6 ms·

The tech world badly needs the equivalent of the NRA. We need to routinely be grading politician voting records [1] on privacy focused bills. If a politician vo

The tech world badly needs the equivalent of the NRA. We need to routinely be grading politician voting records [1] on privacy focused bills. If a politician votes against privacy, then they should be forced to fear a highly contested re-election. If it works for guns and the tea-party, then why can't it work for tech? [1] https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/

smegger001 11y ago
You mean like the EFF...
- schoen 11y ago
  EFF is a 501(c)(3) organization, which isn't permitted to support or oppose candidates in an election. EFF can take a position on proposed legislation, but not on political candidates.
- MikeKusold 11y ago
  The EFF is too splintered for this goal. They do fantastic work in courts, but they don't currently have the resources to lobby successfully. They began to start grading politicians, but it has since been neglected: https://standagainstspying.org/ https://standagainstspying.org/ That said, they are currently our best option. You can support them by donating ( https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate ) and setting them as your Amazon Smile charity.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- amock 11y ago
  According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Fin... the NRA receives the majority of its funding from small donors. I don't know what you consider "unbelievable", but it seems like the lack of corporate support wouldn't stop an organization like the NRA.
jakeogh 11y ago
The EFF is already the most reliable org fighting for our digital arms. As far as comparison to the NRA, I suggest GOA[1] is a better model. The NRA is only a fair weather friend of the 2nd. [1] http://www.gunowners.org/114hrat.htm http://www.gunowners.org/114hrat.htm
- rayiner 11y ago
  The EFF is probably as good as it gets for digital privacy issues, unless it becomes a widespread concern for millenials.[1] When you're a small minority like digital privacy activists are, using the legal system instead of the ballot box is your proper recourse, by design. Money would help, somewhat, too, but I'm not sure the tech companies with deep pockets actually support the digital privacy agenda in more than a tepid way. [1] Which I doubt. Eventually, you'll have millenial senators. But I am guessing they will still care more about terrorism, chinese hacking, etc, than electronic privacy.
  - hawkice 11y ago
    Somewhat perversely, Chinese hacking largely _is_ a privacy issue, just not individual privacy. The reason why Chinese hackers in particular are of concern is (1) they seem to engage in substantially higher levels of corporate espionage and (2) are outside of jurisdictions where such things can be appropriately disincentivised / punished [Although there are some signs China might start playing ball as they develop more domestic proprietary information]. There's a data science hurdle -- can e.g. the Russian mob filter though mass hacked email and facebook accounts to find blackmail material that has reasonably good returns with minimal personal time investment -- before the two become one and the same. If we end the decade before we have public conversations about (modulo details) an email from yourself saying 'send money here or we will forward this email to your employer/spouse', I would be surprised. Until then, people only have privacy because there's no economic incentive to shatter it. There are no rules. Yet.
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    > unless it becomes a widespread concern for millenials Why do you think millenials don't care about privacy? This news is #2 on the Reddit homepage right now, and did you not see Reddit explode (and blackout) over SOPA, either?
brianmurphy 11y ago
Please don't conflate tech and privacy. From a tech perspective, there are very useful and interesting public safety projects that can come from interdepartmental data.
rhino369 11y ago
>privacy focused bills How much tech revenue depends on spying on people and then selling advertisements? I have no idea, but it seems like a lot.
- devbug 11y ago
  At worst, I'll get annoying advertisements for burqas. Don't see how these are comparable.
rayiner 11y ago
> If it works for guns and the tea-party, then why can't it work for tech? Because a viable critical mass of people are willing to be single-issue voters when it comes to guns. And that's the case because gun ownership is deeply ingrained into the culture of many parts of the country. Neither is true for electronic privacy.
- _delirium 11y ago
  I remember being somewhat surprised by the regional success of the various Pirate Parties, which seem to be close to single-issue parties, at least if you consider the constellation of things around copyright/privacy/patents to be one issue. In fact their main problem seemed to be that they tried to turn into more than single-issue parties, at which point they collapsed into in-fighting because they didn't agree on anything else. But it suggests that, at least in some regions, there's a significant minority of people willing to single-issue vote on those issues. The U.S. so far doesn't seem to be one of them, but I'm not 100% confident that an organization rating candidates on EFF issues in a scorecard-style way couldn't have at least some influence, if it got enough recognition/PR, even if obviously not as big as the NRA's.
  - wadetandy 11y ago
    That doesn't work in a system like in the United States where we directly vote for a candidate who needs 50.1% of the vote. In most (all?) if the European countries where the pirate party has experienced success, 15% of the vote equals ~15% of the representation. In the US 15% gets you 0% representation.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > That doesn't work in a system like in the United States where we directly vote for a candidate who needs 50.1% of the vote. First, 50.1% (or 51% or 50% + 1, more common alternative descriptions) is an inaccurate description of the requirement in a majority/runoff election, "greater than 50%" is correct (since votes are always in whole numbers, 50% + 0.5 would also be a correct minimum threshold.) Second, many single-winner elections in the US are plurality rather than majority/runoff, for which the threshold is actually "greater than any other candidate" not "greater than 50%". Third, the system used for elections is subject to change (in many states, through citizen initiative, so the "but the incumbents will never vote for it" objection doesn't apply), so, "it doesn't work in the existing electoral system" isn't really a reason something won't work, just a reason why making it workable also involves advocating for change in the electoral system.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mmanfrin 11y ago
I've, for the past couple years, had an idea for a PAC specifically for tech issues. The PAC would also monitor and rate politicians stances on tech issues (I have a list of stances that would be part of the mission: net neutrality, privacy protections, data portability, and a few others). I've just never pushed very far with it.
- thegayngler 11y ago
  Push forward with it so the tech community can have a more full throated voice on issues involving the tech community. Politicians need to be afraid of losing elections.
- declan 11y ago
  You might like a pair of CNET columns I wrote 13 years ago calling for a PAC for tech issues: http://www.cnet.com/news/is-it-time-for-a-geekpac/ http://www.cnet.com/news/is-it-time-for-a-geekpac/ http://www.cnet.com/news/perspective-dont-get-mad-get-even/ http://www.cnet.com/news/perspective-dont-get-mad-get-even/ I interviewed Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, for one of the columns; whether you agree or disagree with him, he's an able advocate for his issues. Here's what he said: "One of the most important things the tech industry can do is a rating," Norquist says. "Every politician in this country wants to tell you that he's tech friendly...Pick 10 or 20 issues and give ratings. Then people who say they're tech friendly but they're not--there's a cost to that. You as a tech group don't have to advertise that. The candidate running against that person will promote it. It certainly puts the lie to some people running around who say they're tech friendly and don't have the records to back it up." I also wrote some Perl code to scrape Thomas and create tech voting guides for Wired and CNET with an interactive Javascript map. Unfortunately I think the Wired one has died in a redesign, and the CNET one no longer works either. :( http://www.cnet.com/news/technology-voter-guide-2006-grading-congress-on-high-tech-cred/ http://www.cnet.com/news/technology-voter-guide-2006-grading...
- Nicholas_C 11y ago
  Does there not already exist an organization that rates politicians on those issues? I would be very surprised. I would also be very interested in this. Will do some research.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Go even further and be a GOA, perhaps in addition to an NRA equivalent just to push the Overton window.
dominotw 11y ago
Because ordinary voters care about "safety" than privacy.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The tech world badly needs the equivalent of the NRA. The NRA -- as a lobbying organization -- is a single-issue lobbying organization with an incredibly straightforward mission. "The tech world" isn't an issue like "gun rights", and can't support an NRA-like organization. A more specific privacy-oriented viewpoint with the kind of simplicity and clarity that the NRA's mission has might -- but it would have only limited correlation to the "tech world" in its support.
- 001sky 11y ago
  Privacy is a resonably coherent subject, especially in the context of telco/internet regs. It's also a coherent area of constitutional law (bill of rights). The "tech world" just seems like a straw man and easily falls down, for the obvious reasons.
nickbauman 11y ago
The NRA's power comes from its perfect political triangularity with a certain, vital voting bloc. There is no equivalent for digital rights.

smegger001 11y ago

You mean like the EFF...

schoen 11y ago
EFF is a 501(c)(3) organization, which isn't permitted to support or oppose candidates in an election. EFF can take a position on proposed legislation, but not on political candidates.
MikeKusold 11y ago
The EFF is too splintered for this goal. They do fantastic work in courts, but they don't currently have the resources to lobby successfully. They began to start grading politicians, but it has since been neglected: https://standagainstspying.org/ https://standagainstspying.org/ That said, they are currently our best option. You can support them by donating ( https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate ) and setting them as your Amazon Smile charity.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

amock 11y ago
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Fin... the NRA receives the majority of its funding from small donors. I don't know what you consider "unbelievable", but it seems like the lack of corporate support wouldn't stop an organization like the NRA.

jakeogh 11y ago

The EFF is already the most reliable org fighting for our digital arms. As far as comparison to the NRA, I suggest GOA[1] is a better model. The NRA is only a fair weather friend of the 2nd. [1] http://www.gunowners.org/114hrat.htm http://www.gunowners.org/114hrat.htm

rayiner 11y ago
The EFF is probably as good as it gets for digital privacy issues, unless it becomes a widespread concern for millenials.[1] When you're a small minority like digital privacy activists are, using the legal system instead of the ballot box is your proper recourse, by design. Money would help, somewhat, too, but I'm not sure the tech companies with deep pockets actually support the digital privacy agenda in more than a tepid way. [1] Which I doubt. Eventually, you'll have millenial senators. But I am guessing they will still care more about terrorism, chinese hacking, etc, than electronic privacy.
- hawkice 11y ago
  Somewhat perversely, Chinese hacking largely _is_ a privacy issue, just not individual privacy. The reason why Chinese hackers in particular are of concern is (1) they seem to engage in substantially higher levels of corporate espionage and (2) are outside of jurisdictions where such things can be appropriately disincentivised / punished [Although there are some signs China might start playing ball as they develop more domestic proprietary information]. There's a data science hurdle -- can e.g. the Russian mob filter though mass hacked email and facebook accounts to find blackmail material that has reasonably good returns with minimal personal time investment -- before the two become one and the same. If we end the decade before we have public conversations about (modulo details) an email from yourself saying 'send money here or we will forward this email to your employer/spouse', I would be surprised. Until then, people only have privacy because there's no economic incentive to shatter it. There are no rules. Yet.
- scott_karana 11y ago
  > unless it becomes a widespread concern for millenials Why do you think millenials don't care about privacy? This news is #2 on the Reddit homepage right now, and did you not see Reddit explode (and blackout) over SOPA, either?

brianmurphy 11y ago

Please don't conflate tech and privacy. From a tech perspective, there are very useful and interesting public safety projects that can come from interdepartmental data.

rhino369 11y ago

>privacy focused bills How much tech revenue depends on spying on people and then selling advertisements? I have no idea, but it seems like a lot.

devbug 11y ago
At worst, I'll get annoying advertisements for burqas. Don't see how these are comparable.

rayiner 11y ago

> If it works for guns and the tea-party, then why can't it work for tech? Because a viable critical mass of people are willing to be single-issue voters when it comes to guns. And that's the case because gun ownership is deeply ingrained into the culture of many parts of the country. Neither is true for electronic privacy.

_delirium 11y ago
I remember being somewhat surprised by the regional success of the various Pirate Parties, which seem to be close to single-issue parties, at least if you consider the constellation of things around copyright/privacy/patents to be one issue. In fact their main problem seemed to be that they tried to turn into more than single-issue parties, at which point they collapsed into in-fighting because they didn't agree on anything else. But it suggests that, at least in some regions, there's a significant minority of people willing to single-issue vote on those issues. The U.S. so far doesn't seem to be one of them, but I'm not 100% confident that an organization rating candidates on EFF issues in a scorecard-style way couldn't have at least some influence, if it got enough recognition/PR, even if obviously not as big as the NRA's.
- wadetandy 11y ago
  That doesn't work in a system like in the United States where we directly vote for a candidate who needs 50.1% of the vote. In most (all?) if the European countries where the pirate party has experienced success, 15% of the vote equals ~15% of the representation. In the US 15% gets you 0% representation.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > That doesn't work in a system like in the United States where we directly vote for a candidate who needs 50.1% of the vote. First, 50.1% (or 51% or 50% + 1, more common alternative descriptions) is an inaccurate description of the requirement in a majority/runoff election, "greater than 50%" is correct (since votes are always in whole numbers, 50% + 0.5 would also be a correct minimum threshold.) Second, many single-winner elections in the US are plurality rather than majority/runoff, for which the threshold is actually "greater than any other candidate" not "greater than 50%". Third, the system used for elections is subject to change (in many states, through citizen initiative, so the "but the incumbents will never vote for it" objection doesn't apply), so, "it doesn't work in the existing electoral system" isn't really a reason something won't work, just a reason why making it workable also involves advocating for change in the electoral system.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mmanfrin 11y ago

I've, for the past couple years, had an idea for a PAC specifically for tech issues. The PAC would also monitor and rate politicians stances on tech issues (I have a list of stances that would be part of the mission: net neutrality, privacy protections, data portability, and a few others). I've just never pushed very far with it.

thegayngler 11y ago
Push forward with it so the tech community can have a more full throated voice on issues involving the tech community. Politicians need to be afraid of losing elections.
declan 11y ago
You might like a pair of CNET columns I wrote 13 years ago calling for a PAC for tech issues: http://www.cnet.com/news/is-it-time-for-a-geekpac/ http://www.cnet.com/news/is-it-time-for-a-geekpac/ http://www.cnet.com/news/perspective-dont-get-mad-get-even/ http://www.cnet.com/news/perspective-dont-get-mad-get-even/ I interviewed Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, for one of the columns; whether you agree or disagree with him, he's an able advocate for his issues. Here's what he said: "One of the most important things the tech industry can do is a rating," Norquist says. "Every politician in this country wants to tell you that he's tech friendly...Pick 10 or 20 issues and give ratings. Then people who say they're tech friendly but they're not--there's a cost to that. You as a tech group don't have to advertise that. The candidate running against that person will promote it. It certainly puts the lie to some people running around who say they're tech friendly and don't have the records to back it up." I also wrote some Perl code to scrape Thomas and create tech voting guides for Wired and CNET with an interactive Javascript map. Unfortunately I think the Wired one has died in a redesign, and the CNET one no longer works either. :( http://www.cnet.com/news/technology-voter-guide-2006-grading-congress-on-high-tech-cred/ http://www.cnet.com/news/technology-voter-guide-2006-grading...
Nicholas_C 11y ago
Does there not already exist an organization that rates politicians on those issues? I would be very surprised. I would also be very interested in this. Will do some research.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Go even further and be a GOA, perhaps in addition to an NRA equivalent just to push the Overton window.

dominotw 11y ago

Because ordinary voters care about "safety" than privacy.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The tech world badly needs the equivalent of the NRA. The NRA -- as a lobbying organization -- is a single-issue lobbying organization with an incredibly straightforward mission. "The tech world" isn't an issue like "gun rights", and can't support an NRA-like organization. A more specific privacy-oriented viewpoint with the kind of simplicity and clarity that the NRA's mission has might -- but it would have only limited correlation to the "tech world" in its support.

001sky 11y ago
Privacy is a resonably coherent subject, especially in the context of telco/internet regs. It's also a coherent area of constitutional law (bill of rights). The "tech world" just seems like a straw man and easily falls down, for the obvious reasons.

nickbauman 11y ago

The NRA's power comes from its perfect political triangularity with a certain, vital voting bloc. There is no equivalent for digital rights.