n8han archive rss twitter coderspiel

On Political Subtexts at Google I/O

mlcastle:

I attended Google’s developer conference this year, mostly (entirely?) to improve my technical skills developing for Android. You can go elsewhere on the Internet if you want a summary of this technical content and/or the product announcements made; however there are a few interesting trends implicit in the conference itself that may be interesting:

Read More

Interesting!

Form letters of the oligarchs

One advantage held by establishment powers, in their ongoing assault against the electronic freedom we treasure, is the ability to reuse batch emails that brush off the constitutional objections of their constituents.

Take these from Senator Gillibrand (you know, the one selected for us by a quickly discarded governor who also wasn’t elected — weird!). First, from the SOPA / PIPA fail of over a year ago:

February 1, 2012

Dear Nathan,

Thank you for writing to me regarding S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act of 2011. I understand the concerns that have been raised over the original approach towards solving the problem online piracy poses to our overall economy and New York jobs. All New Yorkers should be able to agree on the shared goals of cracking down on the illegal piracy of copyrighted material without any unintended consequences of stifling the internet or online innovation.

After working hard with my colleagues to make important changes and improve the Protect IP legislation, it became clear that a consensus on a balanced approach to achieve these shared goals could not be reached. I believe it is time for Congress to take a step back and start over with both sides bringing their solutions to the table to find common ground towards solving this problem.

Thank you again for writing to express your concerns { etc. }

Sincerely,

Kirsten E. Gillibrand
United States Senator

This year they have decided to dramatize their unquenched freedom-curtailing ambitions in a more exciting “cyber-war” setting, but when it comes to dismissing objections it seems the same empty cliches will do:

May 7, 2013

Dear Friend,

Thank you for writing to me about H.R.624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which passed the House of Representatives on April 18, 2013. I understand and share some of your concerns.

All New Yorkers should be able to agree on the shared goals of protecting against a cyber-attack without any unintended consequences of infringing on civil liberties. CISPA has been referred to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I will continue to monitor the bill to ensure our national security needs are being met while not infringing on the privacy rights of average Americans.

Thank you again for writing to express your concerns { etc. }

Sincerely,

Kirsten E. Gillibrand
United States Senator

I don’t really care that Gillibrand’s office is too lazy to write a new letter from one year to the next, even as thousands of her constituents are writing heartfelt and personal objections to legislation, but the “should be able to agree” cliche is offensive in itself.

We “all New Yorkers” have legitimate differences among ourselves, which we’re perfectly aware of. Thus we have political parties that are supposed to be aligned to different philosophies and interests, and we fight to get ours into power. When an elected official claims that everyone in their electorate should agree to what they (the elected) say, it sets off a few alarm bells.

It’s simply not Gillibrand’s job to tell “all New Yorkers” what to think about software “piracy” or “cyber-war” — both of which are phony constructs created to serve entrenched interests. Quite the opposite, it’s her job to figure out what we want and advocate for it in government.

It also gives lie to the whole two-party system, to have your elected leaders claim to be implementing policies that should be supported by the full public. When we put Democrats in power they are meant to fight for progressive policy positions, and in a case like this to explain how their position is progressive. To instead try to scare me with cyber-war oogah-boogah indicates that I’m not dealing with a progressive representative at all, I’m dealing with a servant of establishment power.

The other thing about her latest letter, which is downright creepy, is that she limits her empty promise to “not infringing on the privacy rights of average Americans”. Why on Earth is this qualified? Isn’t the special thing about rights the fact that they are inalienable and universal? Gillibrand implies that privacy rights are only protected for the “average”, the normal, the conforming, the … what?

We have got to get rid of this monster and actually elect a senator ourselves, for a change, to represent New York in the US Senate. This is one of the most progressive states in the country and yet our national political representation is a pack of corporation-serving warmongering authoritarian trolls. It’s just sad.