Government access: satire (from CuD)

["L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>]

Also from CuD  Wed  Sep 8 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 70, a brilliant and
scalding satirization by john@ZYGOT.ATI.COM(John Higdon) of points that
J. Warren raises in favor of the `government online database access
bill' in California, AB1624. J. Warren provided a boilerplate letter,
very persuasive in many ways from a *citizen* point of view, for anyone
to fax to a specific obstinate legislator on the matter (copies
included in many forums).

I've been tracking this controversy with great interest, and have
forwarded various developments to the cypherpunk list. This last
conquest is a fantastic, dazzling example of cyberspatial democracy in
action. In this case, J. Warren has done, and continues to do, a
totally inspired job of coordinating resources, targeting critical
legislators and aspects of the law-making process, building consensus,
coordination, and tightly focused organization. More than ever, this
effort suggests that Legislators are very high up on the list of
Endangered Bureacrats and Future Obsolescence. J. Warren gets my vote
as Cypherpunk of the Month.

From: Jim Warren <jwarren@WELL.SF.CA.US>
>Today, AB1624 passed the Assembly 78-to-0 on the consent agenda, thus
>concurring with the amendments that had been made in the Senate after
>the Assembly passed it the first time.
>
>Unless Gov. Pete Wilson vetos it within 12 days, it will become law,
>taking effect Jan. 1, 1993.

78-to-0? my *gosh*. Warren appears to have greater diplomatic and
lobbying tenacity, and of course, fundamental splendor in his
proposals, than our esteemed President and Vice President (the latter
just appearing on David Letterman to plug the latest `streamlining
government' plan with all the juicy catchwords like `empowering
workers' and `corporation reformation').

This California Database Access bill will help pave the way for future
success in Federal ones. Note that there is a lot of bickering going on
at that level between groups Taxpayer Assets Project (rep. Jamie Love)
and EFF (rep. Shari Steele) in support of two different congressional
bills, one the Owens bill. We have to get our houses in order to
succeed at the national level so spectacularly, but we have a *major*
victory under the belt that will aid the Cyberspatial Reality
Advancement Movement tremendously.

===cut=here===

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 03:04 PDT
From: john@ZYGOT.ATI.COM(John Higdon)
Subject: File 4--Imaginary Government Reply to Jim Warren's Model Letter

((MODERATORS' NOTE: While we often share John's cynicism, which he
expresses satirically below, it appears that Jim Warren's idealism and
belief in collective action were *not* misplaced.  A few minutes ago,
CuD learned that Jim Warren's (and others') efforts to pass the
California electronic access bill that would increase availability of
public documents to the public were rewarded. Warren's model letters
and other strategies were instrumental in today's final passage of the
legislation. See File #11, below)).

+++++++

Jim Warren presented a substantial argument in his "Model Letter" to
John Burton. But it is entirely based upon the premise that anyone in
the California state government gives two hoots or a holler about the
citizenry. Therefore I appoint myself official (tongue-in-cheek)
spokesperson for our state legislature and answer each of Mr. Warren's
arguments against the charging of fees for on-line access to state
documents. (My apologies for anything that seems true enough to be
mistaken for seriousness.)

Mr. Warren writes:

> I ask that you reconsider your demand for fees, for at least ten reasons:
>
> 1.  BAD PRECEDENT -- FREE FOR OLD-FASHIONED PAPER VS. FEES FOR MODERN ACCESS

Mr. Warren, you obviously think that any of us here in Sacramento give
a damn about how much anything in government costs. The money comes out
of your pocket, not ours. We collect it from you in taxes. We even will
track you down after you retire in another state to make sure we get
our pound of flesh. I hope that answers your concern regarding costs.

> 2.  CREATES TWO CLASSES OF PUBLIC ACCESS BASED ON WEALTH AND POSITION

Mr. Warren, where on earth have you been all of your life. Of course
people with money and position have the power. We have campaign
contributions to work off here. Actually, there are several issues at work.
Newspapers are our friends. They give us mindless, unquestioning access
to the public with our press hand-outs and print what we make
convenient. On the other hand, people who are too poor to pay fees for
on-line document access are probably radical trouble makers. We don't
need that kind of riff-raff examining what we do here in Sacramento.

> 3.  YOU WOULD EXCLUDE SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, STUDENTS, LIBRARIES, HOMELESS, ETC.

Naturally. Students have always been a pain in our rear. Thankfully, as
a group, their voting record stinks. The last thing we want to do is
incite these children into recklessly exercising their rights. And for
heaven's sake, why on earth would we want a bunch of homeless bums to
know what is going on in Sacrmento? And the beard and glasses types
that frequent libraries--well, need I say more?

> 4.  BUREAUCRACY AND FEES WOULD DETER MOST LOW-COST PUBLIC ACCESS

No shit Sherlock! Did someone lead you to think that we had some desire
to make our silly shenanigans public?

> 5.  IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE; WOULD INCITE WIDESPREAD VIOLATION OF YOUR LAW

Did you ever consider that maybe money is not the issue here, but
rather denial of access? Give us some credit. But a nice bonus in
having fees built into the system is the fact that we know perfectly
well that people will ignore the law. This gives us carte blanche to
"round up all the usual suspects" should we decide that someone has
spoken the wrong thing at the wrong time. When we want to "put someone
away", it is most useful to have some trumped up charge. Not paying
fees is made to order.

> 6.  A TECHNICAL NIGHTMARE -- WHO PAYS?  HOW MUCH SURVEILLANCE OF USERS?

Mr. Warren, we KNOW that. In addition to the above, we are provided
with a great excuse to monitor and search and seize to our hearts'
content.

> 7.  SUPPORT -- DON'T SUPPRESS -- DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH-TECH SMALL BUSINESS

Don't get us wrong--we support high-tech. But only in big corporations.
These garage operations, "loose cannons" if you will, scare the bloody
crap out of us. The idea that ordinary people can, unsupervised and in
private, create, develop, and manipulate data seen and read by other
ordinary people--using high-tech means, no less--strikes at the very
core of our benevolent purpose. That purpose is to protect you and
other citizens from unnecessary contact with data and devices that you
need not know anything about. We, and our corporate contributors--er, I
mean the corporations who are under our thumb--oops, rather the high
tech industry will handle everything and take care of you.

> 8.  FREE LAND-FILL PAPER VS. FEES FOR RECYCLABLE ELECTRONS

Green stuff is only for serving our agenda. Do not try to use that
"green" nonsense on us. We invented the hype so we could raise your
taxes. We are pleased that it has been effective. But do not attempt to
con your government. We invented the practice.

> 9.  PRECEDENTS FOR ELECTRONIC SPEECH, ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY, ELECTRONIC PRESS
>   I understand you plan to exclude subscription newspapers from your fee-for-
> fee mandate.

Mr. Warren, as I explained earlier, the mindless newspapers are our
friends. Your rabble-rousing "electronic publishers" say things we
don't like, and have a "readership" that we would just as soon not see the
material. Remember the key word "access". Access is something that all
of us in government would just as soon you and all the other bozo
constituents NOT have.

> 10.  YOUR PRECEDENT FOR THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO PETITION THEIR GOVERNMENT

Hey, if we had our druthers, we would turn that off in a minute. All we
have between us and you clowns is a mountain of paperwork and
procedures. Are you seriously asking us to strip that away? You think
we WANT to hear from you between elections? Get real, son.

(End of comments as tongue-in-cheek government spokesperson.)

While the above may be pulling at the corners just a little, it is my
personal opinion that there is contained more truth than fiction. There
are two things to always remember about government bureaucrats: cost is
never an issue; and none wants you to know what really goes on in
government. After all, you pay the bill and what you don't know won't
hurt you.

------------------------------