6 ms·

"The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you abolish the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect the answer i

by kevin42 10y ago

"The only question left is how do you fund standards development if you abolish the model (that predates the Internet) of selling copies. I suspect the answer is going to be different on a case by case basis." Why shouldn't congress pay for the development of the law if they are going to enact the law? I've often thought that is part of the problem. It is too easy for congress to pass laws quickly and without restriction. That is why we have so many laws, it is so easy to pass laws in a reactionary way, and to respond to private interests instead of public interests. I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded?

lithos 10y ago
Well the people writing them are also receiving a large amount of power when they are working in the law. The people involved have already spent massive sums on lobbying, and to me this feels like an extension of that lobbying.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You've got the causation backwards. ASTM is an engineering organization like ISO. They develop industry-consensus standards, just like ISO. Their codes didn't get adopted as the standard because they lobbied for them (do you even have any evidence ASTM lobbied to get its standards adopted?). They got adopted because they were the industry standards. It's like if a law stated that certain government contractors must use ADA or C. They'd refer to the ISO standards for those languages, but nobody could reasonably come along after the fact and say they did so because of lobbying by ISO!
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    And yet ASTM maintains a Washington, DC, presence, with public policy (a/k/a lobbying) positions. ASTM Washington Office Jeff Grove, Vice-President, Global Policy and Industry Affairs 202-xxx-xxxx Anthony Quinn, Director, Public Policy and International Trade 202-xxx-xxxx http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm Even if ASTM itself doesn't directly lobby, it's ... delightfully or frighteningly charming, take your pick, that the naive view of an industry organisation not being utilised by its members for their direct benefit through rules-setting wouldn't find itself used to do so. Directly, indirectly, overtly, or otherwise. Congressional Record lists 188 results for ASTM in Congressional testimony and documents: https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"%2C"search"%3A"astm"%7D https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"... Note that ASTM is principally active at city, county, and state levels, for which comparable archives are much less available.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    ASTM are documented to have retained a lobbying firm in the UK: http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international Sep 2010 - Nov 2010 APCO WORLDWIDE provided UK public affairs consultancy services to ASTM International. [2]
rayiner 10y ago
> I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded? Because building codes are a local issue and local governments have no money?
- kevin42 10y ago
  That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. Think of how corrupt the system could be if a bunch of building material suppliers could write the law. "Buildings must be constructed from brand X materials" Then brand X has a monopoly for the materials. This is similar, only brand X is the only company that can provide you with a copy of the law, a law that you are required to comply with.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. > If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. These are non-profit organizations. And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. It's often very important for things to be done according to accept standards, but the government can recognize that without having the expertise to develop the standards itself.
    - kevin42 10y ago
      > Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. Ok, but why can't the government pay them to develop the standards. Why must the business model be for them do fund the development of the standards after the fact. I believe it is because the lawmakers do not have to pay for the laws with unpopular taxes, so they defer the fundraising to pay for the laws until after they have enacted the laws. That way they skirt the issue of taxes. > And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. I guess it's just my opinion then. If the lawmakers can't stand by and realize the cost of forming the law while they are passing it, I don't think it is important enough to impose a cost to the citizens to read what the law is.
jpgvm 10y ago
Congress already funds the development of the standards, these bodies just continue to profit from them until they are superseded, entirely due to these practices. This is very much like public funded research, it's funded by taxpayers but not available to them without movements like SciHub liberating the products of said research. It's a bit of a joke that it's allowed to continue this way for so long in the first place.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Congress already funds the development of the standards Source?
  - specialist 10y ago
    Governments delegate rule-making authority, which have the force of law, to these industry organizations. If all laws should be public, these too should be public, regardless of funding model.
  - asmithmd1 10y ago
    https://www.nist.gov/ https://www.nist.gov/
    - rayiner 10y ago
      NIST fully funded development of the building standards at issue?
      - warkdarrior 10y ago
        NIST partially funded building standards: https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities
        rayiner 10y ago
        So EL does some research that UL/ASTM/etc. rely on to develop their standards, and therefore those standards should all be free? By that logic, Google's search algorithms should be made public because it almost certainly relies on some publicly-funded CS research.

by kevin42 10y ago

lithos 10y ago

Well the people writing them are also receiving a large amount of power when they are working in the law. The people involved have already spent massive sums on lobbying, and to me this feels like an extension of that lobbying.

rayiner 10y ago
You've got the causation backwards. ASTM is an engineering organization like ISO. They develop industry-consensus standards, just like ISO. Their codes didn't get adopted as the standard because they lobbied for them (do you even have any evidence ASTM lobbied to get its standards adopted?). They got adopted because they were the industry standards. It's like if a law stated that certain government contractors must use ADA or C. They'd refer to the ISO standards for those languages, but nobody could reasonably come along after the fact and say they did so because of lobbying by ISO!
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  And yet ASTM maintains a Washington, DC, presence, with public policy (a/k/a lobbying) positions. ASTM Washington Office Jeff Grove, Vice-President, Global Policy and Industry Affairs 202-xxx-xxxx Anthony Quinn, Director, Public Policy and International Trade 202-xxx-xxxx http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm http://www.astm.org/CONTACT/headquar.htm Even if ASTM itself doesn't directly lobby, it's ... delightfully or frighteningly charming, take your pick, that the naive view of an industry organisation not being utilised by its members for their direct benefit through rules-setting wouldn't find itself used to do so. Directly, indirectly, overtly, or otherwise. Congressional Record lists 188 results for ASTM in Congressional testimony and documents: https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"%2C"search"%3A"astm"%7D https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B"source"%3A"congrecord"... Note that ASTM is principally active at city, county, and state levels, for which comparable archives are much less available.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  ASTM are documented to have retained a lobbying firm in the UK: http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international http://whoslobbying.com/uk/astm_international Sep 2010 - Nov 2010 APCO WORLDWIDE provided UK public affairs consultancy services to ASTM International. [2]

rayiner 10y ago

> I do think it's important to have laws like building codes, but why shouldn't the development be publicly funded? Because building codes are a local issue and local governments have no money?

kevin42 10y ago
That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. Think of how corrupt the system could be if a bunch of building material suppliers could write the law. "Buildings must be constructed from brand X materials" Then brand X has a monopoly for the materials. This is similar, only brand X is the only company that can provide you with a copy of the law, a law that you are required to comply with.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > That's a valid point. But why couldn't all of these local governments get together and collectively come up with the standards. Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. > If they can't figure a way to come up with the standards without outsourcing it to a for profit organization, it must not be a very important law. These are non-profit organizations. And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. It's often very important for things to be done according to accept standards, but the government can recognize that without having the expertise to develop the standards itself.
  - kevin42 10y ago
    > Because these standards are highly technical and local governments lack the expertise. Ok, but why can't the government pay them to develop the standards. Why must the business model be for them do fund the development of the standards after the fact. I believe it is because the lawmakers do not have to pay for the laws with unpopular taxes, so they defer the fundraising to pay for the laws until after they have enacted the laws. That way they skirt the issue of taxes. > And the part after the comma does not follow from the part before the comma. I guess it's just my opinion then. If the lawmakers can't stand by and realize the cost of forming the law while they are passing it, I don't think it is important enough to impose a cost to the citizens to read what the law is.

jpgvm 10y ago

Congress already funds the development of the standards, these bodies just continue to profit from them until they are superseded, entirely due to these practices. This is very much like public funded research, it's funded by taxpayers but not available to them without movements like SciHub liberating the products of said research. It's a bit of a joke that it's allowed to continue this way for so long in the first place.

rayiner 10y ago
> Congress already funds the development of the standards Source?
- specialist 10y ago
  Governments delegate rule-making authority, which have the force of law, to these industry organizations. If all laws should be public, these too should be public, regardless of funding model.
- asmithmd1 10y ago
  https://www.nist.gov/ https://www.nist.gov/
  - rayiner 10y ago
    NIST fully funded development of the building standards at issue?
    - warkdarrior 10y ago
      NIST partially funded building standards: https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities https://www.nist.gov/el/about-el/standards-activities
      - rayiner 10y ago
        So EL does some research that UL/ASTM/etc. rely on to develop their standards, and therefore those standards should all be free? By that logic, Google's search algorithms should be made public because it almost certainly relies on some publicly-funded CS research.