Other than that, write to your representatives and tell them in no unambiguous language that they are sacrificing liberty for a feeling of security. Remind them that their own internet use could be monitored by their political opponents because once the framework is in place it is far too easy to abuse it.
>There's been a groundswell recently, and the GOP response: they are not in my district, they are liberals causing trouble, etc, etc.
We're seeing this in my congressional district right now (NY21). A lot of people here are upset because our representative has basically been in hiding since last year's election (which she won handily as a young republican incumbent in a very red, rural district). She has held no announced public events, has canceled some that were scheduled, and only communicates through sound bytes provided by her staff.
So there have been protests and groups have formed that regularly march at, write to, and call her offices, asking for town hall meetings where they can actually discuss the issues at hand. [0][1]
So how has she responded? She put out a statement on Facebook that included the following [2]:
>Many members of various protest groups have repeatedly harassed my hardworking staff and have personally targeted specific staff members. This type of intentionally disruptive behavior is unacceptable and unhelpful to civil public discourse. If it gets out of hand, we will continue to contact local law enforcement and U.S. Capitol Police.
>It is imperative that my staff is able to continue to focus on federal casework on behalf of the constituents of New York’s 21st District, and that my constituents understand that despite the efforts from these organized disruptors, we will always continue our work to best serve you.
Two points:
1. I've met these protesters and been to their rallies. I'm part of the facebook group they use to organize the events. They're everyday people, of all political parties, who have gathered civilly and clearly care about the issues our district faces. Maybe there are some bad actors, but I haven't met them. If they're guilty of anything it's being a little annoying, and that's not a crime.
2. Her comments in that statement very clearly are trying to paint the protesters as somehow working against her and her constituents. But we are her constituents!
Stories like this really, really make me question my opposition to violence. Some of these people seem like they won't listen to their constituents without some alternative persuasion. And that's sad.
I'm not sure I would personally ever resort to violence unless things get really out of hand and atrocities start occurring.
I will say, however, that I've met our representative when she toured our company last year and wasn't particularly pleased with the interaction. She was an air head, especially with respect to the issues that we (as a software company) care about. When I wasn't satisfied with her responses she said, "You're just one of those guys who hates politicians, huh?"
I wouldn't say that's true. In fact, her predecessor also toured our office in 2012, right around the time when SOPA/PIPA were being debated, and he seemed very well informed and appeared to take our comments to heart, despite actually being a SOPA co-sponsor.
Not to intentionally continue rambling but his departure that led to Stefanik's election was kind of fishy too. He was a locally raised, pretty well-liked democratic lawyer and retired Air Force captain who helped revitalize one of the cities he was stationed at during his service when the air base there was shut down. Then all of a sudden he just says he's not running for re-election. A friend of mine pointed out that due to the unexpected nature of his retirement it's within the realm of possibility that he was forced out in some way (blackmail?)
So Stefanik -- a young, female career politician and former Paul Ryan staffer rolls in and given the overall right-leaning nature of the area, people vote along party lines and she wins. Her only tie to the district is that her family owns a seasonal home here, which apparently was enough for her to meet residency requirements. She's spent most of her adult life in Washington. Barely anyone in her "hometown" in our district has even seen her [0]. On the campaign trail for her first election, she notoriously just walked away from reporters in the middle of a press event[1], so the "run away and hide" political strategy seems to have some precedent with her.
And, unfortunately, in most cases, any legitimate criticism you give with respect to her and her job performance often gets dismissed by her supporters as sexism. It's all very frustrating.
HN probably isn't the place for my ranting. Sorry about that.
I know you're being facetious, but did Bernie really have a stance on internet privacy? It was pretty clear the main platform he had fleshed out was just economic policy.
That's too many words. Simply tell them that if they don't do something to stop this, that they will not be able to count on your support at the next election.
If you can't trust your ISP, use a VPN. If you're working with trusted peers, there's no need to trust other parties. Otherwise, you can run your own VPN server on a VPS, or use a commercial VPN service. But then you need to trust the provider, and their ISP. Still, you can choose providers with good reputations, and those that are less likely to pwn you. And you can distribute trust by using nested VPN chains, so that compromise requires collaboration.
So did I, when I lived in the Bay Area and actually had a choice. In my corner of Seattle, my only choices are Comcast and CenturyLink, which appear to be equally despised by people.
Other than that, write to your representatives and tell them in no unambiguous language that they are sacrificing liberty for a feeling of security. Remind them that their own internet use could be monitored by their political opponents because once the framework is in place it is far too easy to abuse it.