8 ms·

Copyright law, Net-Neutrality, it sometimes feels that our current Governments cannot bring forward decent legislation on complex tech issues. Regardless of wh

Copyright law, Net-Neutrality, it sometimes feels that our current Governments cannot bring forward decent legislation on complex tech issues. Regardless of whether the cause is ignorance or cynicism; have there been other examples of times in US or EU history that governments passed such clearly 'anti-people' (for lack of a better term) laws?

GW150914 8y ago
History is mostly a record of just those kinds of “anti-people” laws. In the UK their history is practically defined by them, with arguably the most famous being Acts of Enclosure dating back to the very early 17th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts They hang the man and flog the woman Who steals the goose from off the common Yet let the greater villain loose That steals the common from the goose. In fact the history of European and American law tended to emphasize draconian punishments for minor crimes against the landed gentry, nobility, and aristocracy. If you want a present example consider the real impact of the war on drugs, and cui bono. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. John Erlichhman
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
QasimK 8y ago
While there may be negative examples as you are asking for. There are also many positive examples, I think GDPR is an excellent one. I would also ask for people to share the positive ones, lest we go to sleep in misery.
- arcbyte 8y ago
  GDPR as a positive example? Huh?
  - jimnotgym 8y ago
    For a person it is a really great law yes. For a data-farming corporation, less so, but that is not what he OP asked
    - paxy 8y ago
      Large data-farming corporations can and will continue operating in Europe, since they are the only ones that have the resources to understand the law, find limits and loopholes, pay fines, make major changes to their systems etc. Smaller companies and startups are the ones who will suffer.
      - gpvos 8y ago
        Only if they want to data farm. And while there are probably loopholes, I'd be interested to hear of any.
    - darawk 8y ago
      As far as I can tell the only impact GDPR has had on my life is that there are a lot more annoying popups for me to mindlessly click 'accept' on.
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        Really? Then you aren't using it at all. The impact it's had on my life is that companies have to tell me what they're doing with my data. If I say no, they have to refrain from using it, they can't just say "well tough luck, we have it now". If I give my email for a contest, they can't keep spamming me with crap. If I tell them to forget I exist, they have to do it. If I want to see what Facebook knows about me, it has to tell me everything. As someone who runs dozens of side-projects with thousands of users, I didn't even have to change anything. All it took was to not be shitty to begin with.
lbarrow 8y ago
20 years later, the DMCA in the US actually seems pretty decent. It's not perfect but it strikes a pretty good balance between the interests of copyright holders and allowing for innovation.
- kosievdmerwe 8y ago
  Only issue I have is that there's not enough penalty for false reports or none that I've ever seen applied.
- confounded 8y ago
  Really? Jail time for circumventing DRM?
- saagarjha 8y ago
  In my experience, it's been used to threaten people who reverse engineer software to find bugs and take down content that is not remotely infringing. Not a "pretty good balance" in my book.
  - williamscales 8y ago
    It's true that it does not contain adequate protection for reverse engineering, however, I think the underlying premise of offering a safe harbor predicated on responding to abuse complaints is an effective one.
  - rhino369 8y ago
    That is a downside. But it also makes it very difficult to sue a website/service for the actions of its users.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Because no one would make music, movies, or television anymore if DCMA didn't exist? I just don't believe that to be true.
- joering2 8y ago
  How many complains did you file?? Few companies I work for have their stuff stolen and posted on youtube constantly. It took 3 months to get any response from Youtube. That times goes down to 3 weeks IF you have attorney representing you. Over 70 vidoes I have worked with lawyers to get removed, we always been looked at as the real criminals; we have to upload and prove all sorts of things just to get pass by the submit form. Longest case took us 5 months and $3,000 to remove a 45 seconds of stolen material. Yes, DMCA works pretty decent; for lawyers that charge per hour.
dustingetz 8y ago
If the purpose of government is to ensure stability (and particularly to ensure the stability of the people in power), that would seem fundamentally at odds with disruptive innovation and exponential progress. I don't think it can be stabilized, more likely it shatters under the strain, and something new and different emerges from the wreckage
- simcop2387 8y ago
  As much as I disagree with her politics, the Ayn Rand novel Anthem somewhat explores an extreme version of this idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella)
mandelbulb 8y ago
>it sometimes feels that our current Governments cannot bring forward decent legislation on complex tech issues. No, the issue is not advanced technology but special interests. When the later take priority over resolving troubling consequences, you get results like those two articles. Politicians are not meant to understand the areas they regulate. Even if they were IT professionals, they still would not understand all the other professions.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gregknicholson 8y ago
Politicians have no incentive to understand complex tech issues. Most voters don't vote for a candidate on the basis of the candidate's tech-literacy. Most voters don't understand complex tech issues themselves, so they couldn't even if they wanted to.

GW150914 8y ago

History is mostly a record of just those kinds of “anti-people” laws. In the UK their history is practically defined by them, with arguably the most famous being Acts of Enclosure dating back to the very early 17th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts They hang the man and flog the woman Who steals the goose from off the common Yet let the greater villain loose That steals the common from the goose. In fact the history of European and American law tended to emphasize draconian punishments for minor crimes against the landed gentry, nobility, and aristocracy. If you want a present example consider the real impact of the war on drugs, and cui bono. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. John Erlichhman

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

QasimK 8y ago

While there may be negative examples as you are asking for. There are also many positive examples, I think GDPR is an excellent one. I would also ask for people to share the positive ones, lest we go to sleep in misery.

arcbyte 8y ago
GDPR as a positive example? Huh?
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  For a person it is a really great law yes. For a data-farming corporation, less so, but that is not what he OP asked
  - paxy 8y ago
    Large data-farming corporations can and will continue operating in Europe, since they are the only ones that have the resources to understand the law, find limits and loopholes, pay fines, make major changes to their systems etc. Smaller companies and startups are the ones who will suffer.
    - gpvos 8y ago
      Only if they want to data farm. And while there are probably loopholes, I'd be interested to hear of any.
  - darawk 8y ago
    As far as I can tell the only impact GDPR has had on my life is that there are a lot more annoying popups for me to mindlessly click 'accept' on.
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      Really? Then you aren't using it at all. The impact it's had on my life is that companies have to tell me what they're doing with my data. If I say no, they have to refrain from using it, they can't just say "well tough luck, we have it now". If I give my email for a contest, they can't keep spamming me with crap. If I tell them to forget I exist, they have to do it. If I want to see what Facebook knows about me, it has to tell me everything. As someone who runs dozens of side-projects with thousands of users, I didn't even have to change anything. All it took was to not be shitty to begin with.

lbarrow 8y ago

20 years later, the DMCA in the US actually seems pretty decent. It's not perfect but it strikes a pretty good balance between the interests of copyright holders and allowing for innovation.

kosievdmerwe 8y ago
Only issue I have is that there's not enough penalty for false reports or none that I've ever seen applied.
confounded 8y ago
Really? Jail time for circumventing DRM?
saagarjha 8y ago
In my experience, it's been used to threaten people who reverse engineer software to find bugs and take down content that is not remotely infringing. Not a "pretty good balance" in my book.
- williamscales 8y ago
  It's true that it does not contain adequate protection for reverse engineering, however, I think the underlying premise of offering a safe harbor predicated on responding to abuse complaints is an effective one.
- rhino369 8y ago
  That is a downside. But it also makes it very difficult to sue a website/service for the actions of its users.
zjaffee 8y ago
Because no one would make music, movies, or television anymore if DCMA didn't exist? I just don't believe that to be true.
joering2 8y ago
How many complains did you file?? Few companies I work for have their stuff stolen and posted on youtube constantly. It took 3 months to get any response from Youtube. That times goes down to 3 weeks IF you have attorney representing you. Over 70 vidoes I have worked with lawyers to get removed, we always been looked at as the real criminals; we have to upload and prove all sorts of things just to get pass by the submit form. Longest case took us 5 months and $3,000 to remove a 45 seconds of stolen material. Yes, DMCA works pretty decent; for lawyers that charge per hour.

dustingetz 8y ago

If the purpose of government is to ensure stability (and particularly to ensure the stability of the people in power), that would seem fundamentally at odds with disruptive innovation and exponential progress. I don't think it can be stabilized, more likely it shatters under the strain, and something new and different emerges from the wreckage

simcop2387 8y ago
As much as I disagree with her politics, the Ayn Rand novel Anthem somewhat explores an extreme version of this idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella)

mandelbulb 8y ago

>it sometimes feels that our current Governments cannot bring forward decent legislation on complex tech issues. No, the issue is not advanced technology but special interests. When the later take priority over resolving troubling consequences, you get results like those two articles. Politicians are not meant to understand the areas they regulate. Even if they were IT professionals, they still would not understand all the other professions.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gregknicholson 8y ago

Politicians have no incentive to understand complex tech issues. Most voters don't vote for a candidate on the basis of the candidate's tech-literacy. Most voters don't understand complex tech issues themselves, so they couldn't even if they wanted to.