

My Call to Senator Schumer’s Office on PIPA: It’s So Much Worse Than I Thought - inmygarage
http://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/01/my-call-to-senator-schumers-office-on-pipa-its-so-much-worse-than-i-thought/

======
rgarcia
Startup idea: a weekly email newsletter containing a list of bills your
representatives in congress voted on (or introduced/co-sponsored), along with
some "like" and "dislike" buttons. Home page maintains a prominent list of
representatives most "disliked" by their constituents.

This whole SOPA debacle has convinced me more than ever that the feedback loop
between constituents and representatives is absolutely _terrible_. This would
be an attempt to solve the problem (via public humiliation).

~~~
yummyfajitas
Like/Dislike:

H.R.3997 - Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2007

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and
tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and
Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes.

<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3997/show>

How many people getting the newsletter would actually realize that "other
purposes" refers to a $700 billion bank bailout? (This is the bill the
Republicans killed, shortly before caving in and passing another bill a week
later.)

~~~
Dwatson783
There should never be "and for other purposes" slapped onto the title of a
bill. Disgraceful.

~~~
philwelch
In the state of Washington, it's actually unconstitutional for any state bill,
referendum, or voter initiative to have more than one topic. Our state courts
have thrown out laws for this reason.

~~~
borism
this bill is not a Bill, it's a patch - collection of changes to other bills.

~~~
ichc-werker
Congress needs to learn about atomic commits!

~~~
koenigdavidmj
And git blame!

------
crikli
I called my Senator's office yesterday and my conversation was very different.
While the Senator has not decided his position yet, the young lady (god that
makes me sound old) told me that they have taken many calls opposing SOPA.

I once had an aide from my Senator's office call me to ask for more
clarification on an email I'd sent them about aviation usage fees. I was
probably on the phone with the aide for 30 minutes as he took notes and
clarified points. It wasn't a fluff call; he was legitimately gathering
information to present to the Senator.

Not all is lost; there are still Senators out there, like mine who care about
their constituents and listen. _Keep the pressure up._

~~~
ComputerGuru
Which senator, or at least what state?

~~~
crikli
Jeff Fortenberry, R-Nebraska. Thank you for asking.

------
uptown
Why not record a few of the calls and post them online. NY law says you can
record your calls as long as one of the parties on the call is aware it's
being recorded (i.e. you).

<http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/new-york>

It'd be interesting to have a politician's office on the record stating
they're in favor of censoring the internet.

~~~
sdizdar
There is a cool application for iPhone which does this - it is called Call
Recording Pro: [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-recording-
pro/id43951645...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-recording-
pro/id439516456?mt=8)

After record is done, the app will save recording to their servers and
generate a link which then you can share.

~~~
phillmv
Is there an equivalent app that doesn't send my call to server? I'd love to
record my phone calls all the time.

~~~
dkl
If you use google voice, press '4' while in the call and it will record it.

~~~
SnowLprd
It's worth noting that there will be an announcement when do you so, which I
presume is audible to both parties on the call.

------
rabble
The deadline for filing for the NY Senate Democratic Primary is May 21st. That
means there is real time to find an anti-SOPA candidate to primary Schumer.

I also think somebody should think seriously about launching a PAC/SuperPAC
around this. Calls help, but in washington money talks louder. Launch an
'internet pac' or 'innovation pac' with promises to put money in to Primarying
or defeating pro-SOPA/PIPA politicians, and they'll start to listen. They know
that the tech world has a lot of money, and can organize. We just need to do
it.

~~~
BrianHV
Unfortunately, Schumer just got reelected. He won't be up for election again
until 2016.

------
asolove
Keep in mind, the people who answer your calls are (likely unpaid) high school
or college interns, not "staffers." They are not the people who research or
discuss policy issues, they likely are not very aware of the candidate's
legislative positions except on issues that generate lots of angry calls from
constituents with time on their hands, like Medicare benefits for seniors.
They are not making official statements.

~~~
sequoia
I don't understand the significance of this point. If I called and heard such
things and they said "well that's just a flunkie who knows nothing, not the
voice of the senator" I'd reply "How is this my problem? I call your office,
this is who you chose to have answer: this person is _speaking for you_."
Excuses like the one above only reflect even _more_ poorly on the subject, "I
have no idea what my staffers are saying to people, I'm unable to communicate
effectively with my constituents, etc." None of these points reflect well on
the senator.

When I called my reps (repeatedly) their staffers/phone-answerers would say
absolutely _nothing_ about SOPA to me. One (I forget which) said "he supports
net neutrality," but beyond that it was "he's issued no statement, I don't
know his stance, what was the name of the bill again?" I'm disgusted with all
my legislators on this... each office (besides Brown, I think) agreed to
follow up with me via email or phone when they find out more, none have. I
live in western MA.

I am so tired of this sort of shit. Communicating your stance on an issue to
your constituents is _part of your job_ , legislators. If I call and you can't
tell me your stance on a major issue like this, you are _not doing your job_ ,
just like a dishwasher who throws plates in the trash. Raah.

~~~
mayneack
Not saying anything is a whole lot better than the call described in the blog.
That at least means they know it's unpopular and haven't decided which side to
come down on yet (so they don't want to speak too soon and have to flip flop).
The more they get worried about talking to you, the more it seems like they
don't want to have anything to do with it. The most effective way to kill a
bill is just to never vote on it.

Hopefully (I'm not super hopeful), what we're seeing is that the supporters of
it don't want to have to back down, but everyone else just wants to leave the
issue as far away as possible so they don't have to talk about it.

------
ErrantX
I'm unsurprised people aren't calling in support; after all they don't need to
campaign...

I also think people, i.e. the masses, aren't really aware yet. Most I am sure
will be opposed when they figure it out, but there will be a proportion in
favour.

I have seen people on Facebook posting in support.

~~~
dhimes
_Most I am sure will be opposed when they figure it out_

I hope you are correct, but I fear you are not. Most of them think what they
are told to think by their favorite news/infotainment provider. So unless
great pains are taken to educate them they will support it.

------
kylemaxwell
I keep thinking this has to be a troll... surely no staff would say those
things?

Somebody wake me up.

~~~
inmygarage
That is what I thought, except that I was one on the other end of the phone. I
asked each question twice. He repeated the answers twice:

-in favor of "censoring" illegal content on the internet

-has talked to zero constituents in favor of the bill, and he's the one answering the phones

Wish I had taken down a name.

~~~
scrod
You need to go to the press with this conversation ASAP.

~~~
inmygarage
The call wasn't recorded and I did not get the person's name. I took clear
notes and asked him to repeat that the Senator is in favor of "censoring"
illegal content, which he confirmed.

The way he said "censor" really made my skin crawl - it was so pompous.
Gillibrand's people were nice, fyi.

I asked twice if he had spoken with any constituents over the phone who
support the bill and he confirmed twice that he had not.

But still, I am not a journalist and didn't plan to blog about this except
that I was so shocked by the replies I got. Surely people who work the phones
at these offices must assume that everything they say could end up "on the
internet"?

~~~
jerf
It's OK, a half-decent journalist wouldn't want to take your word for it
anyhow, and would hopefully make their own calls to verify. Just go for it.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So, where can we find this mythical journalist then ...

I'm kidding, I think.

------
ww520
So politicians can be bought, I meant lobbied, but won't answer to
constituency? Time for tech lobbying groups to fund and put their candidates
on the ballots. The Swedish Pirate Party has the right idea.

Politic is the game of deciding whose money are "redistributed" to whom. If we
don't band together, we will be in the receiving end of these time and again.

------
joshuahedlund
Everyone, keep calling. This is evidence that Senators are getting lots of
calls opposing PIPA. Even if it seems like they are not affecting anything,
they are still (presumably) recording the number of opposition calls they get,
and most of these Senators (presumably) still care about re-election. I still
believe in tipping points. I have to...

But thanks for this information as well. The tipping points do not seem to be
on our horizon, and information about the responses from senator offices, if
it goes viral, can hopefully have a much-needed amplifying effect...

------
daniel-cussen
Does anyone else think we should only consider actually getting DMCA repealed
as a victory?

------
jrockway
They really need to split out the "censor counterfeit products" from the
"censor the Internet" part. Everyone is fine with the first, nobody is fine
with the second. Let's meet in the middle.

~~~
MBlume
They're never going to. The former is providing cover for the latter. The
latter's where the real money is.

------
swalsh
"we are past the point where the internet should be considered a stand-alone
industry."

I agree.. but it should be more than an industry. I spend more time on the
internet than I do with my girlfriend. The internet is beyond a place where I
work. It is a nation in a new dimension of space. As such it needs it's own
regulation isolated from any individual land based nation-state.

------
rglover
I just spoke with two offices for representatives in Michigan and the basic
response you'll receive is: "we'll take note of your opposition and pass it
along to the representative."

I asked for a meeting and was told that I could either show up at the
representative's office or leave a note.

It takes 5 minutes to do this, so please take a moment and call.

------
rmason
They say money is the Mother's milk of politics. I think someone should
organize a political action committee to defend the Internet. It's important
to keep it apolitical and target only those trying to censor or impede the
net. In Sen. Schumer's case the solution is to primary him.

------
angersock
So, this is a great example of the system failing us.

Idea:

1\. Run for official office (senator, rep., pres., whatever).

2\. Put up website with list of issues, allow people to vote if they add a
comment per vote.

3\. Put up link to opencongress or whatever to track your record on the bill.

4\. Vote in office according to the trends on the website. If you vote against
prevailing opinion, you are trivially found out.

5\. On banner of website, post the number of votes you did following the polls
on the site versus the number of times you dissented.

6\. Enjoy making history.

~

This seems to me to be a great way of matching the existing system interface
without actually giving up a democracy.

~~~
ChuckMcM
_"So, this is a great example of the system failing us."_

I think you have that backwards, it is an example of _us_ failing the system.
From Amanda's comment: _"Today I called a Senator’s office for the first
time."_

What that says for the first time Amanda is engaged in the question of who
best represents her views with respect to how we are governed. This is a great
news. As other folks have pointed out this guy has been in office since 1975.

So many US citizens walk into a voting booth with a sort of half-baked, maybe
completely unbaked, idea about what they are doing there. Worse, anywhere from
20 to 85 percent of the people who registered to vote don't even bother
walking in and voting!

The people who walk in with no prep at all are the most malleable by
advertising of the "me good! him bad!" type. They form a sort of Gaussian foam
distribution of votes where the investment in advertisements can push the
median slightly over to one candidate resulting in elections which are won
with 1 - 5% of the votes cast.

The "system" that was set up was designed for people to actually invest time
and effort into identifying the best candidate out of the available choices,
and if unhappy with those choices providing a new candidate the next time
which was a better choice. But when people don't vote or vote randomly, _they
fail that system_.

You can proactively improve the system with a simple algorithm,

1) Vote - this is required since the system only responds to votes cast, not
blog postings or public outrage.

2) If you like the way this office is working, vote the incumbent, if you
don't vote anyone else.

As the algorithm takes effect, the only successful response of the system is
to act in a way such that the voters 'vote incumbent'. The amazing power of
this algorithm was demonstrated in Russian elections where the media suggests
it took large, overt, and fraudulent activities to overcome all of the votes
for someone other than Putin. Had those people just 'not voted' it would have
not had the effect it had.

So if you want better politicians, vote. If you want to magnify your impact,
get as many friends as you can to vote. If you don't have time to research
candidates and talk to them to converge quickly on a solution, then use the
above algorithm to evolve better representation.

The common theme though is this _participate._

~~~
angersock
So, there are some deep issues here, right?

I very much agree that participating in the system is essential. I vote early
and often, as the saying goes, and bug friends about issues.

In some sense, yeah, we've failed the system. Then again, the address to that
is really uncomfortable: the system was designed to deal with people who
actually were (nominally) fit to govern themselves. I would posit the
(loathsome) idea that most of the population functions mainly to consume
services and act selfishly. They have no great intellect, ambition, desire, or
goal beyond feeling good and being happy. There is nothing "wrong" with this,
but that's the way it is--consider the evolution of the computers and
programming away from terminal-driven computation devices to slick advertising
delivery systems. There is a lot to unpack, but it isn't productive to do that
here.

As for your algorithm, it's crap. Here's why.

First, the system technically functions based solely on votes, but these votes
can be changed by gerrymandering, hacking voting machines, rigging elections,
etc. Don't pretend like your vote is some assured method of sending an impulse
(however small) to the system. Note also that once candidates are in office,
the system responds to their whims, and in turn many whims can be affected by
extortion, blackmail, bribery, corruption, or whatever else.

Second, you assert that you still vote when the incumbent isn't working out--
you just vote against them. This is wrong, because the information you want to
convey--"The candidate in office is not one I want"--is now altered to
something else--"I want _this_ particular candidate in office". You've given
away the ability to say "None of these candidates are worth a damn, give us
new ones".

Any system that will seriously allow the election of dead men into office in
preference to a living being, no matter who despicable, is failed.

The system is very much failing us. That said, it's near impossible to fix it
--there is a lot of inertia, and we can't exactly bring it down for three
months for a refactor, now can we?

~~~
jff
Oh, you can certainly bring it down for a refactor. Just grab your guns, as
long as our previous laziness has not allowed those in power to take them
away.

Am I advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government? Nnnnnnope, just
stating a point.

------
wavephorm
We're going to need a new DNS system, plain and simple. A complete replacement
for ICANN and one that bypasses the United States. The walls are going up
around this regime and like the other authoritarian bills passed (Patriot Act,
DHS etc) these bills will eventually pass. So planning needs to start now.

~~~
baggachipz
I've been participating in this project: <https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns>

It's a peer-to-peer DNS system based on IPv6. The proof of concept is in
place, and I've used it and it works. Now it needs to scale and hit critical
mass. I encourage anyone interested in fixing DNS to participate.

~~~
pyre
How does this p2p dns system prevent dns poisoning?

------
jqueryin
This article ends with direct lines to call both DC and NYC offices of Senator
Schumer and Senator Gillibrand. She also lists a sample script. Someone, if
they have the resources and money (for paying for calls), could easily create
an automated Twilio script to auto-dial this number with a pre-formatted
script and insert some dynamic text for a name and phone number. You could
then create a website for people to voice their concerns and auto-dial with an
automated message on their behalf.

Thoughts?

~~~
doorty
That's a great idea... until you end up with the automated menu when you call
the Senator as the author mentioned.

~~~
ktsmith
You can automate dialing through the menu so long as the tree is always the
same. Twilio provides the ability to send key presses and is quite easy to
use.

