9 ms·

Stop the E-Parasite Act

407 points by rprime 15y ago

dhimes 15y ago
Do these petitions do any good? That is, is it even worthwhile to sign it? Or is our time better spent elsewhere.
- nicki_easy 15y ago
  I've been utterly disappointed at the handful of official responses so far (http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-normls-we-the-people-marijuana-legalization-petition/ http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-nor...), but it's worthwhile giving it a shot, no? While you're there, I'm also a fan of the petitions that the petitions be taken seriously.
- phsr 15y ago
  There was actually a meta-petition[1] recently that was asking for the White House to pay more attention to these petitions, so it seems like these petitions are mostly ignored [1] https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-...
  - sixtofour 15y ago
    Of course they're ignored. Everything that comes across a politician's attention is an opportunity for him to reinforce his message. The petitions are not there for us to influence them. They're there (they spent effort to put them there) for them to influence us.
- tekante 15y ago
  The petitions are looked at if they receive enough signatures, right now this one needs a little over 23,000 more signatures by November 30th. I would view it as one more avenue of making your opinion known to elected officials. In addition to informing your congressperson and senator to try to prevent the bill from passing this would be a way to endorse a veto from the executive branch. I believe it does as much good as anything else you can do in the amount of time it takes to sign it.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- wizard_2 15y ago
  I find it even stranger that this petition is on whitehouse.gov. The real issue though is that this bill wont die, I'm sick of hearing of its lunacy and the fact that it's even in the house irks me to no end. That's why I signed it.
- JadeNB 15y ago
  Given how easy it is to sign it, does it matter?
  - dhimes 15y ago
    If it fools people into thinking they actually did something when in fact they didn't, then it could be detrimental to the cause. For instance, my father was under the impression that his will was totally legal and everything was taken care of. His misinformation led him to look no further, and as a result, when he passed, things were messy because the will wasn't valid.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      It's still less effort than writing a comment on HN.
      - canes123456 15y ago
        You are missing the point.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Not sure about how these work in the US but I know in Britain our e-petitions have some rule whereby if they get over a certain threshold of signitures (around 100,000 I believe) then the house of commons must assign time to talk about the issues. The problem being that most of the petitions that get any significant number of signitures are predictable , populist stuff like "Britain should leave the EU" , "bring back hanging" and "legalise Marijuana" , basically stuff that if the government had any inclination to do they would have already done by now so really all it does is waste everybody's time.
- Cushman 15y ago
  In terms of effort:outcome ratio, it probably ranks somewhere under "voting" and somewhere over "arguing on the Internet". Your call.
TruthElixirX 15y ago
This will get ignored like the "Remove "under God" from the pledge" petition and the "tax Marijuana like alcohol and tobacco" petition.
- nicki_easy 15y ago
  Here's the most popular petition to take the petitions seriously: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/take-petitions-seriously/bHPkPddj https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/take-petiti...
  - phsr 15y ago
    This one[1] has more signatures [1] https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-...
- gregw100 15y ago
  Not necessarily. I think this petition holds more water than the other two given that the bill is specifically about the internet. If the internet reacts it only makes sense to listen. Then again, making sense is not one of the government's strong points.
slowpoke 15y ago
While I definitely support the notion of this petition, it's time that people realize that things like these won't do shit, to put it bluntly. To stop this madness, we have to attack and bring down the people who cause this retardation - the content industries. They won't somehow come to their senses and stop pushing for insane laws and regulations. It's a very dangerous illusion that petty petitions will change anything, at least on their own. Fight the real enemy, and fight it with all means necessary - may those be alternative licenses, spreading the word, piracy, or straight out aggression[1]. Until the content industries are either out of power or simply gone (and I doubt the former can be achieved without the latter), this war on freedom for the sake of corporate profits will continue. [1]: I'm talking about stuff like Operation Payback and Anonymous in general. I dislike calling it "cyber warfare" because the term is retarded newspeak, but it's essentially what I mean.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  To stop this madness, we have to attack and bring down the people who cause this retardation - the content industries. The content industries don't cause this. They go to politicians and say "pretty please take away people's freedom to protect our profits". That's the only thing they have the power to do. Politicians are not helpless babies who have no choice but to give big content what it wants. They are intelligent adults who choose to side with big content. The people you need to bring down are Biden/Obama, Orrin Hatch, etc.
  - jterce 15y ago
    Agreed. It's the same as the "occupy" movement saying that corporations shouldn't influence government. It's true, but it's the politicians who are the problem. Everyone, the content providers included, should be representing their best interests to politicians. The burden is on the politicians to remain uncorrupted and to represent the best interests of their constituents to the fullest degree possible under law.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      If, after several hundred years of trying, we haven't yet found the mythical race of "uncorruptible politician", it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption on the very-human politicians we do have (and are likely to continue having). That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument, that the problem isn't going to be solved by hoping that the next crop of politicians, unlike just about every crop throughout human history, will be selfless saints who don't respond to incentives; rather, the solution is to change the incentives.
lukejduncan 15y ago
Is anyone talking about the concerns of having people store a password with the whitehouse? Most people use the same password everywhere. IANL but this could easily be a huge phishing scam...
- lukejduncan 15y ago
  also, getting a 404 after logging in.
- ugh 15y ago
  Because … the White House is interested in phishing? What?
  - T-hawk 15y ago
    The grandparent has a point, but didn't state it very well. The NSA and CIA and other three-letter federal agencies do have a reputation for grabbing any telecommunications data they can get. One could think that they might be monitoring and capturing activity on the White House site, to correlate with persons of interest, or even just collecting everything for future use. (And it's not necessarily evil either; we'd cheer if they intercepted a source of terrorist funding by using account credentials that matched something carelessly entered into this site.) The scenario is somewhat far-fetched, but not entirely out of the question for secretive unaccountable US government agencies.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      No matter what system they use, someone will find it fundamentally objectionable. It,s too simple. It's too complex. There's too much security. There isn't enough security. Give people a window on the administration, and the first thing they'll do is whine about the curtains.
      - lukejduncan 15y ago
        I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the security of citizens?
altrego99 15y ago
This whole thing is very screwed up. For once I am glad that I don't live in US.
- waqf 15y ago
  Where do you live that is safe from the content industries? Not that such places don't exist, but the problem is much wider than the US, partly but not entirely because of the US's ability to strongarm other countries into passing their own legislation, e.g. ACTA. You wouldn't be safe in Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or France, or ... .
tensafefrogs 15y ago
I'm unable to log in. Being redirected to a 404 page and it's not logging me in, so I can't sign it.
- cgag 15y ago
  I'm logged in, but the buttons to sign and share the petition are still grayed out.
thomaslangston 15y ago
The following link will take you to an EFF page. You can enter your address and get the contact info for your Congress members. It also lets you email them automatically about the other version of this bill, Protect IP, which is just as bad. https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173 https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?...
- jreposa 15y ago
  I used OpenCongress. It's similar in that it will email your congress members based on your address. http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/7509-H-R-3261-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/7509-H-...
eschulte 15y ago
Signed this petition, just like I filled out the EFF form a while back. If you want to be heard it is better to call your representatives as that way at least one of their staffers has to spend a couple of minutes getting you off the phone.
Aloisius 15y ago
Whoa, when did whitehouse.gov start doing petitions? That's pretty nice. And they have their own URL shortener? They've come a long way.
SkyMarshal 15y ago
>This bill is a direct assault on a free internet and a shameful attempt by copyright lobbyists to destroy net neutrality. Shouldn't have used that term here. This petition just lost any Republican/Tea Party support it might have had. And though there may be some overlap, this isn't really about Net Neutrality vs. the telecoms anyway.
- tmvphil 15y ago
  I think you can be for net neutrality (the concept), while being against net neutrality (as proposed FCC regulation).
scythe 15y ago
I had an account on whitehouse.gov the last time they did this petition thing and now I can't log in. Not that it won't let me, but if I hit "sign in" there's no fields in which to enter a username and password. Like there's no sign in option there at all. What the fuck?
- jim-greer 15y ago
  I had that problem with Chrome Mac (15.0), but Firefox (3.6) worked.
delinquentme 15y ago
can anyone else not log in to sign this?

407 points by rprime 15y ago

dhimes 15y ago

Do these petitions do any good? That is, is it even worthwhile to sign it? Or is our time better spent elsewhere.

nicki_easy 15y ago
I've been utterly disappointed at the handful of official responses so far (http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-normls-we-the-people-marijuana-legalization-petition/ http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-nor...), but it's worthwhile giving it a shot, no? While you're there, I'm also a fan of the petitions that the petitions be taken seriously.
phsr 15y ago
There was actually a meta-petition[1] recently that was asking for the White House to pay more attention to these petitions, so it seems like these petitions are mostly ignored [1] https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-...
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Of course they're ignored. Everything that comes across a politician's attention is an opportunity for him to reinforce his message. The petitions are not there for us to influence them. They're there (they spent effort to put them there) for them to influence us.
tekante 15y ago
The petitions are looked at if they receive enough signatures, right now this one needs a little over 23,000 more signatures by November 30th. I would view it as one more avenue of making your opinion known to elected officials. In addition to informing your congressperson and senator to try to prevent the bill from passing this would be a way to endorse a veto from the executive branch. I believe it does as much good as anything else you can do in the amount of time it takes to sign it.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
wizard_2 15y ago
I find it even stranger that this petition is on whitehouse.gov. The real issue though is that this bill wont die, I'm sick of hearing of its lunacy and the fact that it's even in the house irks me to no end. That's why I signed it.
JadeNB 15y ago
Given how easy it is to sign it, does it matter?
- dhimes 15y ago
  If it fools people into thinking they actually did something when in fact they didn't, then it could be detrimental to the cause. For instance, my father was under the impression that his will was totally legal and everything was taken care of. His misinformation led him to look no further, and as a result, when he passed, things were messy because the will wasn't valid.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    It's still less effort than writing a comment on HN.
    - canes123456 15y ago
      You are missing the point.
jiggy2011 15y ago
Not sure about how these work in the US but I know in Britain our e-petitions have some rule whereby if they get over a certain threshold of signitures (around 100,000 I believe) then the house of commons must assign time to talk about the issues. The problem being that most of the petitions that get any significant number of signitures are predictable , populist stuff like "Britain should leave the EU" , "bring back hanging" and "legalise Marijuana" , basically stuff that if the government had any inclination to do they would have already done by now so really all it does is waste everybody's time.
Cushman 15y ago
In terms of effort:outcome ratio, it probably ranks somewhere under "voting" and somewhere over "arguing on the Internet". Your call.

TruthElixirX 15y ago

This will get ignored like the "Remove "under God" from the pledge" petition and the "tax Marijuana like alcohol and tobacco" petition.

nicki_easy 15y ago
Here's the most popular petition to take the petitions seriously: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/take-petitions-seriously/bHPkPddj https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/take-petiti...
- phsr 15y ago
  This one[1] has more signatures [1] https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/actually-...
gregw100 15y ago
Not necessarily. I think this petition holds more water than the other two given that the bill is specifically about the internet. If the internet reacts it only makes sense to listen. Then again, making sense is not one of the government's strong points.

slowpoke 15y ago

While I definitely support the notion of this petition, it's time that people realize that things like these won't do shit, to put it bluntly. To stop this madness, we have to attack and bring down the people who cause this retardation - the content industries. They won't somehow come to their senses and stop pushing for insane laws and regulations. It's a very dangerous illusion that petty petitions will change anything, at least on their own. Fight the real enemy, and fight it with all means necessary - may those be alternative licenses, spreading the word, piracy, or straight out aggression[1]. Until the content industries are either out of power or simply gone (and I doubt the former can be achieved without the latter), this war on freedom for the sake of corporate profits will continue. [1]: I'm talking about stuff like Operation Payback and Anonymous in general. I dislike calling it "cyber warfare" because the term is retarded newspeak, but it's essentially what I mean.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
To stop this madness, we have to attack and bring down the people who cause this retardation - the content industries. The content industries don't cause this. They go to politicians and say "pretty please take away people's freedom to protect our profits". That's the only thing they have the power to do. Politicians are not helpless babies who have no choice but to give big content what it wants. They are intelligent adults who choose to side with big content. The people you need to bring down are Biden/Obama, Orrin Hatch, etc.
- jterce 15y ago
  Agreed. It's the same as the "occupy" movement saying that corporations shouldn't influence government. It's true, but it's the politicians who are the problem. Everyone, the content providers included, should be representing their best interests to politicians. The burden is on the politicians to remain uncorrupted and to represent the best interests of their constituents to the fullest degree possible under law.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    If, after several hundred years of trying, we haven't yet found the mythical race of "uncorruptible politician", it might be time for a plan B, like systemic changes to reduce the effects of corruption on the very-human politicians we do have (and are likely to continue having). That's essentially the campaign-finance-reform argument, that the problem isn't going to be solved by hoping that the next crop of politicians, unlike just about every crop throughout human history, will be selfless saints who don't respond to incentives; rather, the solution is to change the incentives.

lukejduncan 15y ago

Is anyone talking about the concerns of having people store a password with the whitehouse? Most people use the same password everywhere. IANL but this could easily be a huge phishing scam...

lukejduncan 15y ago
also, getting a 404 after logging in.
ugh 15y ago
Because … the White House is interested in phishing? What?
- T-hawk 15y ago
  The grandparent has a point, but didn't state it very well. The NSA and CIA and other three-letter federal agencies do have a reputation for grabbing any telecommunications data they can get. One could think that they might be monitoring and capturing activity on the White House site, to correlate with persons of interest, or even just collecting everything for future use. (And it's not necessarily evil either; we'd cheer if they intercepted a source of terrorist funding by using account credentials that matched something carelessly entered into this site.) The scenario is somewhat far-fetched, but not entirely out of the question for secretive unaccountable US government agencies.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    No matter what system they use, someone will find it fundamentally objectionable. It,s too simple. It's too complex. There's too much security. There isn't enough security. Give people a window on the administration, and the first thing they'll do is whine about the curtains.
    - lukejduncan 15y ago
      I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the security of citizens?

altrego99 15y ago

This whole thing is very screwed up. For once I am glad that I don't live in US.

waqf 15y ago
Where do you live that is safe from the content industries? Not that such places don't exist, but the problem is much wider than the US, partly but not entirely because of the US's ability to strongarm other countries into passing their own legislation, e.g. ACTA. You wouldn't be safe in Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or France, or ... .

tensafefrogs 15y ago

I'm unable to log in. Being redirected to a 404 page and it's not logging me in, so I can't sign it.

cgag 15y ago
I'm logged in, but the buttons to sign and share the petition are still grayed out.

thomaslangston 15y ago

The following link will take you to an EFF page. You can enter your address and get the contact info for your Congress members. It also lets you email them automatically about the other version of this bill, Protect IP, which is just as bad. https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173 https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?...

jreposa 15y ago
I used OpenCongress. It's similar in that it will email your congress members based on your address. http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/7509-H-R-3261-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/7509-H-...

eschulte 15y ago

Signed this petition, just like I filled out the EFF form a while back. If you want to be heard it is better to call your representatives as that way at least one of their staffers has to spend a couple of minutes getting you off the phone.

Aloisius 15y ago

Whoa, when did whitehouse.gov start doing petitions? That's pretty nice. And they have their own URL shortener? They've come a long way.

SkyMarshal 15y ago

>This bill is a direct assault on a free internet and a shameful attempt by copyright lobbyists to destroy net neutrality. Shouldn't have used that term here. This petition just lost any Republican/Tea Party support it might have had. And though there may be some overlap, this isn't really about Net Neutrality vs. the telecoms anyway.

tmvphil 15y ago
I think you can be for net neutrality (the concept), while being against net neutrality (as proposed FCC regulation).

scythe 15y ago

I had an account on whitehouse.gov the last time they did this petition thing and now I can't log in. Not that it won't let me, but if I hit "sign in" there's no fields in which to enter a username and password. Like there's no sign in option there at all. What the fuck?

jim-greer 15y ago
I had that problem with Chrome Mac (15.0), but Firefox (3.6) worked.

delinquentme 15y ago

can anyone else not log in to sign this?