4 ms·

Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents dem

Correct. The court of public opinion may not sway technologists, but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. We have to make it very easy for the general public to understand what's going on at an incredibly simple, "oh I get it" gut level. Simple words communicated simply will go a long ways to showing the importance of keeping good security practices in place in our tech.

zajd 11y ago
Do you really think that constituent demands are what drives law creation?
- lazaroclapp 11y ago
  To a degree, yes. But even if you take a more pessimistic stance and assume that lawmakers have an agenda that is entirely divorced from that of their constituents, they still need to manufacture consent[1]. Which means that if you get enough voters to be strongly opposed to something, it does have an effect beyond what a small group of highly informed critics can have. The political system is neither perfect, nor useless, is somewhere in between, and I say so as someone who comes from a country with political process that leans way more towards 'broken' than the U.S. one does. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jsmthrowaway 11y ago
> but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. Where can I sign up for that Congress? Is that opt-in? Because that sounds great.
- prewett 11y ago
  Probably wouldn't have the effect you are looking for. Corporations are constituents, too, being legally a person. Even if not, the owners are certainly constituents, and most large public companies have a large number of shareholders. 55% of Americans own stock (down from 62% in 2008) [1] So if that 55% constituency demands laws that you don't want, the result is that you are outvoted. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-americans-invested-market.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-a...
- karmelapple 11y ago
  The way you can make your voice - and everyone else's - heard is in votes. Organize a coalition against a politician you think is bad. Get donations. Run ads. Not saying it's easy, but when it comes to election day, that politician truly does hinge on the majority of people filling in the bubble by one name. If you can make that not happen a real threat in the candidate's mind, they'll listen to your desires.
vectorjohn 11y ago
A condescending attitude won't go far though. Not everyone will agree with you, even if you use itty bitty words they can understand. I understand the issue, even when explained in grown up words. And I don't agree. In this case, Apple already was not "keeping good security practices in place" because they made a weak system. If they had actually made a phone that kept good security practices in place, it wouldn't be possible for them to help the FBI. They should comply with this and then fix their crap. Then you can worry about explaining the importance of fighting any law that would undermine strong security.

zajd 11y ago

Do you really think that constituent demands are what drives law creation?

lazaroclapp 11y ago
To a degree, yes. But even if you take a more pessimistic stance and assume that lawmakers have an agenda that is entirely divorced from that of their constituents, they still need to manufacture consent[1]. Which means that if you get enough voters to be strongly opposed to something, it does have an effect beyond what a small group of highly informed critics can have. The political system is neither perfect, nor useless, is somewhere in between, and I say so as someone who comes from a country with political process that leans way more towards 'broken' than the U.S. one does. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jsmthrowaway 11y ago

> but it will determine what law makers feel the need to propose, based on their constituents demands. Where can I sign up for that Congress? Is that opt-in? Because that sounds great.

prewett 11y ago
Probably wouldn't have the effect you are looking for. Corporations are constituents, too, being legally a person. Even if not, the owners are certainly constituents, and most large public companies have a large number of shareholders. 55% of Americans own stock (down from 62% in 2008) [1] So if that 55% constituency demands laws that you don't want, the result is that you are outvoted. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-americans-invested-market.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/182816/little-change-percentage-a...
karmelapple 11y ago
The way you can make your voice - and everyone else's - heard is in votes. Organize a coalition against a politician you think is bad. Get donations. Run ads. Not saying it's easy, but when it comes to election day, that politician truly does hinge on the majority of people filling in the bubble by one name. If you can make that not happen a real threat in the candidate's mind, they'll listen to your desires.

vectorjohn 11y ago

A condescending attitude won't go far though. Not everyone will agree with you, even if you use itty bitty words they can understand. I understand the issue, even when explained in grown up words. And I don't agree. In this case, Apple already was not "keeping good security practices in place" because they made a weak system. If they had actually made a phone that kept good security practices in place, it wouldn't be possible for them to help the FBI. They should comply with this and then fix their crap. Then you can worry about explaining the importance of fighting any law that would undermine strong security.