i-sako.com

Upon reading the ACLU’s technology and privacy report, ”Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society,” I couldn’t help but make the following observations.

Why Us?

Perhaps I am just dense, but I have yet to understand why anti-terrorism measures like the ones the proposed in this report are directed at American citizens in the first place. Why does the government feel that it needs greater surveillance powers over us?

If it’s gonna happen, do it right for a change!

Many of the things included in this report will probably come about; I think that’s inevitable. The important thing is that the government implement these things sensibly, with adequate checks and balances to prevent the abuse of authority (something noticeably absent in the Bush administration’s view of government: “Trust us, we’re your leaders! We would never do anything bad.")

If these things are going to be done in the name of making the country a safer place, there needs to be more light and less heat coming from Congress. The issue should not be politicized for the benefit of one party’s election strategy. It should not be wrapped in terms of false patriotism. It should be discussed with all the care and deliberation that went into the crafting of the Constitution itself. Anything less should be considered a treasonous offense!

Wouldn’t this be a big setback for modern civilization?

Once people began to realize exactly how closely their every transaction was being watched, I bet a lot of people would start using cash—or even barter!—to prevent their day-to-day activities from being held against them someday. Isn’t that exactly the opposite of where we would like society to go?

The Supreme Court upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which brings us one step closer to the complete and total corporate domination of everyday life in the United States.

This was an unfortunate loss for Larry Lessig, whose opinions on the matter strike me as extraordinarily reasonable. Unfortunately, America has no place for reason these days. Let corporate interests prevail—to hell with the public domain!

This is just one of many things that should, but doesn’t, provoke massive protests in the U.S. these days (the regular erosion of fundamental liberties being another). What’s wrong with my compatriots? Lack of awareness?

An article at Wired reports that nearly two dozen municipalities around the country are taking steps to counter the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, a piece of legislation that I feel should never have even been presented to Congress, much less passed.

Very glad to see that communities are making attempts to alert citizens to the fact that freedom itself is coming under attack--not by Al Qaeda, but by the Bush administration!

Will citizens remember come 2004? I hope so.

I wonder this a lot these days. It seems to me that all decisions about matters of U.S. policy are now being determined exclusively by political interests. Sound, principled leadership is conspicuous only in its absence. 

Examples of this behavior can be found in the administration’s limp economic policy, its milking of the “war on terror” for political gain, and, most recently, with the coy manner in which it has dodged the Lott Issue. Clinton says that the Republican agenda is inimical to everything America stands for. Although some of that can be dismissed as partisan opportunism, I don’t think he is too far off the mark. 

I feel very strongly that the nature of U.S. politics these days are more about appealing to a very narrow range of special interests than it is about doing what is best for our country. Because of this, narrow-minded groups that can mobilize voters during elections are poised to benefit from the greatest kickback of all: complete control of America, forever. These groups rarely represent mainstream American thinking, but you wouldn’t know that from looking at current U.S. policy.

It is for this reason that I sincerely hope that everyone who is entitled to vote in the 2004 elections actually does so. It’s time to take control of our government back from these special interests, but we can only do it if we all do it.

Last week I attended a lecture by Larry Lessig, which was fantastic, but this is the first time I’ve had a chance to sit down and write about it...nearly a week later. I hope things will calm down a bit after the holiday season comes to an end. It would be nice to be able to write more than one entry each month!

Anyway, back to Lessig. 

A lot of really good ideas were presented at that meeting, but most of them boil down to one idea: The current political/business climate is unhealthy and potentially dangerous to innovation. Lessig advocates a “commons” approach to Internet technology, one that excludes no one and makes the same opportunities available for all—not just those running the leading company’s software.

There were too many interesting ideas for me to present in the few minutes that I have left to write, but one that I found very pratical was his suggestion about copyrights. If a copyright is a temporary, government-backed monopoly, existing purely to provide incentive (read as “profit") for creativity, it stands to reason that monopoly should expire at some point (which copyrights do). The recent trend toward extending copyrights, Lessig argues, is fruitless, because nothing new is being created in exchange for the extension.

A much better solution for companies (or other entities who want to retain control of copyrights that retain commercial value after the copyright expires) would be to institute a copyright tax. Lessig suggested that the first 50 years of a copyright should be tax-free. Anything after that should require a nominal tax, say something like $10 a year for every year after the 50th. Copyright holders who fail to pay the tax after 50 years would lose the copyright and the copyrighted material would then become part of the public domain. This is a much better idea than simply extending the term of a copyright to 100 years, because only material that really deserves copyright protection (that is to say, is still earning money) would continue to get it after the normal copyright term expires.

Clever guy, that Lessig. I’m looking forward to reading his books.