Internet Censorship Bill

[Ace2cool]

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/1 ... te-closure

So apparently there's a bill in Congress right now that's talking about internet censorship. Mainly focusing on pirated content, ect, but regardless, mandating the removal of particular URL's by internet service providers is, in every definition of the word, censorship. What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Encryptshun]

You can't stop the signal.

[sbird1]

Congress can suck a bag of d!ck.

[BusyBadger]

They'll never be able to censor sneakernet.

[numbnuts240]

Congress can suck a bag of d***.

i've been loosely following this for a couple weeks now, and iirc, most govt. people aren't too keen on this bill.

[Dattebayo]

Just don't ever join DemandProgress.net, they never let you hear the end of what they can do with this bill.

[angrypenguin182]

i've been trying to keep up with this as well, i dont think that this bill will pass. However, i do believe that the wording will get changed so "punishments" are less severe and less noticeable

[Dattebayo]

Since I have been assaulted with information every day about this, I can say for sure that some version of this will pass, and it's going to take someone who is willing to go all the way to the supreme court to get it reversed, just like similar instances have shown in history.

[Razi]

Yeah, they could be putting something this extreme on purpose so they can "negotiate" and put out a similar bill that seems more tame. Like fining the hell out of everyone instead of putting them into prison.

[IBCoupe]

I can't find the law they're talking about. If it was introduced in 2010, they're probably talking about something that already died. And it's likely that it bears little resemblance to their claims. The one thing they freak out about at the top of the article sounds a lot like Congress gives the President the right to cut off all access to a Federal Agency/Branch network or database.

[Hijacker]

Not sure why a dead bill that keeps getting anual floor time is the focus of that article. The current possible bills that should be in the discussion are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and it's sister bill, Protect IP Act. These two bills basically give a large, ramification free cudgel. If any IP rights holder believes that someone is infringing on their rights, they can issue takedown notices to the site's revenue sources, essentially freezing assets. If the "infringer" issues a counter notice, they agree to being sued by the current verbage if I understand it correctly. And it only takes one page of a site to be sufficient enough for a rights holder to pull the trigger.

NICO would be liable for any infringing posts on the site, for example. So any youtube posts, all these pictures of cars made by various companies, products that have been listed/pictured, etc that are not in public domain will he infringing should their holders consider being pricks. And not much we could do as these bills circumvent DMCA safe harbors and fair use. Also, rightsholders don't have to abide by due process nor 4th amendment infringements since they aren't sanctioned government entities.

The 1st amendment problems occur with the potential of black listing infringing sites' DNS addresses. Type the URL of your favorite infringing sie, and you're greeed with a censored page. But savvy people can get around it by circumventing dNS protocols and typing the IP in instead. Pretty dumb since the idea behind the black listing is to limit hits to pirating sites and it can't even do that properly.

I don't know what the senate approval rating of this is, but there were over 25 senators on board with this last i checked. Today was open hearings in the House and big media was able to waltz a bunch of people in to praise it to the House commitee voting on it. Only Google was given time to voice opppsition to it today even though every big networked site seems to be in oppoaition to it.

If they go in affect, we can kiss all of the social media sites goodbye for the short term as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo, etc will be in the first wave of takedowns.

Tye MPAA assures tye public it only wants these bills, with their wide open verbage and ramification free vigilante climate, to fight foreign sites pirating stuff. But if history repeats itself, none of the big media outlets will show restraint and it will be guaranteed that SOPA and PIPA will be overtly abused.

[IBCoupe]

Well, in the event that a flea market trades in counterfeit goods, a landlord can be held contributorily liable, so making NICO (and your ISP) liable for the illegal things you post here kinda follows.

[Hijacker]

But, the market store and landlord are charged and given due process. SOPA and PIPA would circumvent that and not be tested legally.

[AppleBonker]

The 1st amendment problems occur with the potential of black listing infringing sites' DNS addresses. Type the URL of your favorite infringing sie, and you're greeed with a censored page. But savvy people can get around it by circumventing dNS protocols and typing the IP in instead. Pretty dumb since the idea behind the black listing is to limit hits to pirating sites and it can't even do that properly.

This. I really think this is the most important part of the bill. When I read this portion, it became abundantly clear that the lawmakers had no clue what they were doing. If you can swing and miss that badly on such a simple concept, I'm pretty certain the remainder of the bill will be complete garbage as well. Actually, I plan on reading it in its entirety.

[Hijacker]

Here ya go Apps

SOPA

PIPA

[MinisterofDOOM]

I don't understand where the idea that any NATIONAL government can possibly regulate a PUBLICLY CONTROLLED, GLOBAL system is coming from. This is so far outside the purview of government it's ridiculous. Like Nissan trying to tell us what TV channels we can watch. It's gobsmackingly flabbergasting.

As to piracy, there is no solution. Never will be. Wasting time, money, or effort on it is just that: a waste. The closest thing to a solution for piracy is to make sure you're creating a product people WANT to pay for, and making sure you're an entity they WANT to support (which means not being a greedy, distrustful, Gollum of a publishing corporation).

[IBCoupe]

But, the market store and landlord are charged and given due process. SOPA and PIPA would circumvent that and not be tested legally.

First, how would due process be circumvented?
Second, why wouldn't the deprivation of due process be able to be challenged?

[IBCoupe]

I don't understand where the idea that any NATIONAL government can possibly regulate a PUBLICLY CONTROLLED, GLOBAL system is coming from. This is so far outside the purview of government it's ridiculous. Like Nissan trying to tell us what TV channels we can watch. It's gobsmackingly flabbergasting.

...because the NATIONAL government has control over the physical hardware involved in getting you where you intend to go when you type in an address.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2005/07/68065

The international organization that's involved in the regulation of the Internet (ICANN) only function when they are awarded a contract by the United States government.

He said the declaration, officially made in a four-paragraph statement posted online, was in response to growing security threats and increased reliance on the internet globally for communications and commerce.

The computers in question serve as the internet's master directories and tell web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them every day, likely without knowing it. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all websites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.

Though the computers themselves — 13 in all, known as root servers — are in private hands, they contain government-approved lists of the 260 or so internet suffixes, such as ".com."

In 1998, the Commerce Department selected a private organization with international board members, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, to decide what goes on those lists. Commerce kept veto power, but indicated it would let go once ICANN met a number of conditions.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Related: anonymous-new-message-t546206.html

[IBCoupe]

That thread got ugly quick; I almost commented on it, but I'm kinda glad I didn't.

[Hijacker]

But, the market store and landlord are charged and given due process. SOPA and PIPA would circumvent that and not be tested legally.

First, how would due process be circumvented?
Second, why wouldn't the deprivation of due process be able to be challenged?

Due process only applies when a law enforcement agency and the justice system is involved. In the case of SOPA and PIPA takedowns, all actions are handled on the private party (unilaterally) level. With the way SOPA and PIPA are worded, it's very easy to lose your site. Assets can be frozen and sites can be black listed without ever having anything enter a court room. We hold agencies that handle application of law accountable to a standard for a reason. Not to say our system is perfect, but it's better than nothing. Which is what you get when you remove the accredited enforcement from the equation.

I for one would prefer the burden of proof be on the accuser and not be obscured by "good faith" proofing. It's unquestionably wrong that someone can say "you lose your income because I honestly thought you were knowingly harbouring infringers on your site".

The deprivation technically can be challenged, but it will place a burden on the accused. Say NICO gets a letter from Viacom because someone posted a picture of Jersey Shore somewhere on the board. NICO's advertising income has been frozen at this point, and the DoJ is blocking all DNS requests to the site until SOPA and PIPA are complied. What's easier for Greg? Take the fight to court while he is not making anything? Or go ahead and just comply to the law, get the accounts unfrozen, the DNS blocking taken down, and go back to business as usual? Most of the tinier sites will do that. It's cheaper in the long run. So now a rights holder has a weapon to swing that has a low probability to be challenged in court.

If Greg sends a big "F you" letter back to refute the claims made by the rights holder, he is automatically assumed to want to be taken to court. That would be the natural progression, but it expedites (I guess that's one thing. Speedy trial?) the process. The rights holder can also blanket takedown notices without impunity because so long as they feel they could have been infringed upon, they are in the right according to those two bills. There's no retaliation available.

Until someone stands up and is willing to bite the bullet to go to court, the law effectively eliminates a primary part of due process. To go as far as it does, an inquiry would normally have to be made by the Justice Department (or some similar agency). That includes fact finding investigations, data collection, the usual things that are required by the accuser to warrant burden of proof. Then some form of enforcement action is taken. It's not a knee jerk reaction because someone wanted to have their kid dancing in a video to a Lady Gaga song. SOPA and PIPA allow knee jerk reactions that completely route themselves around any form of burden of proof.

The DMCA requires a site that is issued a take down to pull the one infringing piece down. So long as you are attempting to comply with DMCA, you get to operate. But the DMCA only applies to domestically operated sites. SOPA and PIPA's "spirit" is to apply abroad, but it's obvious what will happen if they get passed. I already imagine that a lot of the big media companies already have their legal teams on standby with SOPA takedown notices drafted and ready to go.

[IBCoupe]

Due process applies always. If the government is depriving you of life, liberty, or property, you're entitled to due process before they do so. Depending on how and why they do it, the process due you may be greater in certain circumstances. Did Congress pass a law that says "everybody must cut their hair once a month," and the harm you've suffered is that haircutters have increased their prices accordingly? That doesn't get you much due process (in fact, the process of passing that law might be about it). If the Government (or any regulatory agency) comes after you to enforce the law against you based on the facts of your particular case, you're entitled to process, to ensure that you get heard before you get screwed.

And nobody ever got their due process rights vindicated by an over-eager government without going to court. That's how you always get them vindicated. If the DoJ is ordering, on pain of prosecution, a private party to withhold services from Greg, I'm pretty sure (though, the minute I'm done writing this research paper, I'll have to research the relationship between commandeering of private parties and the Fifth Amendment) Greg could tell the Government to fist itself by filing suit. Or Greg could take it up the bum. The choice is his.

And there's no "automatically assumed" about it. If Greg sends that letter, that may trigger the Court hearing, but probably it won't. It's going to depend on the Agency's statutes, but chances are that there's plenty of procedures to follow before Greg gets to a full-blown hearing, let alone an actual courtroom.

The Constitutional requirement for due process is always there in everything the government does to private citizens. Always. There's no law that Congress can pass to escape that requirement. They may expedite some processes, but the Constitution provides a floor.

[Jesda]

Due process applies always. If the government is depriving you of life, liberty, or property, you're entitled to due process before they do so. Depending on how and why they do it, the process due you may be greater in certain circumstances. Did Congress pass a law that says "everybody must cut their hair once a month," and the harm you've suffered is that haircutters have increased their prices accordingly? That doesn't get you much due process (in fact, the process of passing that law might be about it). If the Government (or any regulatory agency) comes after you to enforce the law against you based on the facts of your particular case, you're entitled to process, to ensure that you get heard before you get screwed.

And nobody ever got their due process rights vindicated by an over-eager government without going to court. That's how you always get them vindicated. If the DoJ is ordering, on pain of prosecution, a private party to withhold services from Greg, I'm pretty sure (though, the minute I'm done writing this research paper, I'll have to research the relationship between commandeering of private parties and the Fifth Amendment) Greg could tell the Government to fist itself by filing suit. Or Greg could take it up the bum. The choice is his.

And there's no "automatically assumed" about it. If Greg sends that letter, that may trigger the Court hearing, but probably it won't. It's going to depend on the Agency's statutes, but chances are that there's plenty of procedures to follow before Greg gets to a full-blown hearing, let alone an actual courtroom.

The Constitutional requirement for due process is always there in everything the government does to private citizens. Always. There's no law that Congress can pass to escape that requirement. They may expedite some processes, but the Constitution provides a floor.

Thats delightfully idealistic and doesnt address the problem and nuisance caused by the legislation.

[Jesda]

The upside is that it creates a demand for legal services. With all those unemployed lawyers out there, it could only be good for the economy, America, and bald eagles.

[IBCoupe]

Thats delightfully idealistic and doesnt address the problem and nuisance caused by the legislation.

Which part is idealistic? The part that explains the Constitution or the part that says Greg has a choice in whether he takes it up the bum or fights a take-down notice?

Maybe the problem is that you misread my post or the post I was responding to. I was addressing the concern that due process was somehow circumvented. As for the "problem" or "nuisance" caused by the legislation, I'm still not entirely clear on what it is. Maybe you could explain it.

[Jesda]

Thats delightfully idealistic and doesnt address the problem and nuisance caused by the legislation.

Which part is idealistic? The part that explains the Constitution or the part that says Greg has a choice in whether he takes it up the bum or fights a take-down notice?

Maybe the problem is that you misread my post or the post I was responding to. I was addressing the concern that due process was somehow circumvented. As for the "problem" or "nuisance" caused by the legislation, I'm still not entirely clear on what it is. Maybe you could explain it.

i dont really have a position on this one since im learning about it alongside you. What i believe hijacker means to say is that the accused is treeated as guilty until proven the innocent. The punishment comes before the proof. You seem fixated on the definition of due process rather than the real impact of the legislation.



As for wheth that violates due process, you would know better than me, but let me offer an example. In the state of washington, driver licenses were suspended for late or non payment of tickets. This was done without a hearing. A ruling declared it a violation due process. Previous suspensions were Immediately overturned. Yes, you could previously challenge the suspension in court, but in the interim you were screwed -- punishment before proof.



Ipad typing. Please Forgive my typos.

[IBCoupe]

My point is that it's precisely because due process is required, that the avenue for that remedy exists. Maybe Greg would just comply rather than challenge the law. That's fine. But that's the case with any regulation Congress creates, whether it's patently flawed or not.

I'd love for Congress to pass good laws, too. But setting aside the plainly bad portions of law that we know will not stand for very long (the very first enforcement against an ISP, for example, would likely lead to an *ahem* judicial reinterpretation, under the auspices of constitutional avoidance, of the law so that it's not clearly violating due process), what's the problem with the law?

Do we not like that we have to pay for the artistic products of others? Do we not like that copyright-holders want to protect their property?

And those procedural questions assume that the Federal Agency acts within the literal language of the statute - it's plausible to assume they've got lawyers telling the administrators that, "Yeah, you might shut down a few before the next President comes in, but it's going to cost you in the long run. In the short run, too, because somebody's going to sue you and they're going to win."

Then again, I never thought a company like Boeing would be dumb enough to hire bad lawyers or refuse to listen to its good ones, so that may just be fantasy.

[95zenki man]

That thread got ugly quick; I almost commented on it, but I'm kinda glad I didn't.

Its still going man, come on in and say hey!

[IBCoupe]

Gah, don't know that I want to get involved in it. Don't have much to say on the subject of Anonymous. I agree with their "cause," if you can call it that, but their methods aren't the type we should be condoning, even if it's the only way to get things done.

[Jesda]

My point is that it's precisely because due process is required, that the avenue for that remedy exists. Maybe Greg would just comply rather than challenge the law. That's fine. But that's the case with any regulation Congress creates, whether it's patently flawed or not.

I'd love for Congress to pass good laws, too. But setting aside the plainly bad portions of law that we know will not stand for very long (the very first enforcement against an ISP, for example, would likely lead to an *ahem* judicial reinterpretation, under the auspices of constitutional avoidance, of the law so that it's not clearly violating due process), what's the problem with the law?

Do we not like that we have to pay for the artistic products of others? Do we not like that copyright-holders want to protect their property?

And those procedural questions assume that the Federal Agency acts within the literal language of the statute - it's plausible to assume they've got lawyers telling the administrators that, "Yeah, you might shut down a few before the next President comes in, but it's going to cost you in the long run. In the short run, too, because somebody's going to sue you and they're going to win."

Then again, I never thought a company like Boeing would be dumb enough to hire bad lawyers or refuse to listen to its good ones, so that may just be fantasy.

Were talking again about a side issue, one i dont disagree on, rather than the main complaint -- that the proposed legislation as-is could be a detriment to free speech and open communication on the internet and a serious nuisance to third parties.

That seems to be the spirit of the petition.

"you can always challenge the law" is a separate discussion from "this looks like it might be a s*** law"