Ask A Tech-Savvy Lobbyist About The Politics Of Computing 259
Morgan Reed is a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. with the law firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti. He has represented a wide range of clients, from the International Pizza
Hut Franchise Holders Association (really) to the Telecommunications Industry
Association and the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM). That means he's paid to personally persuade (not to mention cajole and
badger) lawmakers with real shoe-leather tactics, on issues that few lawmakers have the time to personally spend years
learning about. He's also a Slashdot reader and Linux hacker, with work on the Linux Router Project (LEAF/ LRP). Morgan has volunteered to expand your
knowledge about the intersection of technology and politics. Ask Morgan (one question per post, please)
about how clueful politicians are when it comes to technology, what tactics are likely to impress your representatives
to make intelligent tech-related decisions, and what you can do to steer the course of legislation which could affect
your freedoms. We'll pass your questions on to Morgan, who will get back with answers shortly.
Internet taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
W3C Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Rick Boucher (Score:5, Insightful)
Advice (Score:5, Interesting)
Educating Politicians (Score:4, Interesting)
Best way to communicate... (Score:4, Interesting)
What are the best ways for people to communicate with their politicians to inform them of their views and opinions on proposed legislation?
Z.
My biggest concern these days (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
I've just emailed my representatives regarding the "hacking is terrorism" nonsense that's being looked at...
And people wonder why Politicians ignore them. No one -- EVER -- has proposed defining all hackers as terrorists. What has been proposed is recognizing that hackers can be terrorists. Obviously if a hacker hacked into the right computer system, havoc could be wreaked.
Rule number 1 of writing to your representatives is having a clue of what you're talking about, and not look like a knee-jerk crackpot.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:3, Insightful)
A website defacer, however, COULD be sentenced to life in jail under the ATA. Yes, it probably wouldn't happen, but it COULD, which is really the more important part.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
A website defacer, however, COULD be sentenced to life in jail under the ATA.
First of all, a website defacer is MUCH more serious than jaywalking. It is more akin to breaking and entering. Most burglers are not sentenced to life, but if you break and enter a house and kill someone, then you are eligible for life imprisonment -- just like if you break into a computer and cause someone's death, you deserve at least life imprisonment.
Or do you think that if a hacker caused people's deaths, it should just be a "jaywalking" crime?
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2, Insightful)
Most burglers are not sentenced to life, but if you break and enter a house and kill someone, then you are eligible for life imprisonment -- just like if you break into a computer and cause someone's death, you deserve at least life imprisonment.
If you break into somebody's house and kill them, you don't get life for the breaking and entering, you might get it for the murder. However, if you deface a website and it kills someone, you can get life without parole under the ATA for the website defacement. Murder/manslaughter would probably be 5 years served.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
Bad analogy. A website defacer is more akin to graffiti.
No, because you have to break into a computer to do the graffiti. If you break into my house and deface the walls, it's breaking and entering, not graffiti.
There are already laws on the books that cover killing someone whatever means you use.
Indeed, and there are already laws on the books that cover murder by terrorists lobbing bombs. But the point of terrorism laws are to go beyond the simple act of murder to cover the societal damage that terrorism produces. In other words, it's one thing to kill someone by robbing them, and it's another thing to leave a bag containing a bomb that randomly kills someone.
The new laws are simply covering the current reality that hacking may have terrorist implications. Paranoid delusions that the government is looking to jail for life anyone who defaces a website is just absurd foolishness.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
Bullshit. Dead is dead. What society is really asking for is a rider to make sure that some jury or judge or parole board can't "mess up" the sentencing for the crime. We can't trust the laws we have on hand to be wielded properly by society at large so we have to tweak the system. It's the rationale behind hate crime laws.
But of course, this isn't the only thing that the PATRIOT Act does. It also gives law enforcement leeway to hold a suspect for up to a week without charging them if suspected of terrorism. If this goes into law I wonder how many decades it will be before someone not named Achmed or not "slightly Arabic looking" will be held that long. Oh sure, detain the "raghead" but ignore the White Anglo-Saxon Christian "Mick" who is part of the IRA.
And I don't care what you say, defacing a web site with "F*ck America!" isn't even close to being a crime worthy of life in prision. It shouldn't even be a sentencing option. Again, we have a rider because politicians don't think we can do the right thing. They might as well scrap the current judicial system if they think it's so badly broken.
Nothing in the law as it currently stands prevent us from properly prosecuting and sentencing terrorists. We put McVey to death, we sentenced the people who first bombed the WTC. Tell me where the laws back then failed and where they will fail now because of what we endured on Sept. 11th 2001.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
Thirdly, I made the point in my letter, and I'll make it here again: computers are just a bunch of people typing on keyboards. There is a gee-whiz mentality that people get carried away with and they start thinking the computer somehow runs the world, and analogies about what you do with a computer vs. what you do in the real world are just not valid, period. I cautioned them not to get carried away with gee-whizness and realize that threatening to send potentially misguided grafitti artists to jail for life (as the securityfocus article quite clearly states) is of no use to anyone, and may actually harm us socially in the future.
The new laws are simply covering the current reality that hacking may have terrorist implications.
I am unaware of any application of computer usage that can lead to death. If I drop a heavy server on your head from the height of the WTC, that could possibly kill someone. If I expose wiring in such away as to insert direct current into the keyboard, and you somehow complete the circuit and get hooked up to the raw voltage coming out of the wall, you could get killed too. But no one has ever written a program called "kill" that did anything so gruesome. That was my point. There is no way a person can terrorize another person with a computer. It just can't have the kind of effect blowing up a bomb can. Hacking into someone's database is already illegal. It doesn't need a stiffer penalty, with a wider net, to make it less possible.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
Although there always is the possibility of some prosecutor trying to overreach their bounds using vaguely worded laws.
Exactly the point. The law is much too broad.
Someone could break into the computer system used by air traffic controllers, and use them to cause a plane crash.
Such systems are not connected to the net, and are not vulnerable to hacking from the outside. Now if you manage to get into a facility and sabotage the system, then yes, you could probably be charged with terrorism. But the law doesn't limit itself to such acts. It covers breaking into damn near any computer for almost any reason. That's just plain wrong.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
That's already illegal. It doesn't need to be made more illegal.
This act is recognizing that hacking (cracking) could be an act of terrorism.
Sorry, I'm not going to give you that one. You cannot kill people with programs. It's not possible. Airplanes still have pilots, and those pilots cannot be taken over by an insidious virus. Aside from which, the examples in the security focus article I referenced were of people wreaking social or financial "havoc," which is NOT terrorism. Cyber-terrorism is not a valid word, and I am attacking its validity.
And again with the splitting of the hairs. Do we need sharper axes or bigger hairs? The original point of my post was that broadly-worded laws are being written by individuals unaware (or unconcerned with) their their long-term implications, one of which would be a brain-drain on the US IT sector. Already foreign programmers are afraid to come here because of Example Dmitry. My original question was, do our legislators care about that? Would that pull their strings? I'm trying to find the lever that changes their minds about this stuff. I'm trying to de-hype the hype which has led to almost any activity performed with a computer being taken with this deadly seriousness. Because if it isn't, I think the usefulness of these devices will shrink away and the advantage of having the best technology will go to someone else in a less benighted nation. Now, do you still need that axe, or are you finished with the hairs already?
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
BUT REMEMBER THIS IS A COMPUTER, not a fucking building, and specifically its a simple replaced index file with no wipes or anything by a 12 year old KoRN fan giving props to his IRC friends,
Quite frankly, I don't give a crap about your retionalizations. It's my goddamn computer, just like it's my house, stay the hell out of it.
This isn't someones property, its holes that go ignored by microsoft ('nix fixes) so people bring awareness to it.
Bullshit. If I leave my house unlocked, that does NOT give you the right to come in and spray paint graffiti on the walls to "bring awareness to it".
If you wanna throw these kids in jail I'll be sure to drop in on your 802.11 network and do some remote attacks, which will land your dumb ass in jail for life. How would you like that?
I am TOTALLY in favor of throwing people in jail for breaking into computers. But I have to (frustratingly) repeat: No one has EVER suggested throwing people in jail for life for an act of defacing a web page. And frankly I'm amazed that anyone would believe it who has half a brain.
As for how I would like it if someone framed me for a computer attack, I wouldn't like it. Just like I wouldn't like it if someone framed for breaking into someone's house. But that doesn't mean that I'm in favor of not throwing people in jail for breaking into a house.
Re:Silly Argument (Score:2)
I can't imagine an instance where mere website defacement could credibly be considered terrorism but it is easy to see instances where it should properly be considered a felony.
Neither can I, nor can anyone else I've talked to about it. Why, then, should this law cover such cases? Why should it cover any but the most severe cases that could plausibly be considered terrorism? We have bank robberies, shooting sprees, murders, etc. None of these are considered terrorism. Why then should any computer crimes be considered terrorism unless they are actually causing serious death and destruction with the intent of causing terror in the US?
All that being said the definitions in the ATA are loose and that opens the door to potential abuse by overzealous prosecutors.
This is absolutely true. We have a big enough problem with overzealous prosecution under the DMCA and other laws already. This law is horribly overbroad and should not be passed in anything resembling its current form.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2, Insightful)
Rule number 1 of writing to your representatives is having a clue of what you're talking about, and not look like a knee-jerk crackpot.
That's certainly true, and if you had one, you wouldn't be playing the ignoramus in this thread.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/257 [securityfocus.com]
"Most of the terrorism offenses are violent crimes, or crimes involving chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But the list also includes the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that make it illegal to crack a computer for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, or to deliberately cause damage. Likewise, launching a malicious program that harms a system, like a virus, or making an extortionate threat to damage a computer are included in the definition of terrorism."
BTW, this issue was discussed by Prof. Peter Swire of the George Washington University Law School on Declan McCullagh's politech mailing list, and he included a list of past cases that would fall under the "terrorism" category under the new law.
Next time, read first and then write.
mp
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:3, Interesting)
I referred to this [securityfocus.com] article, and my argument was rather more detailed. Really "hacking ~ terrorism" was not the entire focus of my letter. Changing careers because of that and other broadly-worded laws was. I'd post it here, but it's three pages long, I'm not into karma-whoring, and frankly I'm not interested in watching you dissect it.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
not thinking ahead makes you look like a naive idiot. i'd rather look like a knee-jerk crackpot myself, if it helps keep me out of jail.
No one is saying that we shouldn't think ahead. But when you look like a paranoid fool, all you do is cause legislators to roll their eyes and assume there is absolutely nothing there. Not to mention that offending people by assuming all they want to do is install a military state is not the best way to accomplish things.
Sending in paranoid crap is WORSE than doing nothing at all.
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My biggest concern these days (Score:2)
The President (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The President (Score:5, Funny)
DMCA etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Who knows best? (Score:5, Interesting)
Chances of the SSSCA becoming law? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that polticians have a lot on their plates right now and I'm worried that it might slip through with little discussion. As a canadian, I'm not very intimately familiar with the legislative process in the US, but US laws invariable affect me.
-Derek
Re:Chances of the SSSCA becoming law? (Score:2)
I don't think that it's crackpot to wonder about changing profession in response to the SSSL. I've certainly been thinking about it, though in my case it would be early retirement.
OTOH, I wouldn't put that in a letter to congress.
OTOH, if it passes I expect the economic results to be so severe that retirement may not be an option
DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Basic questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Have You Had Any Success? (Score:4, Interesting)
Better-educated lawmakers? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that Alaska's reps (Ted Stevens and Neil... I mean, Don Young) are just good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm. But, they are also rather ignorant about technology and information. Is this changing? Are lawmakers *choosing* to become educated about the topics on which they make important decisions?
Or, do they react only to questions and concerns of money? (Does it all come down to the dollar, in the end?)
Top five issues ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parties (Score:2, Interesting)
Are your views considered (Score:2, Interesting)
Double-edge Sword (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Double-edge Sword (Score:2)
On the other hand, I have every right to say my government and my representative are clueless and they should rename the PATRIOT Act to the FACIST Act. I have every right to wish that Mickey, now a national icon and dare I say treasure, should be in the public domain. Copyright lasting 3+ generations is not limited.
And in the "digital world", encryption is akin to sealing your letter in an envelope. Or do I take it you send your steamy love letters via skywriting for the world to see. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people here at work misaddress their e-mail and suddenly I'm hip deep into their personal lives. Simple encryption would have kept me out of their business.
So if you ask me, which I know you didn't :), I think the stance is entirely consistent.
Re:Double-edge Sword (Score:2)
Slightly OT...or maybe not. IP... (Score:4, Interesting)
This brings up a simple (and probably naive) question from me - what factors have made "intellectual property" law so convoluted?
In this case, my first thought is that "Mickey Mouse(tm)" and the various representations thereof, are, taken together, one form of "intellectual property" called a trademark. Personally, I DON'T have a problem with TRADEMARKS being owned by a company for as long as they are in use (after all, should Microsoft be allowed, for example, to call some future version of Windows "Windows LINUX" even if it has nothing to do with Linux, just because the trademark on Linux expired?).
On the other hand, "Steamboat Willy" (as I recall, the very first Mickey Mouse cartoon from sometime in the late 1920's(?)), as a specific work, ought to definitely have entered the public domain years ago [but for good old Sonny Bono and his 'Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act' (as I heard one IP lawyer call it), as it falls under "copyright" and not "Trademark."
'course, this then gets complex - if it were in the public domain as it should be, you would be legally allowed to make as many copies of it as you liked, create derivative works, etc...but you still couldn't take an individual image of Mickey from it and use it as a "label" since that would infringe on the Trademark....
And, of course, if we throw the DMCA into the mix, if Disney Corp releases "Steamboat Willy" on an encrypted DVD, even if Disney misses a payment to the legislators and Steamboat Willy is finally allowed to hit public domain, we'll still be flung in jail if we try to GET the public domain copy of Steamboat Willy from it...
So, in short, my question is - who's fault is it that the simple principle of "don't make unfair use of someone else's work" has resulted in this mess of rights-restricting and near-incomprehensible mass known as "intellectual property law"?
And on a related note: (Score:2)
Speaking of IP law and legislators - which hot-button 'issues', key phrases and buzzwords, etc, do legislators seem to respond most favorably to in the area of IP law, that might be used in communications with them to help them understand better what's going on?
What is wrong with the existing line? (Score:2)
Spam, for example, comes in three forms:
1) Unsolicited email with no return address, which I can easily block.
2) Unsolicited email with an accurate return address, to which I can send a form letter reply and cost the spammer more than he cost me.
3) Wire fraud.
Is it too much to ask that wire fraud be prosecuted?
How about Microsoft? Am I the only one wondering why the DOJ is basically dropping a case it's already won against decades of clear, repeated violations of antitrust law by a company that was ignoring previous court orders in the process?
How about encryption and free speech? How is it that Adobe is able to fraudulently advertise a broken encryption system, but I am not allowed to honestly describe how it breaks?
And copyright? I'll grant you that the interpretation of "for limited times" has grey areas, but we're well past those grey areas and into the black with current laws.
Is it so damned unreasonable to expect the United States government to just follow it's own laws, especially the rules laid out in the document that legitimizes it's existance?
National laws with International effects (Score:4, Interesting)
As technologists, we appreciate the international scope of the Internet, and its constituent components, e.g. Linux was originally developed by a European, Mandrake and SuSE are both produced outside the US. The communities that have built up around these technologies are non-geographic, as is the readership of Slashdot.
How is this factored in to legislative decisions which will undoubtedly affect this international culture? I'm speaking specifically about matters of encryption, privacy (currently with Echelon and Carnivore the US is in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org], at least Article 12), censorship, online trade, free speech, and the recent Voyeur Dorm case in Florida.
Bribes? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your opinion of organizations providing funds to political campaigns in exchange for laws/policies/etc that benefit the organization? Could this be considered bribing on behalf of the funding organization and accepting a bribe by 'returning the favor?' If not bribes, would you consider this practice ethical?
I ask this question in how it pertains to the situation of organizations with deep pockets such as the RIAA funding lawmakers to create laws like the DMCA and other laws that are currently coming down the pike.
Also, what advice would you give to shallow-pocket organizations such as the EFF or EPIC in fighting to keep the rights of honest, well meaning Internet users?
SSSCA (Score:2)
Bought and Paid For? (Score:4, Informative)
Best way to convince rep (Score:2, Interesting)
Is congress concerned at all... (Score:4, Interesting)
I do not ask this question as a joke. It is very common for the people here on slashdot to assume that since there have been no strong laws to protect users rights in cyberspace that congress does not care and does not listen. Occasionally we win a victory by getting a law knocked down or not passed but I have never seen a "User rights in cyberspace" bill. So I ask if the people in congress that you get to talk to discuss peoples rights in cyberspace or if that is just add-on-feel-good filler for campaign speeches while they are in california.
Re:Is congress concerned at all... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you probably have:
I don't remember seeing anything in th constitution about internet taxes, carnivore, or the entire FBI for that matter.How do we get them to listen? (Score:2)
Is computing political? (Score:2)
Patenting of Business Models and Computer code (Score:2)
drphil@ptd.net
your rep for sale (Score:2)
Can a non-US person do anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is this: can non-US citizens help to influence US decision-makers for the greater good, and if so, how?
Fears? (Score:2)
What tactics from the general population do you fear most?
Specifically, what can US citizens do to make their point more attractive to a congressperson vs. a lobbyist with a massive bankroll (who's offering tons of perks!)?
Why was the DMCA created? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is this? I can think of a few reasons:
1. They are following the money. Philosophical arguments are great but they have to raise $xx,xxx per day for the reelection campaign.
2. They don't spend much time thinking about these things and the license holders who benefit from such legislation do a very good job of informing and educating the legislators to encouraging them to think their way.
3. The legislators have thought about these issues, understand the arguments and are well informed. Their philosophical beliefs lead them to believe that this is the right thing to do.
Why do you think that this type of legislation has been passed and do you agree that it will be harmful to the country in the long term?
How do you become a lobbyist? (Score:3, Interesting)
How we can best work in the system? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perception == reality (Score:4, Interesting)
In the real world, criminals can easily use one-time-pad, unbreakable encryption that'll never be broken in the 30min allowed for a Hollywood plot, and they would never resort to public key technology that the rest of us want to simply make it harder for the gov to spy on us.
Do our representatives have any concept of what real computer work, and real cracking consists of? Do they have a clue of how encryption can work? How would I educate my reps that killing public key tech would do nothing to hurt mafia/Bin Laden types?
Email to legislators (Score:3, Interesting)
The Slashdot Lobby (Score:4, Interesting)
What advice would you offer to those trying to organize the "Slashdot Lobby?" How can they best go about forming their organization, raising money, and then turning that money and human capital into actual political influence?
Is it all about money ? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is dominated (according to the cartoon) by powerful rent-seeking corporations, spending big money to defend big interests, manipulating legislators who are desperate for ever more campaign contributions and ever more local feel-good stories.
So:
Which communication methods work best, in order? (Score:5, Interesting)
An example might be: 1 personal appearance at his office = 2 conversations at a house party = 100 handwritten letters = 200 handwritten postcards = 1000 typed letters = 50,000 emails.
Here's my list of methods I can think of:
A. talking with legislator when he's gardening or fixing the car on a bill;
B. lunch or coffee (one on one);
C. personal appearance at his office (phoned in ahead, as a constituent);
D. personal conversation at a house party or fundraiser (more than 1 minute);
E. question at a constituency open house (as advertised in local papers) (usually have 20-40 people);
F. handwritten postcard with cool pics on other side;
G. handwritten postcard found free in coffee shop or movie house;
H. handwritten letter, hand addressed;
I. typed letter, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
J. typed postcard, hand signed, with hand P.S.;
K. fax, hand signed;
L. actiongram faxed letter like on EDF or EFF;
M. actiongram email, modified from boilerplate in own words;
N. actiongram email, boilerplate;
O. wierd knick knack gift, like a techie toy we have tons of, wrapped up in a box and sent;
P. wierd knick knack gift, connected to issue;
Q. boring gift, like stapler remover from local Kiwanas
Anything I missed?
Re:Which communication methods work best, in order (Score:2)
A couple variations you missed:
R. personal (not "actiongram") email;
S. personal email with in-district postal address for reply;
Re:Which communication methods work best, in order (Score:2)
R. personal (not "actiongram") email;
S. personal email with in-district postal address for reply;
I was assuming that any personal email would be in-district and that a modified actiongram email (where you rewrite it in your own words) was the same thing, but good catches.
And is it actually
1 personal appearance = 50,000 emails? Thought it was about 1 = 1000.
longer term solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Lawmakers' awareness of the SSSCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Are our lawmakers aware of the SSSCA and its dangers? Do you think it will be debated in detail, or will it pass "under the radar?"
Best way to make changes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Expectations of privacy? (Score:3, Interesting)
He was probably thinking of sites, rather than URLs. It's one thing to worry about whether I visit dailynews.yahoo.com; it's another to worry about logging something as specific as http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20011004/tc/zero-
The example people are citing is "LUDs"; the ability for police officers to get a list, without a warrant, of all the phone numbers of people I've called or who've called me. Any legal theories on which is closer, sites or URLs?
This whole thing strikes me as fairly bizarre. I think there are legal precedents about my expectations of privacy for the videotapes I rent, or the books I borrow from the public library. I don't know how accessible they are to law enforcement, but no one can publish such a list in the newspaper. (Right?)
Educate the masses (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, should not the education of the general populace be a high priority in getting reasonable legislation passed? After all, if peeople really understood how they were being affected, would they then not put more pressure on their congresscritters?
Range and reasonability of wiretap expansions? (Score:2)
On the one hand, he says a phone tap warrant applies to a phone, not a caller. If I'm the subject of a legal wiretap, I can buy a disposable phone from the 7-11, and no one can listen in on the new phone without a new warrant. Do that every day, and legal wiretaps are obsolete. Expanding the scope from the phone to the party sounds fair. Are there hidden traps? (Would the FBI now be authorized to listen in on my next door neighbor's phone, just in case I dropped by to use it?)
On the other hand, when he's not talking to the press, Mr. Ashcroft may be asking for a lot more. What's the spread between the public and private faces in this action?
Do U.S. law makers realise the internet is non-US (Score:2)
but really the internet is global
say I downloaded something from a china firm with their servers in china there is nothing in the law that says they have to support or even offer me a refund
do they realise this I mean they say spams illegal in places but really who cares because it sure is not in china
do they get that its not a US thing anymore
and you cant legislate for that (or tax it really)
regards
john jones
Problems created because of regulations? (Score:2, Redundant)
Does it ever occur to anyone that reducing the size of government to that of the Constitutional limited variety would really help us? We're talking about through copyright extensions out (100 years + the life of the author???) back to the basic 7+7 years maximum. We're talking about dropping the idea of intellectual property. We're talking about getting rid of "Limited Liability" for corporations, so that shareholders can hold CEOs and other officers liable for corporate errors and misjudgements.
It shocks me that people totally ignore this. How is it for the lobbiests? Are any lobbiests out there looking to REDUCE the size of government and the intervention that comes from it?
Email them, NOT (Score:2)
To some degree this is like writing a resume; when there is a stack of hundreds, you want to be able to make an impact in the first ten or so seconds.
The question is:
What would the most effective means of getting through for the average geek, given the signal to noise ration is probably insanely high for your average Rep or Senator?
Software backdoors... (Score:3, Interesting)
How often is Cogress interested? (Score:3)
Some of these tech issues are clearly headline grabbers, not well thought out policy. Additionally, our "capitalist" society (I use quotes because of the growing amount of government intervention, on behalf of companies and on behalf of consumers) places a tremendous value of the creation of wealth.
Given the slogan, "it's the economy, stupid," it clearly is hard to argue to our politicians that we should hurt the economy (reducing trade = reducing wealth) on the basis of strange fair-use arguements.
Yet at the same time, many of the proposals and passed legislation borders on absurd. As people sworn to uphold the Constitution, it is also disturbing to see unconstitutional legislation passed and the buck passed to the judiciary.
How many issues facing technology that we care about here even matter to those in Congress? The major technology bills aren't things we hear about, because they mostly involve research and tax policies, and industries tend to lobby exclusively for hand-outs.
Some of the draconian laws are beneficial headline grabbers, but some are just draconian. How many of the laws are every things that the politicians care about? How many of them CAN the politicians care about? How do we appeal to the desire for reelection? How do we appeal to their civic goals for improving society?
Alex
Mom & Apple Pie Pablum vs. Fact Dump (Score:2)
One big debate: How do we present ourselves to lawmakers?
One faction is pushing for, what I refer to as, "pablum": simplistic sweet anecdotes your grandmother could understand.
I'm of the ilk that would rather dump arguments and facts, like my acerbic http://home.graffiti.net/orrinhatch/IPIdiots.html diatribe. [side note: I actually noticed that I recieved more detailed replies when I wrote them a letter referring to the "Damn DMCA"; where swearing is supposed to be bad in such communications.]
What is the proper method of convincing lawmakers?
Contacting staffers to influenece legislation (Score:3, Interesting)
Who Will Fight The Good Fight? (Score:2, Interesting)
When the RIAA decides to pursue a service for copyright infringement (first Napster, now Grokster and MusicCity) they have the ability to amass untold financial and legal resources which cannot possibly be matched by the creators of the software or their allies. Since the RIAA's lobbying power is so strong, they can prosecute, seek court injunctions, pass more stringent laws, etc. The inevitable result is the destruction of that service.
Yet, GPL'ed code is ripped off all the time. However, those writing such code rarely have the resources needed to pursue what is usually a large corporate entity that has pirated free or open source software and incorporated it into their own proprietary products.
As a lobbyist on the front lines, how do you see this situation changing for the better in the future? How will the open source community ever be able to compete with the vastly more powerful corporate lawyers and lobbyists who care only about protecting proprietary software and services?
Key escrow encryption (Score:4, Interesting)
OpenSourceLobby.org (Score:2)
What advice would you give us to help us in our goal?
first amendment and politicians (Score:3, Interesting)
/EJS, do they *really* understand how the very nature of a "press" has changed in the past 5 years?
Lobbying counter to your own savvy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Qualified Lawmakers (Score:2, Interesting)
What can be done (either by organizations such as the EFF, or by citizens acting individually) ro raise the 'cluefulness' of our legislators? Do they listen, or are our voices simply overwhelmed by political reality? How can we get our message through?
Advocates of Rights (Score:4, Interesting)
Who are the main proponents of Online Rights in congress, and do you feel they represent the minority or majority of these people?
Sort Of A Broad Question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Career Path (Score:5, Interesting)
Congressional staff (Score:3, Interesting)
In twenty-seven parts.
Knowing that there is virtually no way to guarantee direct correspondance to our represenatives my question is how many of our elected officials keep tech-savy staff onboard to advise them? What has been your experience with these people? Is there a way to communicate our concerns to them and get a more direct line to our elected official?
Corruption of democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that this is simply organised corruption. We see the results every day in the DMCA and similar broken laws. In your opinion, is this really democracy? At what point should a nominally democratic system be seen as a facade?
(DISCLAIMER: I am a defendant in the California deCSS case.)
Leading questions (Score:2)
Umm, okay I'll ask if you're too shy.
How much $$$ does it take? (Score:3, Interesting)
My two and a half questions: (Score:2, Interesting)
- Script-kiddies, Worms and Viruses;
- Corporate security, protection of customer information, professional crackers & industrial espionage, encryption.
- Personal security, privacy rights, safety of personal information, security of off-the-shelf products (responsibilties of vendors)
- Internet infrastructue - bandwidth costs, redundancy, reliance on international parties
- Internet politics - ICANN & IANA, IP and tradmark rights, accountability & responsibility of overseeing bodies,;
- Pros and cons of open source vs closed source for business, for government, for education, for consumer;
- ISP's and telco's legal and ethical responsibilities, spam.
And so on...b) How are their decisions on technology issues affected by foreign countries? Are there some areas where policy is home grown, and others where they look for others to lead? How can non-US people affect US policy? How do the international organisations such as the World Trade Body affect policy?
c) How important is the role of non-elected state employees and consultants. Are there maybe some policy areas that, due to technical copmlexity, the politicians will just do what they're told. If so, how do lobbyists take this into account?
d) Only if you're really bored... run through a Geekcode [geekcode.org] generator, and imagine how the average politician would answer.
Will pol power of tech lobby fade with time? (Score:2, Interesting)
My question is; will the influence of the software industry fade as these new technologies become less new or will these trends, which seem to contradict legal precedent, only gain legitimacy as they establish a precident of their own?
Can I make a difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
If anything, Microsoft seems to be strengthening on all fronts...home, professional, embedded. They're rolling over the planet, with no end in sight.
I know software is expensive to make, and techies are tough to deal with, but do our careers really have to be so extensively deprofessionalized by this horrid mixture of Government and Corporations?
Let me put it this way: When your opposition is a Corporation or other powerful entity, do you ever win or even get significant concessions?
Wool Pulling Over Eye Potential (Score:2)
Not to be demeaning, but most of our elected public officials have little background in technical issues.
Which is a shame, of course, because these officials are in positions of authority that can make life miserable if they happen to choose wrong-headed policy.
In your experience, given that our public officials must make policies for an environment that they don't natively understand, are these officials thereby more susceptible to being hoodwinked by vested interests than they are for other, more easily understood issues?
Technical, admiralty and tax courts (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if there are equally capable committees or subcomittees in the house or senate, that are good forums for hard problems...
In Canada, where our Senate is appointed for life (and is "called the house of cronies" by the sarcastic), there are some very capable standing comittees, but they have limited powers to write legislation...
In effect, I'm asking where in the U.S. government one applies pressure by bringing forward facts, not just opinion or numbers...
justfication (Score:2, Interesting)
Are they only given examples of worst case senarios of the abuse and misuse of computers? How do we make sure they know the purpose things like hacking serve (sometimes its for good!), how many people do these types of things, how easy it really is in most cases, etc. or even why its done.
Twist and stretching the truth (Score:2, Interesting)
patent office reform? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there any support in government circles for an overhaul of patent office procedures, to address the anti-competitive effects of making things like "clicking" and "linking" patentable?
Can we get the government to USE free software? (Score:3, Interesting)
First, it reduces favoritism of the government to particular private parties. Second, it puts the work of the government in publicly documented file formats (how many agencies have old MS backup files?). Third, it creates support for non-proprietary standards. This will increase competition in government contracts by cutting the chain of proprietary dependencies: file formats to desktop OS to network environments and apps to consultign services. Finally, as a taxpayer, I believe we can save a bundle in licensing or rental fees.
I expect that many people are using free alternatives in government agencies, but I also know that government agencies are also some of the most policy-bound entities in the world. How can citizens make it easier for people in the government to use free software?