Congress' Tech Agenda 103
A reader writes: "Fox News is running a story on Congress' Tech Agenda. We have all been reading about plenty of legislation as each bill is introduced or considered, but it's nice to see a major news outlet picking up on the larger trend."
Digital Media Consumers Rights Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful: Congress and it's position on TIA (Score:5, Insightful)
"Government programs such as the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness Project, data-mining activities, biometric initiatives and various forms of tracking programs have already come under fire for privacy violations.
Congress, however, defunded TIA in the 2003 omnibus spending bill it passed Thursday night. In passing the rule, Congress said it wants a guarantee that the government's database program will not infringe on civil liberties before it approves its continuation."
-----
So this is far from dead and the demand by Congress that they "want a guarantee that the government's database program will not infringe on civil liberties" does not sound, to me, like an effective counterbalance for our freedoms over the long-term. What we should be pushing, lobbying (and fighting) for is EXTREMELY STRICT oversight of any project that involves collection of personal data for ANY reason. But only if we fail to stop the damned projects in the first place.
Warm Safe Feeling (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking closer, I found that the main debate is between 1) Keep the DMCA and enforce it better, and 2) Completely wacky measures like banning unprotected digital media.
But since that's kind of worrying, I think I'll just sink back into that warm, safe feeling now... mmm...
What do you do when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Backing the entertainment industry, Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., may reintroduce a bill to prohibit the making and distribution of "digital media devices" unless they include government-approved copy restriction technology.
Hollings has said that he really doesn't want the legislation, but some type of compromise is needed. Various tech industry groups and the Recording Industry Association of America recently promised to fight any such mandates and work out the piracy problem.
---
Hollings, along with Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., are also likely to introduce a comprehensive privacy bill to protect online surfers, who before Sept. 11 were pre-occupied with identity theft, but now must add government surveillance to their list of concerns.
I guess with all I've been seeing recently, half right is better than expected. But my frustration with our two party system grows. Too often I see two candidates who both agree with me on half the issues and disagree with me on the other half. I can't send a message by voting for either of them, other than "this set of my beliefs is more important than that set". Other than writing letters, or running for office myself, what really can be done to get the message across?
Get a clue Fox News and Congress! (Score:2, Insightful)
Make lots of speeches crying that they are for the average person, but when the campaign donations start rolling in we all know what's going to happen.
If you don't believe me, just look at the DMCA, UCITA, and COPA. Whose interest are they really concerned with, those of thier biggest donors.
Good shape - for whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the DMCA was used mainly to scare scientists and prevent crypto research, keep DVDs off Linux, hinder free enterprise and free trade, make toner cartridges more expensive, keep lists of store prices off the net, avoid having to obtain court orders to get access to private information, and other nifty things like that. Maybe it is "good shape" for the industry, but it certainly is "bad shape" for everyone else.
Re:What do you do when... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the biggest solution to your problem would be to have no political parties at all. Think about it. You would be able to vote on each candidate based on their individual merits instead of what is often cookie cutter party platform. The way things are run now, a politician is more answerable to his / her party than the voters.
Re:attitude? (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalists respond to demand. If they can sell their product to people regardless of its quality, then why try to improve it? Obvious exceptions being companies with a real commitment to the customer and commitment to building a quality product, but you don't find those very often in publicly-traded corporations. Mostly because the price of quality would be slightly higher, which causes the consumers to go elsewhere and deal with a less scrupulous company save a buck. Thus, the board of directors demands that sales be raised at any costs, sets unrealistic expectations, and the company cuts corners to meet those expectations, resulting in a product that frequently meets no more than the minimum standards of marketability at best.
The blame can be placed on the poorly educated, dependent, and apathetic consuming public as much as it can on the soulless companies who'd sacrifice any aspect of their product or corporate karma, if it meant saving a dollar down the road. Don't take advertising at face value, don't buy products from people who won't let you examine them before purchase, and don't buy from companies who won't stand behind their products. That's the only way this situation will improve.
Re:What do you do when... (Score:3, Insightful)
This article here [avagara.com] gives a decent overview over why the electoral college is probably superior to just counting straight votes. It mostly has to do with lessening the power of voting blocs. Of course, voting blocs reminds me of the huge problem with gerrymandering in this country. Sigh.
Perhaps the electoral college is really a problem, and I'm not looking at it correctly, but I really doubt it. Twice in 200 years have we had the person who won the popular vote lose the election, and that seems like a small problem if the system decreases the power of large blocs.
Re:What do you do when... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that politicians are more answerable to their party than the voters, but for example Bob Dole was quoted during his 1996 campaign as saying "I'm not bound by the platform. I probably agree with most everything in it, but I haven't read it."
Joe Lieberman would be another example of a politician that is far from his partys platform - I'd say most people are surprised he's not a republican. John McCain is another obvious example of not always going with the party line. I think that a partial solution to this problem, instead of eliminating political parties, would be the elimination of the ridiculous gerrymandering of voting districts that goes on and has gone on for what seems like ever. When the republican or democratic candidates don't have any worries about losing in a district, it definitely makes a cookie cutter, party line candidate easy to pass through.
Where's the ideology gene? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice to see the ad hominem fallacy is alive and well.
The examples you gave were business decisions by Murdoch for whatever reason he has for courting the Chinese, and nothing to do with Fox News content. Please state actual, confirmed examples of Fox News lying.
You're as bad as those that say they distrust CNN because they feel Ted Turner's hand is lurking editorially behind the scenes.
Remember, kids, just say no to ideology. It'll ruin your brain faster and more effectively than a 9mm shot to the head.
Re:What do you do when... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do you do when... (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, this is the number one thing most often misunderstood about the US system.
Reason to vote out old aged Congressmen (Score:1, Insightful)
The older members come from a time when only the federal government could decide what entertainment/tech innovations made it in the marketplace.
Younger congressional members will be much more open to innovation.
We never want another thing like digital audio tape machines to be killed via industry lobbying and congressional stalling.
Vote out all of the obsolete older ones.
No, they don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's a step towards legitimizing the DMCA which should be repealed. Copyright law is so strong already that the Supreme Court's favorable opinion called it "unwise". DMCA outlaws technology instead of enforcing copyright. "Circumvention", making use of things you own, and reverse engineering, simply understanding how things work, should not be crimes. Do not support half measures so that you can be comfortable in your slavery and your children will think you are a criminal for being curious. Laws that make specific exceptions to the gross and unconstituional language of the DMCA are not good for anyone.
Wholesale redistribution, aka publication, of other people's content is wrong. It deprives artists and publishers of fair returns for their efforts. This is what copyright is all about.
Using your own media and recieving radio waves that pass through your house is not wrong. Sharing the media you enjoy with a few friends and playing for yourself when you feel like it is not republication and nothing is wrong with it. Decrypting radio waves passing through your house is not a republication. Outlawing your ability to do these things and share that information with your friends is what the DMCA is all about.
Re:Digital Media Consumers Rights Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where's the ideology gene? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideology may be a way to ruin your brain, but conservatism and right-wing corporatism is a sure way to ruin your heart.