Hacker News Reader

Comment by kylemaxwell | Hacker News Reader

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

Somebody wake me up.

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.

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

Is it legal to record phone calls in new york without informing the other party? This would be an excellent sound bite for the national news if so.

It seems that New York is a "one party consent" state, so it is legal to record phone calls without informing the other party. Someone should do this!

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm etc.

If the past months are any indication, no news organization is interested in reporting anything remotely relating to SOPA (except maybe as a short piece to promote it as "the legislation that will stop piracy for good" and that anyone who opposes this is a criminal).

SOPA did not get any media coverage, and I'd be surprised if flippant comments made by an anonymous staffer changed that.

I mean turning off the internet would put a huge dent in piracy. It's kind of true.

False. Yesterday I posted a link to an article from Fortune discussing the SOPA "battle."

I'm (obviously) anti-SOPA, but the level of hysteria is somewhat annoying.

Here's another: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/us/anti-piracy-bill-sopa-b...

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"?

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.

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

I'm kidding, I think.

The way he said "censor" really made my skin crawl

Maybe, just maybe, the guy on the phone is also against the bill, in fact is sickened by it, and wants you to be angry and take action.

How's that for optimism?

That's already about as much action as we can all do, unless you've got a couple million lying around.

My guess is he was being facetious.

I'm going to assume this guy has been picking up the phone on this issue non-stop for the last week and is tired of hearing from opponents.

He was probably just entertaining himself.

Most of the press is happy to support SOPA. They've been mostly mum about it so far, with a few minor exceptions.

They're not working for you; they're working for the advertisers.

A lot of the "press" are the same large multinational corporations that are pushing SOPA.

The American press loves quoting 'sources close to the senator' or a 'White house senior staffer.' Most journalists have no problem quoting anonymous sources (when it promotes their agenda).

I wouldn't worry about not having taken the name of the person on the other end of the call.

They only do that when they are receiving information off the record, or the person isn't authorized to give their name. They don't do that when getting information second hand that isn't confirmable.

His real constituents are the various companies that make up the banking sector - not the people in his district. Cynical? sure... but his sponsorship of this bill is very much in line with his almost republican-like business views. It's all about the benjamins.

Yes, America can rightly be called corporate ruled for the most part. So he doesn't really care about average public. He cares about corporations and their money.

Well, let's give him credit. That staffer was at least honest. These congressmen aren't stupid, they well know that they support censorship and that's what all these PIPA and SOPA are about - censorship. And the fact that they don't openly speak about it doesn't change the essence.

But they are scared of publicity still. So thank you for publishing this encounter. It really needs a broader coverage.

Wait, wait, wait. So this was specifically about censoring "illegal" content? That's not in your post at all. in fact, you present it as a direct quote without mentioning illegal content at all. “Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet.” Generically censoring the internet is much more sensational then specifically censoring illegal content. (However you define that, and yes I understand the nuance between how do you determine what's legal/illegal and what's not vis a vis copyright etc., but: the average layperson reading a sensationalized piece does not.)

I asked twice. The first time he said "censor the internet" and then I think he heard the shock in my voice when I asked him to repeat and he said "he is in favor of censoring illegal content." So perhaps worthy of a clarification.

"Censoring illegal content" is weasel terminology and a huge red herring. If a government chooses to censor content, that content is considered illegal by definition: if it wasn't considered illegal, the government would have no grounds to censor it.

The problem is not that they want to censor things. Almost everyone agrees that some things need to be censored (e.g. publications found to be defamatory, publications of stolen trade secrets, etc.). The problem is what content they want to be able to declare illegal at little more than a whim.

Sounds like the staffer is being a bit grumpy and perhaps does not fully agree with the Senator's position.

New York is a single-party-notification state as far as recording phone calls goes. If someone else calls, perhaps they can record it? It's pretty easy with Google Voice (though it does notify the other person).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com