Why Congress Keeps Screwing Up Tech Policy

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
They are politicians, do they need a reason to be totally screwing up tech-policy?

The outcry over the awful 2011 Stop Online Piracy Act was so intense that the bill was canceled, and people on the Hill now talk about not wanting to get “SOPAed” for pushing some unpopular online law. But coaxing Congress into passing updates to the laws already on the books is a whole lot harder, and last week’s patent-reform debacle was just another lesson that proves it.
Click to expand...
 
I think at this point we almost need a seperate governing body for internet/computer law and policy. Right now the prevailing winds are just too far removed from current technology. How can someone who has been a disconnected senator for 50 years do anything other than what the puppet master lobbyist tells them to do?
 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), facing complaints by trial lawyers over the loser-pays provision, and other provisions that might undermine lawyers’ practices if applied outside patent suits, pushed Leahy to scuttle the bill.
Click to expand...

There you go.
 
Stupid article

It's the same reason why we can't trust congress to make policy for the NSA:

A very very small percentage of the population actually understands computers, how they work, and their implications for their actions.

NONE OF THEM ARE IN CONGRESS. They are mostly lawyers, a few doctors, and the rest are general hacks.

There is no technical adviser to look after the people.
 
Congress is out of touch with tech, and cannot make worthwhile policy about it, same thing always happens with guns too.

Not trying to start a flame war, but that is why some get all in a huff when a congress person tries to ban/regulate something and they don't have the slightest clue.

barrel-shroud.jpg
 
Grimlaking said:
I think at this point we almost need a seperate governing body for internet/computer law and policy. Right now the prevailing winds are just too far removed from current technology. How can someone who has been a disconnected senator for 50 years do anything other than what the puppet master lobbyist tells them to do?
Click to expand...
Are we sure about the puppet master lobbyist model?

Basically the worst thing a lobbyist can to a politician is not give them money. A politician/regulator can put a company out of business.

I think the model is just as likely corrupt politicians cutting up sectors of the economy to reward 'friends' who have been helpful in the past or near future.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Stupid article

It's the same reason why we can't trust congress to make policy for the NSA:

A very very small percentage of the population actually understands computers, how they work, and their implications for their actions.

NONE OF THEM ARE IN CONGRESS. They are mostly lawyers, a few doctors, and the rest are general hacks.

There is no technical adviser to look after the people.
Click to expand...

That's why you hire a staff, because no one can be an expert in everything from medicine to agriculture.

What most congressman do instead is rely on position papers written by lobbying groups who spin things according to what they want. As a point of fact, most every law congress passes is written by lobbyists.
 
pigster said:
That's why you hire a staff, because no one can be an expert in everything from medicine to agriculture.

What most congressman do instead is rely on position papers written by lobbying groups who spin things according to what they want. As a point of fact, most every law congress passes is written by lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is the case across most fields.

It is particularly bad in tech though, as generally speaking members of congress tend to be older and less apt when it comes to tech, so they have to rely even more on lobbyists than they usually do for other subjects.

IMHO, as long as influence peddling remains legal, this problem will never go away. :(
 
pigster said:
What most congressman do instead is rely on position papers written by lobbying groups who spin things according to what they want. As a point of fact, most every law congress passes is written by lobbyists.
Click to expand...

This is the big part. You can BS your way into making people believe what you want. Even things that common sense says is fucked up. Yet, they put in a lot of 'research' data and things to make it believable. I'd personally get both sides of the story from independent people that knew what they were talking about that would gain nothing from my vote (and they would have no reason to influence me). Sometimes, that'd be difficult, but the less chance at corruption, the better.
 
I just had to share this, because it just shows how effed we are. SOPA, ATT/DirecTV, Comcast/TWC - but what merger does the FTC block? Whole Foods and Whole Oats. BUT!! The FTC just allowed Walmart to purchase Whole Oats.

Yes, god forbid the monolith of whole foods and whole oats combine...but Walmart grabbing them? No problem.

Not 100% tech related, but seeing how it looks like these mega tech mergers are going to be allowed by the anti-trust folk, and seeing that ridiculous small-fry merger being blocked...made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040855510 said:
Yep, this is the case across most fields.

It is particularly bad in tech though, as generally speaking members of congress tend to be older and less apt when it comes to tech, so they have to rely even more on lobbyists than they usually do for other subjects.

IMHO, as long as influence peddling remains legal, this problem will never go away. :(
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness, business and businessmen (and their employees) are valid constituents as much as other voters are ... it is only when there is a conflict between what the regular Joes want and what business wants that there is an issue ;) ... also, with USA voting percentages at all time lows, a lot of folks complaining about not having access to the government are not using the main access they have (voting) :cool:
 
TwistedAegis said:
I just had to share this, because it just shows how effed we are. SOPA, ATT/DirecTV, Comcast/TWC - but what merger does the FTC block? Whole Foods and Whole Oats. BUT!! The FTC just allowed Walmart to purchase Whole Oats.

Yes, god forbid the monolith of whole foods and whole oats combine...but Walmart grabbing them? No problem.

Not 100% tech related, but seeing how it looks like these mega tech mergers are going to be allowed by the anti-trust folk, and seeing that ridiculous small-fry merger being blocked...made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Click to expand...

I don't think the FTC has issued their position on the other mergers yet ... I agree that the Whole Foods block didn't make sense ... personally I think the FTC has outlived its usefulness and we should eliminate it ... since most of the blocks end up in federal court anyway we should just allow one of the NGOs (or the affected competitors) to bring the suit, if they want to ... if no one is interested in filing suit then the merger should proceed ... that would make far more sense
 
Guys, its really, really simple: Its less politically dangerous to DO NOTHING.
 
pigster said:
That's why you hire a staff, because no one can be an expert in everything from medicine to agriculture.

What most congressman do instead is rely on position papers written by lobbying groups who spin things according to what they want. As a point of fact, most every law congress passes is written by lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Blah ha ha ha. You do realize that most staff except senior staff make squat. And most of that staff is poly-sci people, not comp-sci/it people.

It's the very same reason you can't find teachers to teach comp-sci in high school. No computer programmer worth his weight would be caught dead teaching for half of what he could be paid.
 
gamerk2 said:
Guys, its really, really simple: Its less politically dangerous to DO NOTHING.
Click to expand...

+1.

If you have to make a choice between two evils...the best choice is not to make one at all. Most congressional people don't get that.

1/2 the population supports abortion
1/2 the population doesn't

Guess what? It becomes a social issue with deeply divided lines. So you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. And trying to regulate social morality on things like gay marriage and abortion is stupid. (I do believe that the government should protect certain groups from disenfranchisement from public institutions or public companies if it prevents their advancement based on gender, ethnicity, orientation, or background) But as a whole government should keep it's nose out of social issues. And it's one of the reasons we are so polarized as a nation today. Everyone wants to have it "their way" without considering the implications to others.
 
kbrickley said:
... also, with USA voting percentages at all time lows, a lot of folks complaining about not having access to the government are not using the main access they have (voting) :cool:
Click to expand...

Possibly because many view the political system in the U.S. to be so broken that their vote is pointless?

You could vote Democrat or Republican or some tiny independent party, but in the grand scheme of things, the political system is so gravely corrupted by money that it doesn't matter. No vote seems to have the ability to fix it at this point. I personally vote, but I don't have a difficult time understanding why those who don't don't.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040855743 said:
Possibly because many view the political system in the U.S. to be so broken that their vote is pointless?

You could vote Democrat or Republican or some tiny independent party, but in the grand scheme of things, the political system is so gravely corrupted by money that it doesn't matter. No vote seems to have the ability to fix it at this point. I personally vote, but I don't have a difficult time understanding why those who don't don't.
Click to expand...

A good point was made by some random FB post I saw a while back:

Did voting end slavery? No.
Did voting create labor rights? No.
Did voting give women the right to vote? No (at least, it took quite a bit of direction action to get it taken seriously)
Did voting create the Civil Rights Act? No.

Direct action, marching, getting in the face of your Congress people, are what makes most things happen. The problems now, as I see it are:

1. People (including myself) are too lazy.
2. There are too many people in the country, protesting so many things, it's all become noise
3. There is so much money in so few hands now, they can "out speak" too many people.
 
jpm100 said:
Are we sure about the puppet master lobbyist model?

Basically the worst thing a lobbyist can to a politician is not give them money. A politician/regulator can put a company out of business.

I think the model is just as likely corrupt politicians cutting up sectors of the economy to reward 'friends' who have been helpful in the past or near future.
Click to expand...
I'm having trouble drawing a huge distinction between lobbyists v. "friends" who have contributed a lot to their campaign and hope for favors down the line. Lobbyists play a huge part to be sure, but wealthy backers influence them to be sure also.

Politicians run on money, they need more, constantly, or else they risk not getting re-elected next term. They'll take it from anyone. Besides, 9 times out of 10, the politician with the most money wins.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
It's the very same reason you can't find teachers to teach comp-sci in high school. No computer programmer worth his weight would be caught dead teaching for half of what he could be paid.
Click to expand...

In about 20 years, I'll be moving to a teacher. I'd love to be a teacher, and I'd love to teach IT stuff to kids/high schoolers. Pass the torch. Might not make as much money, but very rewarding.
 
TwistedAegis said:
The problems now, as I see it are:

1. People (including myself) are too lazy.
2. There are too many people in the country, protesting so many things, it's all become noise
3. There is so much money in so few hands now, they can "out speak" too many people.
Click to expand...
+1 Couldn't agree more.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Stupid article

It's the same reason why we can't trust congress to make policy for the NSA:

A very very small percentage of the population actually understands computers, how they work, and their implications for their actions.

NONE OF THEM ARE IN CONGRESS. They are mostly lawyers, a few doctors, and the rest are general hacks.

There is no technical adviser to look after the people.
Click to expand...

Comcast disagrees with you. The former head of the FCC is currently a Comcast CEO. The current head of the FCC was a former Comcast CEO. Policy is rewritten to favor corporate greed. Corporation is infiltrating our government, and where they haven't infiltrated, they're buying off our Congressmen and women.

The fact that they're lawyers are irrelevant. Even if they are professionals in the fields they represent, they will make or change policy to benefit their field where money is concerned first and foremost.
 
Azhar said:
The fact that they're lawyers are irrelevant. Even if they are professionals in the fields they represent, they will make or change policy to benefit their field where money is concerned first and foremost.
Click to expand...

This. While many of the soundbites that get picked apart make a lot of Congress sound stupid (and some undoubtedly are), there are some very, very smart people up there if you ever get a chance to talk one on one off the record. I'm not sure if that makes it better, or scarier, that it's all FUBAR anyway.
 
Why?

Because this is the average congressional Politician.

mickey-rooney.jpg


Why anyone would expect that to be in touch with anything that happened in the recent 50 years is beyond me.
 
You want an answer to shit technology legislation?

Two words:

TERM LIMITS.
 
Stiletto said:
You want an answer to shit technology legislation?

Two words:

TERM LIMITS.
Click to expand...

Not to be a broken record, but term limits have done shit all for California's legislature, which has had them for a while now. It's no panacea by any means.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Not to be a broken record, but term limits have done shit all for California's legislature, which has had them for a while now. It's no panacea by any means.
Click to expand...

California, Illinois, New York and DC are all fucked. It's merely a matter of time. The rest of the country, however, would benefit from term limits. Like Michigan, where John Conyers, who has occupied the same House seat for half a century, failed to get enough valid signatures to be put on the primary ballot...

...and a judge just said "put him on the ballot anyway".

Burn it down. Piss on the ashes. Salt the earth.
 
Ah, should have figured...one of those who you mention CA or NY to and all logic flees the scene.

https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/downloads/pdf/com/insights/economics/regional-reports/Western_Economic_Roundup_07242013.pdf said:
California’s economy has gained considerable momentum over the past year, as strong growth in the technology sector has been joined by gains in tourism and entertainment and a rebound in home sales and residential construction. Overall, economic activity in California is now growing in line with its historical trend, something relatively few states have been able to accomplish during this subpar economic recovery.
Click to expand...
 
TwistedAegis said:
Not to be a broken record, but term limits have done shit all for California's legislature, which has had them for a while now. It's no panacea by any means.
Click to expand...

That would certainly help tech related bills, if nothing else. There would be significantly fewer politicians that think of sliced bread and electric lighting when the words "modern technology" are used.
 
pigster said:
That's why you hire a staff, because no one can be an expert in everything from medicine to agriculture.
Click to expand...

Most of them don't seem to even have high school levels of knowledge about computers and technology.

With as many members of congress as there are, we should have more of them who are experts in science and technology. Only 10% have any background in science, technology, engineering, or math.
 
So, Congress screws up tech policy. That's news? Name something Congress doesn't screw up when those idiots get involved.
 
BladeVenom said:
Most of them don't seem to even have high school levels of knowledge about computers and technology.

With as many members of congress as there are, we should have more of them who are experts in science and technology. Only 10% have any background in science, technology, engineering, or math.
Click to expand...

do many adults nowadays outside of tech even know how pc's work, let alone things like networking and privacy. I bet if you gave an average 30 year old a picture of the inside of a pc, they would have 0 idea what part is which. The problem isn't congress as a whole, it's the lack of knowledge on the whole topic by voters and most people in general. Only a small percentage of the population understands how any of these things work.
 
Robertmarcus said:
do many adults nowadays outside of tech even know how pc's work, let alone things like networking and privacy. I bet if you gave an average 30 year old a picture of the inside of a pc, they would have 0 idea what part is which. The problem isn't congress as a whole, it's the lack of knowledge on the whole topic by voters and most people in general. Only a small percentage of the population understands how any of these things work.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums it up completely.
 
Grimlaking said:
I think at this point we almost need a seperate governing body for internet/computer law and policy.
Click to expand...
We do it's called the FCC Fedeal Communications Commission. They are the ones responsible for the Net Neutrality Act going out the window and to the Lobbyist Corporations.
 
Stiletto said:
California, Illinois, New York and DC are all fucked. It's merely a matter of time. The rest of the country, however, would benefit from term limits. Like Michigan, where John Conyers, who has occupied the same House seat for half a century, failed to get enough valid signatures to be put on the primary ballot...

...and a judge just said "put him on the ballot anyway".

Burn it down. Piss on the ashes. Salt the earth.
Click to expand...

It might make more sense for us to change the process so we impanel voters into office (like we do for Grand Juries) ... if your name is drawn then you must serve and vote on legislation ... you could then be granted a 3 year exclusion after serving ... that way we spread the participation around and we force the voters to step up and actually put their money where their mouth is an BE the government :)
 
kbrickley said:
It might make more sense for us to change the process so we impanel voters into office (like we do for Grand Juries) ... if your name is drawn then you must serve and vote on legislation ... you could then be granted a 3 year exclusion after serving ... that way we spread the participation around and we force the voters to step up and actually put their money where their mouth is an BE the government :)
Click to expand...

Kinda a cool idea, but being forced to serve would be silly. Just randomly pick citizens and ask if they want to take office. If they say no: next!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top