CDR: RE: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives
Rush, This is a useful analysis. Thank you. I was considering doing one myself. Let me try to answer your question about how a Libertarian rep would rank. Our rankings were explictly designed to reward "hands-off" votes, so it's a reasonable assumption that one would score highly. But small-l and large-L libertarians disagree among themselves on what the proper role of government should be on tech issues. Consider Ron Paul of Texas. He has been the Libertarian candidate for president and has reportedly never renounced his life membership in the party. Yet he scored just 71 percent, or 5 of 7 votes. That's because he voted against banning states from taxing the Net (probably on federalism grounds), even though libertarian groups such as Cato and Pacific Research Institute liked that tax-ban. (His other negatively-scored vote was an electronic signature law.) This scorecard is by nature brittle. If we had included more votes, it's a near certainty that our two 100-scorers would not have perfect votes. One is anti-porn; we (unfortunately) didn't have any Net-porn votes to include. Neither CDA nor COPA was this session. Adding more votes would have boosted other rankings. Also, the scorecard was designed to focus as closely as possible on votes that only dealt with a narrow issue. We could have included ones such as HR1501, but then we couldn't have figured out whether reps voted for it based on their support of filtering software or firearm restrictions. -Declan At 15:58 10/24/2000 -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
Everyone, Just a quick observation here. According to the Wired chart, it appears that the Republicans average roughly 49.85058296 and the Democrats average roughly 47.27853081 on the Wired News scale, with one representative being independent (Bernard Sanders), and one representative with an "A" for their party designation (Spencer Bachus). Here's my Republicans vs. Democrats breakdown of the Wired News chart:
Party | Republican | Democrat | ----------------------------------- HR2301 | 0.181818182 | 0.343137255 | ----------------------------------- HR3615 | 0.153846154 | 0.024509804 | ----------------------------------- HR3709 | 0.958715596 | 0.697115385 | ----------------------------------- HR3125 | 0.218009479 | 0.575129534 | ----------------------------------- HR1501 | 0.440909091 | 0.908653846 | ----------------------------------- HR10 | 0.522522523 | 0.058252427 | ----------------------------------- HR1714 | 0.986175115 | 0.695652174 | ----------------------------------- total | 3.381165919 | 3.203791469 | ----------------------------------- votes | 6.798206278 | 6.777251185 | ----------------------------------- score | 49.85058296 | 47.27853081 | -----------------------------------
These are all just averages, and I omitted the "A" and "I" designated representatives. In regards to the "A" designated representative, Spencer Bachus, I think the "A" is an error. I was under the impression that he was a Republican. If he is, in fact, a Republican, then that changes our averages slightly:
Party | Republican | Democrat | ----------------------------------- HR2301 | 0.180995475 | 0.343137255 | ----------------------------------- HR3615 | 0.153110048 | 0.024509804 | ----------------------------------- HR3709 | 0.95890411 | 0.697115385 | ----------------------------------- HR3125 | 0.216981132 | 0.575129534 | ----------------------------------- HR1501 | 0.438914027 | 0.908653846 | ----------------------------------- HR10 | 0.520179372 | 0.058252427 | ----------------------------------- HR1714 | 0.986238532 | 0.695652174 | ----------------------------------- total | 3.375 | 3.203791469 | ----------------------------------- votes | 6.799107143 | 6.777251185 | ----------------------------------- score | 49.75558036 | 47.27853081 | -----------------------------------
Which still puts Republicans in more of a hands-off strategy for technology, according to voting history. If Spencer Bachus is not a Republican, then please tell me what the hell an "A" party designation stands for.
If you are interested in seeing TOTALS as opposed to AVERAGES, here is your chart:
Party | Republican | Democrat | ----------------------------------- HR2301 | 40 | 70 | ----------------------------------- HR3615 | 32 | 5 | ----------------------------------- HR3709 | 210 | 145 | ----------------------------------- HR3125 | 46 | 111 | ----------------------------------- HR1501 | 97 | 189 | ----------------------------------- HR10 | 116 | 12 | ----------------------------------- HR1714 | 215 | 144 | ----------------------------------- total | 756 | 676 | ----------------------------------- votes | 1523 | 1430 | -----------------------------------
Again, it is entirely possible that my information is incorrect. I do recommend that you do the research yourself, as relying too much on these numbers means relying on numbers collected by a media source and in turn sorted and re-calculated by some punk-ass on the cypherpunks mailing list.
To the best of my knowledge, however, this looks right. What alarms me is that though there is a slight difference in the overall score between Republicans and Democrats, neither party has a very strong leaning one way or the other, which illustrates the frustrations that a two-party system creates for those of us who would like to see a strong stance (either way) on the issue of government regulation of technology. I anxiously await any speculation that might take place on this list regarding how Libertarian representatives might have voted had they been in there, but the fact is that we live in a two-party system for the time being, and if we feel strongly about these issues, we need to accept that our representation may not be hearing us. Is it because we aren't speaking loudly enough on these issues?
ok, Rush Carskadden
-----Original Message----- From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan@well.commailto:declan@well.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:15 AM To: Cypherpunks Mailing List Cc: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives
At Wired News, we've compiled a list of the technology voting records of each member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
That meant picking seven tech bills and grading all 435 legislators -- at least the ones who showed up those days -- on their floor votes. If they chose to take a hands-off approach, they got a "1", while regulatory votes got a "0." (If you disagree with us, flip the scale around.)
Here's the list sorted by last name (scoll down to find your legislator):
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html
Sorted by score, with the two California reps with 100 percent at the top:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html
And a summary of the results, with some methodology:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html
Some interesting results: Purported privacy advocates like Democrat Ed Markey didn't score well, getting a 33% of 100%, in part because of his opposition to financial privacy legislation. Republican Bob Goodlatte, Internet caucus co-chair, got just 43% because of his support for speech and gambling restrictions.
-Declan
The floor votes scored:
HR2031: A vote to restrict online sales of alcohol. (No is 1) HR3615: A vote to create a new federal agency to spend $1.25 billion on rural TV service. (No is 1) HR3709: A vote to extend a temporary federal ban on Internet taxes. (Yes is 1) HR3125: A vote to prohibit Internet gambling. (No is 1) HR1501: A vote on an amendment to restrict the sale of violent material such as videogames to anyone under the age of 18. (No is 1) HR10: A vote on an amendment to protect financial privacy by restricting government monitoring of bank accounts. (Yes is 1) HR1714: A vote to allow the use of electronic signatures. (Yes is 1)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 07:04:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Rush,
This is a useful analysis. Thank you. I was considering doing one myself.
Let me try to answer your question about how a Libertarian rep would rank. Our rankings were explictly designed to reward "hands-off" votes, so it's a reasonable assumption that one would score highly.
But small-l and large-L libertarians disagree among themselves on what the proper role of government should be on tech issues. Consider Ron Paul of Texas. He has been the Libertarian candidate for president and has reportedly never renounced his life membership in the party.
Yet he scored just 71 percent, or 5 of 7 votes. That's because he voted against banning states from taxing the Net (probably on federalism grounds), even though libertarian groups such as Cato and Pacific Research Institute liked that tax-ban. (His other negatively-scored vote was an electronic signature law.)
That vote on the Electronic Signature law could be considered a positive. It's a really lousy law. It's not a _Digital Signature_ law-- there's no crypto involved. Under this law, "clicking on a button" is explicitly considered a digital "signature". That is very easy to forge. This law opens up whole new vistas for identy theft and abuse. Maybe Paul has a clued-in person on his staff? -- Eric Murray http://www.lne.com/ericm ericm at lne.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5 Consulting Security Architect
I spoke to one of Paul's aides about the scorecard, and he said (I'm paraphrasing) that his boss voted against the bill in part because it was flawed, and not just on knee-jerk federalism grounds or whatnot. I've also written about the law, and I agree it's flawed, but I still decided to count it as a net positive. -Declan At 16:22 10/24/2000 -0700, Eric Murray wrote:
That vote on the Electronic Signature law could be considered a positive. It's a really lousy law. It's not a _Digital Signature_ law-- there's no crypto involved. Under this law, "clicking on a button" is explicitly considered a digital "signature". That is very easy to forge. This law opens up whole new vistas for identy theft and abuse. Maybe Paul has a clued-in person on his staff?
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Declan McCullagh wrote:
that only dealt with a narrow issue. We could have included ones such as HR1501, but then we couldn't have figured out whether reps voted for it based on their support of filtering software or firearm restrictions.
-Declan
I think that filtering software is an interesting case. While most of us would not use filtering software, I honestly think that it's important to freedom. If nobody comes up with some filterware that works, then there will probably be continuing pressure to regulate content. Count me in favor of filtering software -- just not in favor of its *compulsory* use. I want all the idiots who care about such things to filter out the sites I like and not see or think about them any more. 'cause if they think about them, they're likely to try and eliminate them. Bear (Who has read the odd copy of "Salon" and sometimes reads in the alt.sex.stories archives...)
At 08:06 PM 10/24/00 -0400, Ray Dillinger wrote:
If nobody comes up with some filterware that works, then there will probably be continuing pressure to regulate content.
Its called 'parenting' but most are too busy, so they ask the State, or machines (censorware, v-chips, rating systems, etc.) under others' control, to do it instead. The best ---most concise and environmentally friendly to boot--- response to "continuing pressure to censor" is probably a noose. See the constitution.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, David Honig wrote:
At 08:06 PM 10/24/00 -0400, Ray Dillinger wrote:
If nobody comes up with some filterware that works, then there will probably be continuing pressure to regulate content.
Its called 'parenting' but most are too busy, so they ask the State, or machines (censorware, v-chips, rating systems, etc.) under others' control, to do it instead.
Machines under *others* control? I think we have different ideas of what "filters" mean. I support the right of people to not see what they don't want to see, provided they can do it without restricting what the rest of us see. If they can buy software that blocks out the things they don't want to see, and run it, good for them and good for the software provider. Ditto Privately owned libraries - but probably not public ones, at least not unless they also maintain an *UN*censored connection. The v-chip does *not* prevent programming from reaching my home - it doesn't even prevent programming from reaching the homes of those who've willingly purchased and installed it, but it prevents stuff they'd find objectionable from being displayed on their screens. This is their right. After all, we're talking about *their* screens. Bear
At 1:39 PM -0400 10/25/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
The v-chip does *not* prevent programming from reaching my home - it doesn't even prevent programming from reaching the homes of those who've willingly purchased and installed it, but it prevents stuff they'd find objectionable from being displayed on their screens. This is their right. After all, we're talking about *their* screens.
1. The V-chip was _mandated_ for inclusion in all televisions bought after some date. No choice, no opt out, a mandatory increased cost. This is not consistent with freedom and non-coercion. (Saying the customer has the option of not using the V-chip features is irrelevant; that the manufacturer was commanded to include V-chip was the crime.) 2. The V-chip is, predictably, completely ineffectual in preventing Junior from accessing porn, whatever. For obvious reasons. First, most televisions pre-date the V-chip. Second, many other distribution mechanisms abound. Third, the V-chip programming is accessible to teens and others...their parents probably go to _them_ to ask for help (and then give up on the whole process). All it takes is the kid with the stash of porn to defeat the whole idea...just as when we were kids. The kid with the "questionable content" is precisely the one who will find one of the hundreds of millions of televisions without the V-Chip. And much more importantly, one of the hundreds of millions of VCRs which will play "Debbie Does Cyberspace" without any regard for what some nominal V-Chip will provide. (I don't believe even current-production VCRs are required to have the V-Chip, and since many folks use the VCR as their television tuner....) The whole V-Chip thing was a typical exercise in "feel good legislation." "Let's do something to show we care about saving the children." In any case, pragmatic issues aside, there is no justification in a free society for telling the maker of some piece of equipment that he must include some piece of censorware. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Not only that, but at one point there was an FCC proceeding to include it in computers with TV tuners. I reported on it for Time magazine. Don't think it ever went anywhere. -Declan On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 02:42:46PM -0400, Tim May wrote:
1. The V-chip was _mandated_ for inclusion in all televisions bought after some date. No choice, no opt out, a mandatory increased cost. This is not consistent with freedom and non-coercion. (Saying the customer has the option of not using the V-chip features is irrelevant; that the manufacturer was commanded to include V-chip was the crime.)
Its called 'parenting' but most are too busy, so they ask the State, or machines (censorware, v-chips, rating systems, etc.) under others' control, to do it instead.
Any parent who lets a child have a TV or a computer in their bedroom now days is nuts. (Okay, My parents let me have my C64 in my bedroom, but I quickly got tired of downloading monochrome porn at 300 baud and went back to playing "Jumpman". ;) ). We severely limit our kids (both < 5 yrs old) TV time. Even then, they watch mostly videos. Even some of those we have to fast forward through the "previews" because of the content, ( An ad for "Batman" on a "There goes an Bulldozer!" video, come on!). However, that's my responsibility as parent, and not something I desire to give up to anyone else non-voluntarily. As for the V-Chip. I've seen enough programs rated "For All Ages" that are not appropriate for young kids to know that they are worthless. (By the way I want a P-chip to filter Politicians, a BB-(Bible Beater) chip to filter out the 700 Club. etc. I seem to remember that's what made the billions for the character in Sagan's "Contact" ). I do miss the old Bugs Bunny/Road Runner cartoons with their senseless violence :) If you haven't watched them lately on Saturday morning you'll find that they have been heavily censored/edited to be quite PC. Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
At 01:21 AM 10/26/00 -0400, Neil Johnson wrote:
Its called 'parenting' but most are too busy, so they ask the State, or machines (censorware, v-chips, rating systems, etc.) under others' control, to do it instead.
Any parent who lets a child have a TV or a computer in their bedroom now days is nuts.
Yep. And any parent who relies on v-chips is *abdicating responsibility* by depending on someone else's ratings. Similarly with internet content ratings or MPAA filtering (PG vs R) or FCC filtering (content vs. broadcast time, or their stupid labels on broadcasts). To Bear: my reference top "machines under others' control" means censorware which hides its list of sites from parents. Certainly relying on other editors (filters) is useful, but parents have to pick the editors carefully. This is not a political but a personal responsability issue; as far as the state goes, no filtering can be *imposed* by others in a free society. My point was that a parent voluntarily chosing some black-box default is not doing their job. \begin{political} A parent forced to use filtered feeds needs to eliminate that force, then that imposed filter. Anyone can open up a ratings system and filtering tools. And they are free to have open or secret lists and rules. You are free to pick and choose raters you like ---just like you can chose to eat kosher-rated, or 'organic'-rated, or whatever. But the filters can have no support from the State, for that is censorship. Freedom + filters = lame parenting; State + filters = censorship. \end{political}
However, that's my responsibility as parent, and not something I desire to give up to anyone else non-voluntarily.
Precisely.
As for the V-Chip. I've seen enough programs rated "For All Ages" that are not appropriate for young kids to know that they are worthless.
Yes. Plus the insult of being forced to pay for it. Along with CALEA, locatable cell phones, parental advisory labels, etc. .... This post is rated: VG for reference to government violence NS for no spam countermeasure schemes NG for no mention of geodesic global economies NK for no observations about who needs killing NC for no alternate-universe mis-physics NE for no spurious Emily Dickinson grille ciphers
participants (6)
-
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Eric Murray -
Neil Johnson -
Ray Dillinger -
Tim May