accrue a meaningful reputation.
If the gig platform forces its workers to behave 90% like employees, then yeah, round that number up and call them employees.
Why shouldn't Microsoft pursue him to the limits of the law? Sending him to prison sends a message: you pay Microsoft their licensing fees and adhere to the licensing terms, or you go to jail.
Microsoft has a program where refurbishers pay for legit OS licenses/media. Lundgren wasn't breaking new ground, and he wasn't saving the planet. He was just selling an illegal solution for less.
If he didn't ask for money, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt for being an idealist. But he chose to profit from it. I have very little sympathy.
It's free, so how could there be a problem?
Copyright controls the right to make copies, so the lack of permission is the problem.
Most FOSS projects give everyone permission to download and distribute their code/binaries, but proprietary shops don't. And there's no rule that forces them to grant permission just because the product is free or no longer available for sale. (Maybe there should be, but that's not how it works right now.)
E.g., Disney routinely cycles through their movie catalog, so some titles are out of print for years at a time. If you want a copy when they're not selling it, that's too bad. You can wait or buy a used copy, but you cannot make a new copy.
The 'damaged' party should be in the position of suing/not suing and the government shouldn't be doing criminal case for something like this.
You are fundamentally wrong here. Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, so look into it yourself if you feel I'm mistaken.
Only the government can prosecute crimes. Damaged party suing = civil case. Government prosecution = criminal case. Maybe Microsoft could have just sued the guy in civil court, but he did violate criminal law so it is not just a civil issue.
Microsoft's civil case will be easier if the government prosecutes first. They no longer need to establish the fact that he violated their copyright---they can point to the guilty verdict. Now they only need to argue what is reasonable compensation for their damages. I've seen a former employer of mine do the same thing, so this isn't particularly clever on their part. It costs time and money to get witnesses and evidence together for a civil suit, and the criminal trial has a higher burden of proof anyway. Plus, the government pays for most of the criminal investigation. From a business perspective, it's almost a no-brainer to let the government go first if they're willing to prosecute.
Maybe you believe his actions shouldn't be considered a crime. If that's the case, then you'll need to encourage the amendment or repeal of the relevant criminal law. Clearly, the courts believe he committed a crime, as his 15-month sentence was just upheld.
This guy never had a license.
He was burning copies of the software and selling discs to people who had licenses. He wasn't authorized to distribute the software, and he was making money doing so. Those are the requirements for criminal copyright infringement.
If you wanna play with other people's code, you have to follow their rules. Sorry, but that's how proprietary software works in the US. You opt into that system when you decide to buy or sell it.
Personally, I think it's stupid to send him to prison when he was honestly trying to offer a service to others. Maybe he's not allowed to offer that service, but he wasn't trying to hurt anyone either. I believe a minimal fine is reasonable---just enough to say "you're not supposed to do that". The prison sentence is especially pointless when a threat of repeat fines would deter him---he's a businessman, after all.
For example, it's possible to throw bricks through my living room window but so far that hasn't been used against me.
That's a nice, pithy example, but it's not really relevant. There is no benefit to throwing bricks through your living room window, but there are well-established means of monetizing user data.
This is especially true since fingerprinting can offer data that cookies don't. For example, fingerprinting may expose a user who has cleared his cookies, switched browsers to segregate his activity, or used Incognito Mode. Fingerprinting can link an unknown/new user to a preexisting cookie or advertising profile in some cases. It circumvents existing privacy measures and exposes information that was never available before.
It is both bad and difficult to stop. Most fingerprinting metrics are exposed by the browser because they were useful to web developers for legitimate reasons. Almost any attempt to stop fingerprinting will break something else. Legal prohibitions are probably necessary, and even that won't stop some people.
Everyone should be entitled no to be searchable from a search engine.
The search engine is only exposing information that is available elsewhere. Maybe the law should state that search engines are exempt, and you must correct or remove bad information from the source.
What happens when John Smith in AZ wants to be searchable and John Smith in IL doesn't? How does a search engine know which sources refer to which person?
What about that arrest report in the Las Vegas newspaper---which John Smith was that? It didn't include enough personal information, so it could apply to 143 different men named "John Smith". Who decides whether the search engine should delete this one?
You can make a simple claim like "people should be able to opt out of searches", but that doesn't mean you'll can pass a law easily that makes it work the way you want it to. Sometimes doing nothing is better than passing a bad law.
Take these matters up at the source, rather than shooting the messenger (Google).
If dozens or hundreds of sites posted information, it may be easier to cull it from the top search engines than from each source. The source may also be anonymous, unreachable, or outside of jurisdiction.
Stop trying to export their laws outside their own borders
The US is a chief "offender" here.
We're spreading our copyright regime all over the world with TPP. We are detaining foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay who never set foot on American soil before their detention. We have conducted military operations in Syria and other nations without the consent of the relevant national authorities.
If we want to talk about people staying within their own jurisdiction, then we need to reevaluate our behavior as a nation. Otherwise, we need to accept that this is reasonable to some extent and then start negotiating limits.
This law doesn't apply solely to Google.
Vague and unclear laws are bad things, regardless of who is inconvenienced.
That's not the real problem. This is the real problem:
"But he rejected a separate claim made by another businessman who had committed a more serious crime."
Google doesn't know what it needs to purge. That means a case-by-case review on every request, a potential law suit if the requester doesn't like their response, and potentially legal penalties on top of that when they're wrong.
The EU needs to make this simpler. They need to create a clear set of guidelines for what types of information must be "forgotten" and how a person can invoke their right.
The difference is that there can only be one town square. If there is problem, you can't just magically appear in another town. You can have as many social networks as you want though.
If one forum has rules that you don't like, you can move to another instantly or build one yourself. Try doing that with a town square, a sidewalk, or a street. See the difference?
These are fundamentally different things, so they can have different rules. Site owners should have complete control over what it allowed on their servers. The public already has the ability to protest or boycott anything they disapprove of.
And who gets to draw this line between "offensive" and "incendiary"?
For private venues and platforms, the owner chooses what to allow.
For laws, the Supreme Court decides whether an element of speech puts it outside the protection of the First Amendment. There are already exceptions for speaking or writing certain things such as threats, blackmail, extortion, libel/slander, and fraud.
Personally, "incendiary" includes threatening elements such as intimidation and incitement to commit violence, even in the absence of a direct and specific threat.\ We can always find statements that fall into a grey area, but just as often someone clearly crosses the line. This applies to extremists on both sides. Opposing views do not justify threats or violence, and injustices never justify violence against innocent people.
Where do you draw the line on "Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome priest?" type dog whistles and Pizzagate conspiracies?
The law shouldn't try to draw the line itself. People will try to weasel around written rules, so explicit rules become obsolete in short order.
Many laws use "reasonable person" standards and leave the interpretation to either the judge or jury at trial.
I honestly don't have a better idea than what we already have---letting 12 people decide beyond a reasonable doubt if there was an intentional threat or not.
It's almost a reboot rather than a straight adaptation. It did keep me engaged throughout even though I read the books, once I realized it was a different story.
The change to Quellcrist and the Envoys will have effects down the line if they continue the series. Apparently Morgan was involved with the production, so I'd hope there's a good plan to address that in the future.
I am sorry you've grown into a small, angry person. It is a pitiable existence, and I have some sympathy, but only you can make it better.
This is why I liked the Altered Carbon series on Netflix better than most movie adaptations, in spite of some changes. The world and plot was slightly different than the novel, but it did the story justice in a way a 2-3 hour film could not.
A longer series could have avoided the heavy-handed exposition of the virtual/stack technology. And allow more time for the characters to shine, which is usually possible with the depth available from the novel.
With on-demand streaming becoming more popular, I hope to see more novels adapted in this fashion.
Really? Nothing else is of consequence to you?
Do other things matter? Yes. Matter more? No.
We can accept some things as gridlocked at the federal level. Those issues can be eliminated as effectively irrelevant regardless of their importance, at least in the short term.
Large numbers of people taking a stand on an issue is what leads to change. If established D/R politicians are afraid of losing votes, they will bend.
The best case scenario is that both sides decide to repeal the CLOUD Act, and then everyone can comfortably vote their normal preferences anyway. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that enough people will care. Unless someone is clearly being hurt on national TV, most issues just don't resonate with the public.