Dear Congress, It's No Longer OK To Not Know How The Internet Works
from the seconded dept
We usually strive to come up with our own headlines for posts on Techdirt, but Joshua Kopstein's post on Motherboard.tv has such a perfect title that we're reusing it here: Dear Congress, It's No Longer OK To Not Know How The Internet Works. The point, which was driving so many of us mad watching the SOPA hearings, is how head-bangingly frustrating it is to see elected officials gleefully admit they don't understand the technology they're about to regulate:I remember fondly the days when we were all tickled pink by our elected officials� struggle to understand how the internet works. Whether it was George W. Bush referring to �the internets� or Senator Ted Stevens describing said internets as �a series of tubes,� we would sit back and chortle at our well-meaning but horribly uninformed representatives, confident that the right people would eventually steer them back on course. Well I have news for members of Congress: Those days are over.But this isn't about looking cute and folksy. The internet matters. A lot.
We get it. You think you can be cute and old-fashioned by openly admitting that you don�t know what a DNS server is. You relish in the opportunity to put on a half-cocked smile and ask to skip over the techno-jargon, conveniently masking your ignorance by making yourselves seem better aligned with the average American joe or jane � the �non-nerds� among us.
But to anyone of moderate intelligence that tuned in to yesterday�s Congressional mark-up of SOPA, the legislation that seeks to fundamentally change how the internet works, you kind of just looked like a bunch of jack-asses.Kopstein goes into a lot more (worthwhile, go read it) detail about the bill, about the gleeful ignorance of some Judiciary Committee members, and then concludes:
This used to be funny, but now it�s really just terrifying. We�re dealing with legislation that will completely change the face of the internet and free speech for years to come. Yet here we are, still at the mercy of underachieving Congressional know-nothings that have more in common with the slacker students sitting in the back of math class than elected representatives. The fact that some of the people charged with representing us must be dragged kicking and screaming out of their complacency on such matters is no longer endearing � it�s just pathetic and sad.This is a key point. Unfortunately, I've see way too many people supporting SOPA (especially among the lobbyist crew) act as if this is just some sort of game, where the goal is to "win." That's how DC politics works, but it doesn't take into account the very real impact of the damage that they're doing. If you're regulating the internet, it should at least be a pre-requisite that you are willing to understand the technology, or that you abstain from taking part in voting on (or writing) bills if you don't understand it. It's not funny. It's not cute. It's terrifying and it impacts us all.
So the real question is what is the way forward on this kind of thing? One would be to elect more technically savvy folks to Congress, but that's always difficult (and lots of tech savvy folks would rather be working in tech). Another would be to better educate those who are in Congress. Some of us are already working on that front with things like Engine Advocacy, but having more help and more voices would be a good thing.
Other than that, I think we should just make it clear to elected officials that people won't tolerate them gleefully displaying ignorance on issues that they're about to vote on. When Rep. Mel Watt declares proudly that he doesn't understand the technology, and then says he just doesn't believe the huge group of internet engineers who warn about the negative impacts of SOPA, he shouldn't get a free pass on that. The public needs to let him know that that's unacceptable from an elected official.
Things like this won't change overnight, but by making it clear that such things won't be tolerated by the voting public, we can at least start to influence the debate in a meaningful way. So speak up. When you see an elected official being purposely ignorant or cracking jokes about their ignorance tell them that they need to be educated and help them get that education.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, copyright, ignorance, internet, politics, sopa, technology
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nothing New
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing New
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things that make you go hmmm...
Unlikely this will change a thing. Blagojevich tried to sell Obama's old position. Do you honestly think that was the first time that happened.
The only way forward is too in effect lobby congress in the same way SOPA is. That is if you want things to change. No money, no way forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Things that make you go hmmm...
If there were only some technology out there, that allowed us to share information about everything our congress critters were doing.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Things that make you go hmmm...
(Wish I could add a /s to the end of that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Things that make you go hmmm...
The Tea Party got a lot of their candidates elected didn't they?
What they didn't had was written legislation they didn't had a plan, the plan was just to shuffle people around congress and that was it, instead people need to take the debate outside of congress and to the streets, where everyone can suggest a law, review laws and suggests changes, after people have that they can put someone in there to put those things in place.
Want to change the political system?
Don't do it like others are doing it, do it differently and they will listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Things that make you go hmmm...
However, the Tea Party candidates did, indeed, have a lot of money behind them - nearly every conservative PAC was bankrolling them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you just hit on the fundamental difference between your supporters and detractors, Mike.
This isn't a game, where someone has to win and someone has to lose. This is real life, and EVERYONE stands to win or lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What SOPA wants to do is to give big media control over the United States' root DNS servers, this is alarming but not quite the same level of intrusiveness and control that China and Iran exercise. I run my own DNS server and update from root servers outside of the United States. It isn't difficult and if censorship like SOPA becomes more prevalent, the creators of the software will make it even more simple to install and run.
SOPA will do two extremely damaging things. First, it will drive business away from the United States. I spent several hours last night migrating a company's servers from a datacenter in Los Angeles to one in Spain. The entire company is U.S. based and they do not engage in anything resembling piracy, but they do have sections for user uploaded data and the risk for crippling litigation was deemed too great compared to the cost of moving the data overseas.
The second effect involves criminalizing behavior that the average person does not see as ethically wrong. Sharing will continue unabated and when the SOPA supporters realize that the bill has done nothing but create a new class of white collar felon, they'll want the next bill which will be far worse. If deep-packet inspection becomes required and/or encryption becomes a felony we'll be playing in the same league as China et al.
TL/DR: SOPA will fail, people like me will make sure of this. I'm more concerned about the precedent this will set for future incarnations and the criminalization of the masses to satisfy the profit margins of the few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Think of a bear-trap in front of your lightswitch as a crude analogy. And never misunderestimate the ability of the US government to make a bigger beartrap for its own citizen bears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or other nations' bears.
Viz., Bill C11 the new Canadian made-in-Hollywood copyright bill, delivered to Ottawa courtesy of Washington D.C. See http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ for insightful commentary.
A quibble:
You probably mean "never underestimate" or the less preferable "always misunderestimate"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait, out of fear of SOPA; your client moved his servers out of the jurisdiction of SOPA (the US) into the jurisdiction of SOPA? What am I missing here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thinking that SOPA applies to other Countries.
The US is the jurisdiction of SOPA.
Or do you think you are shutting down websites in Russia?
You aren't. You are being blocked from accessing said Russian site. Myself, and the rest of the world, will still be able to access said site. Legally.
Thinking that SOPA won't be expanded to shut down free speech, such as this site or the comment section of the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Willful ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Willful ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Willful ignorance
Techie: Sir, if I must, SOPA is-
Congressman: You trust SOPA? Great here are your things okay bye
Techie: What-
Congressman: I said BYE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Willful ignorance
WWMD (What would Madison do?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How?
I have called the DC switch repeatedly. Ask for John Cornyn and get a recording that says they are busy and can't take the call. Ask for Sam Johnson and get an unpaid intern that gruffly says he'll let the rep know and hangs up. Ask for KBH and get dead air since she's not running for reeelection and no longer has any concern for her constituents.
Send emails or letters? No response, or a "thanks for the feedback", or at BEST a form letter that may not even be specific to the inquiry.
What's unacceptable is the total lack of accountability. Don't like the direction of our country? Well, feel free to run against John Cornyn in Texas.
We don't GET options. We get what's given to us, and we damn well better like it.
Minority viewpoints need representation too. If "Party X" gets 10% of the vote I think it should get 10% of the seats. Right now if "Party X" gets 10% of the vote they get 0% of the representation- that isn't right and it's hurting our country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How?
Mind you, they aren't writing to me personally. Just generally responding to the barrage of messages on a given topic. But so far they've all done a pretty good job of addressing the issue and explaining why they voted (or are planning on voting) they way they did.
I don't always agree and sometimes feel various congress critters have no real grasp of what they are voting on (SOPA!), but I do give them some credit for taking the time to bang out an explanatory email so we here at home know what they are up to.
Though I have to admit, I've never tried actually *calling* one of them. Might have to give that a shot sometime to see what happens.
--bob 5k
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This says it all:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This says it all:
That's just... WHAT?! As if that's something to be proud of. "Oh I don't have to know anything about anything in order to decide on its future." When are we (globally) going to hold our legislature accountable for the stuff they rule on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This says it all:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This says it all:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This says it all:
Mine just jumped to "obviously."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frustrations
And thinking that Google is the devil because it has the top search engine.
Or when we have to rely on people SO INEPT at their obs, that everyone knows how to route around the law in order to watch a movie online.
I don't get it. What do we have to do in order to get a representative government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frustrations
1) Dumb yourself down to the point where the current government represents you, or;
2) Try to elect intelligent politicians
One is an oxymoron, the other will make you a moron.
Tails they win, heads you lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frustrations
You really want an honest answer? You probably won't like it.
First, the FCC needs to order every TV and radio station in the country to make the public airwaves available to political candidates, at nominal cost. That isn't enough, though, because of cable: So the FCC also needs to make the cable franchises' use of public right-of-way contingent on their making broadcast facilities available to political candidates at nominal cost.
That measure would reduce the terrible price of a political campaign, and thus reduce the terrible dependence on wealthy doners and large sums of money.
In addition, if the advertising slots for candidates came in, say, three minute blocks, that would work against the 15 and 30 second soundbite culture.
It might not be enough. But necessities like public education are longer term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frustrations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frustrations
That's because they aren't really worried about piracy...because they need that scapegoat to gain more control. Do you really think they want to get rid of piracy all together, when it creates such a great narrative for them to use on Congress? "Them thar forrin theives R steeling ar contents!"
No these bills are about control. Control on what you, the hapless moneybag, get to watch online. They want to turn the Internet into the next cable television. With only approved channels. Sure, for now, they won't attack US-based websites, but that's just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or
Competitive think tanks (et al) would be awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Or
As judged by ...(e.g. Lamar Smith? MPAA? Scored on how much it increases campaign contributions?)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, but not knowing something and not sufficiently consulting with experts during your hearing is not acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a moot point
Until then this is all a moot point when your average end user knows about as much about the internet as your congress critter. The tech savvy are the ones who care about this topic and sadly we don't have nearly a large enough voice....yet. Maybe in 20 years. Assuming the dumbing down of tech doesn't continue with Apple products and the like. Sorry but I'm seeing computer users getting dumber and dumber as companies like Apple isolate them from knowing even the very basics of how tech works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree that our representatives should take the time to understand what's going on or enlist assistance. A person can't know everything and then even your advisers might be biased...tough one there.
The part is that acting dumb about technology does in fact endear them to the general public. I'm not sure how often you've heard the phrases "I'm computer illiterate," or "I'm not very good with computers." I personally hear it quite often and they're said with a sense of glee.
I suppose I'm pushing forward the point that maybe we do, in fact, have an accurate representation in congress...and that makes a sad point about our attitude towards such things as a country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The same people and business that used to call me out to fix thier phone or router after they'd dropped it into the toaster oven and not noticed the funny smell.
(You'd be amazed how often I heard variations of that!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CEO: The evil pirates have been destroyed! Now the starving artists that we have a monopo- I mean, that we are caring for, will be starving less! *continues eating at 3-star restaurant*
Musician: *still poor*
*Weeks later*
CEO: Why hasn't my money increased by at least 150%?!
Tech Advisor: Maybe if you didn't support-
CEO: I'VE GOT IT! The pirates! They probably have their own illegal tubes!
Tech Advisor: Wha-
CEO: CURSE YOU, PIRATES!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some here in congress don't even know how radio works, and you want them to know how them tubes work? Cha right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't understand the Internet, do not vote on Internet-regulating bills. If you do not understand a radio, please move to Florida and quietly live out the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear People, It's No Longer OK To Elect Congressmen That Don't Know How The Internet Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's plenty of precedent for this
The net effect, of course, was to dump a ton of paperwork on everyone in the industry, ruin basic safety protocols and turn a lot of honest people into criminals at the stroke of a pen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STOP S.O.P.A
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-do-not-pass-the-sopa-bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as they continue to get paid by the corporations and continue to get offered jobs with them when they leave politics, they simply do not care!
It's really no different from large companies that pollute the environment. As long as they get rich, they don't give a crap what happens to the rest of the planet.
If you're regulating the internet, it should at least be a pre-requisite that you are willing to understand the technology, or that you abstain from taking part in voting on (or writing) bills if you don't understand it. It's not funny. It's not cute. It's terrifying and it impacts us all.
Except that to them, none of us matter. Unless it's election time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Series of tubes" was actually a fine metaphor...
That comment was nowhere near as ignorant as the pro-SOPA Judiciary members like Mel Watt were saying this week.
I hope everyone was also against Congress voting on changing healthcare as well, since most of them don't know healthcare either.
SOPA is a huge threat, unlike the phantom threats to net neutrality that people pretended necessitated giving the censorious FCC a whole bunch of new powers. Net neutrality violations had been near non-existent (the same 4 always mentioned) and all temporary, because the Internet's structure makes it hard to do. Government censorship, OTOH, is very real here and in many places, and a real threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Series of tubes" was actually a fine metaphor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely. Of course, the same thing applies to PPACA/Obamacare, the PATRIOT Act, TARP, and a whole bunch of other bills people told us we had to shut up and pass, that they "had to pass the bill to find out what was in it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
~Mel Watt (D - NC)
Americans: next election, please don't vote for someone who thinks like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck!
"Blessed are those that can give without remembering, and take without forgetting.
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.'
The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill , the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.'
The cop was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'Thank You' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Then a Politician came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill , the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.'
The Politician was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Politicians lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it."
http://www.santabanta.com/jokes.asp?catid=10807
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government's natural progression is tyranny not freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does everybody finally understand how important tech education is?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII doubt it. This too shall pass.
But SOPA won't. I'll explain why it didn't after it dies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These humans surround themselves with good people, with people who know more than they do in particular areas. They talk to experts, they deal with people "knowledgeable in the field", and so on. They weigh out all the information they get, they discuss it with others in their party and position, and then decide how they are going to look at certain laws.
They do not have to be experts in cars to pass laws about pollution, safety, or other requirements to have a car on the road. They don't have to be able to disassemble and reassemble a car to be able to pass laws on it.
No matter how knowledgeable they are about the internet, the fact is that SOPA (and other laws) are not just about the internet. Technical issues, details, or perhaps your own desire for a totally free and open internet have to balance against all the other needs of the country, of the economy, and of the people.
So, I am sorry if you cannot accept the basics of the way the world works, and that congress isn't a collection of elected internet engineers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason the government can't legislate proper technology policy is two-fold:
1. They are willfully ignorant of technology to engender themselves with the ignorant voting public.
2. Their income depends on them not understanding it.
It's not that they need to "balance against the other needs of the country", that's just a cop-out platitude. You're trying to venerate them as the infallible conservators of balance. You'd have to be nuts to believe it's a compromise issue. Violating civil liberties is never a fair compromise and yes, this is a violation of civil liberties.
If they are "balancing" the issues for the whole of the country, why are these laws so slanted in benefit of the industry and does nothing to protect the rights of the people? There should be provisions that protect individuals from abuses from the industry, but they don't listen to us. Copyright was written to provide disincentive for commercial infringement. It was never intended, nor was it envisioned, that it would be used to censor individuals. But, the government never hears the concerns from advocates of the people they swore an oath to.
I swear, we need representatives to represent us to the representatives in our government! Can you say "infinite recursion"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. Their income depends on them not understanding it."
[citation needed]
Seriously, I think you guys need help.
"If they are "balancing" the issues for the whole of the country, why are these laws so slanted in benefit of the industry and does nothing to protect the rights of the people?"
This is an area where you (and many others) make a mistake. You look at a law and say "It's pro business, so it's against us", yet the reality is that without the business, you wouldn't have the very products you seek. The balance is beyond your "gimmie gimmie gimmie" need of the moment, it covers the short and long term of things.
Short term, you might find it harder to pirate material. Long term, you will continue to have a flow of the very material that you have been pirating.
Politicians have long since figured out that the public is often more like a 2 year old child than an adult, having tantrums about what they cannot have at a given moment. They have to look at things like OWS and realize that it isn't a widespread thing, just a certain narrow group bitching against something they mostly appear not to fully understand.
So the balance is against the "country as a whole", present and future, and not against your personal needs right this second.
Don't you think 10 years of unchecked piracy is enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is more "content" than ever before. There is more revenue than ever before.
And this is the case "after 10 years of unchecked piracy".
You and your cohorts have lost control of the revenue...and that is your problem. That is not the problem of the U.S. govt or judicial system. This is a business problem that can only be solved by businesses themselves being innovative enough to survive and thrive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright was a power granted to congress to create laws to encourage the creation of more art for the benefit of everyone. It is not, and never was, a law to protect the income of people who produce art. If they have a problem making money (which they don't, they've been making record-breaking profits for years now), then they need to address it in their business plan, not by demanding greater censorship of legal speech to block the infringing speech.
Unchecked piracy, as you call it, is not a problem for the government to solve. This war on infringement is war on the very founding principle for which the power to legislate copyright was granted to congress in the first place. The fact that your ilk consider infringement a problem worth addressing at all is telling of how entitled you and your type have become. You are not entitled to profit from your art through copyright. It merely provides the opportunity to profit. Even if you don't make one red cent, copyright has still served its purpose and is satisfied, because it granted you a temporary right to restrict whom may receive a copy of your works. That is all it is supposed to do. It is not a "I made this, now pay me" law. The industry should be grateful that they do make a profit, because they aren't entitled to it.
Funny that you should mention tantrums, you and your type seem to have them quite often over things you haven't the slightest understanding of such. The only thing the government has to consider when making laws, is how this will impact the people at large and whether it has a net benefit to them compared to that impact. If the law doesn't benefit the people as a whole, but just a small vocal segment of businesses that don't need it, then it's a bad policy to implement. It's by the people, for the people, and of the people. It's not by the industry, for the industry, and of the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History repeating itself?
Screw the occupy movement, all tech people in the USA should stand outside congress with power-point slides while yelling "2,4,6,8 Let me help you educate!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new
Fortunately, they have high-paid lobbyists to instruct them how they should vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tech for politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]