13 ms·

Protect IP Renamed E-Parasites Act; Would Create The Great Firewall Of America

491 points by yanw 15y ago

khafra 15y ago
I would have called this too ridiculous to pose an actual danger before the PATRIOT Act. It points to a deeper problem, though: Lawmakers intent on passing something that a large portion of the public finds objectionable can often achieve their goal simply by persistence; renaming and resubmitting a bill each time oppositional furor dies down, or slipping pieces of it into unrelated bills until it's effectively passed. I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill, or with legislation by subterfuge.
- 0x12 15y ago
  That's a special case of what I believe is called the ratchet effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect
- gloob 15y ago
  Is there a "canonical" justification for why the US legislative system allows non-germane additions to a bill? Or is ball-of-mud style legislation the norm due to tradition, rather than some philosophical ideal?
  - sp332 15y ago
    Do you mean riders? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rider_%28legislation%29 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rider_%28legi... The House actually has a "germanness rule" (which is not in the Constitution), so they generally avoid it as a matter of policy. But the Senate has no such rule. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Christmas_tree_bill#Overview https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Christmas_tre... So a bill which passes the House goes to the Senate, where riders are added. Then the modifications go back to the house, where it might be passed depending on whether they like the new additions or not.
- troutwine 15y ago
  > I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill, or with legislation by subterfuge. I believe the intended result for this, if a sufficient portion of the represented find this behavior objectionable, is to lose one's office. This assumes an educated electorate , or at least the voting subset of the represented to be so educated and so opposed.
  - sp332 15y ago
    But oftentimes, the party of the incumbent won't run another candidate (since that might split the vote and lose the seat to the other party). So the only way to vote an incumbent out is to vote for the other party, which may also be against your interests.
    - troutwine 15y ago
      You might also turn in a blank ballot. Depending on circumstance, this might be a fine way to signal to the incumbent that they did not do a Good Job, though you in general support the policy of their party. Close races, etc, will change the calculus of voting. Some states do not include blank ballots in the vote totals, others do.
      - dextorious 15y ago
        >You might also turn in a blank ballot. Which is equivalent to boosting the winning party.
      - sp332 15y ago
        Too bad writing a message invalidates the ballot. Otherwise you could write "Candidate A, with protest"
      - rhizome 15y ago
        Officeholders don't read ballots.
      - andymurd 15y ago
- rhizome 15y ago
  I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill There is: the ballot box (standard annoying answer), or by organizing and forcing them to pass a bill saying they can't do what is in the bad bill. Both the Occupy and Net Neutrality movements overlap here.
adestefan 15y ago
For a minute I thought this was satire put out by one of the campaigns against the Act. I was thinking, "Who would really call something that?" I'm glad I clicked the link to see that it's actually what happened.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Same here - the utterly tone-deaf nature of the name literally made me think it was a link to the Onion. It is just freaking weird that the biggest, most blatantly rent-seeking organizations in the world call their own legislation the E-PARASITE bill.
  - etherael 15y ago
    E-PARASITE bill; the bill by and for e-parasites. Seems legit, no?
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
The key point here, as another commenter pointed out, is they are not going to give up. You can win a battle here, perhaps rally around your congressman and get it killed, or petition the president to veto it, but it doesn't matter. They'll just be back again next year, and the next year, and the next. This is the importance of constitutional amendments: they settle things on a broad scale exactly to prevent this kind of nipping (although it still happens, it just takes much longer time) We need an amendment or two around internet and computer freedom, specifically that computers are extensions of our minds, not machines to play content on, and that the internet is our primary form of political organization and persuasion, not a fancy telephone line. I hate to be all doom-and-gloom, but I think that boat has sailed. The tech community might get its act together, give up all social causes and form some kind of committee or group to push for such amendments, but I seriously doubt it. Half the community is in bed with big media and the other half are just as concerned with other issues as this one. We are not organized, coherent, or focused. Just saw a great series on PBS, Ken Burns' "Prohibition". It was all about how focused groups can make big changes -- but it takes a long time. I don't see the kind of anger and outrage against this as we had against alcohol. Very sad, because this is a lot worse.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  I agree with you about the persistence problem; the government acts like a rotten two-year-old that keeps trying until it gets its way. Like a two-year-old, it learns what it can get away with and tries harder each time. Unlike a two-year-old, it doesn't grow up and learn what not to do. We shouldn't need a constitutional amendment here; the constitution is a whitelist of things the federal government may do, not a blacklist of things it may not do. While the constitution does sadly include the notion of copyright, it does not include anything allowing regulatory authority over the Internet.
  - zacharycohn 15y ago
    To be fair, the repetition is how the system SHOULD work. Do you think the first attempt at passing a women's suffrage bill passed?
  - 15y ago
fleitz 15y ago
Does stopping internet piracy mean no more talk like a pirate day?
- brandon6 15y ago
  I hope not
jneal 15y ago
IF this were to become law, that would definitely be scary, but from the description of what they require of the ISP, it sounds like they aren't blocking access to the server, just keeping the DNS from resolving to the IP. Thus, could you not use a public DNS (or foreign DNS) server, thus getting around the blocked DNS from your local ISP? Just an idea, or wonder, of mine.
- dextorious 15y ago
  Yeah, let's just allow them to pass their restrictions bit by bit in subsequent laws, arguing that "as it is we can still get around it". It doesn't matter if we can get around it using a public DNS server. For one, tomorrow they can even outlaw using non government compliant dns providers). What hackers tend to forget is that such problems are not technical, are political. "Bypassing" by technical expertise is not a solution, it's monkey-patching a system that's broken and dangerous. 1) Even if geeks can bypass some restrictions, they too tend to lose --content, community participation etc-- if the general populace cannot do it just as easily, or is scared not to do it. 2) Even the cleverest bypassing can be outlawed. 3) One should not trust one's self to always be one step ahead of the government in the bypassing game. Take P2P for example. Say you're totally bypassing the P2P download restrictions with some clever hackery that makes you untraceable online, be it Tor or whatever. What good will it do if the authorities can come knocking on your physical door and find that same illegally downloaded stuff in use on your computer?
manuscreationis 15y ago
Is anyone putting together any kind of concerted, consolidated effort to kill this bill? There must be some kind of movement one can throw their weight behind to help stop this nonsense.
- there 15y ago
  http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/?source=eff http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/?source=eff
  - manuscreationis 15y ago
    Thanks for this
- akozak 15y ago
  Yes. If you're an entrepreneur you can sign onto this effort: https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1_etELzzh_ngZAs-V_4dbvfgE_o1UEVMwA80bo3RZSXs https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1_etELz...
rooshdi 15y ago
First COICA, then Protect IP, now E-PARASITES Act? Looks like I have to contact my local congressmen again. Seems like they spend more time renaming this bill than actually reading it.
- dextorious 15y ago
  > Looks like I have to contact my local congressmen again. Yeah, you and some giant company with tons of cash to finance his next campaign. Guess who's gonna win his support.
JoachimSchipper 15y ago
Silver lining: the word "IP" is apparently so unpopular that it's better not to associate your proposals with it.
- waqf 15y ago
  I would like you to be right: do you have evidence that this was the reason the name was changed? I am personally hoping that "PARASITE" has a much more negative ring that will make it easier to campaign against the bill.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Yeah, the people we think of as parasites and the people they think of as parasites are two different sets. Brand them as the parasites and kill it. Maybe a Googlebomb is in order, listing the sponsors of this bill as e-parasites? Sadly, the document linked on SCRIBD doesn't seem to include the list of cosponsors and mentions only "Mr. Smith of Texas". Does anyone know where to find out who all is sponsoring this? A quick search only found a bunch of news about it and copies of the bill, but no further information.
fredwilson 15y ago
I am headed to DC tonight and my partner and I and a few other VCs entrepreneurs and folks from Google are going to try to talk some sense into congress on this bill. Wish us luck tomorrow.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Can you share what types of meetings you have lined up, if you'll be speaking to any members of Congress in a formal setting, etc?
- khafra 15y ago
  I'm glad an excellent communicator with a solid reputation like you is going to bat on this issue. If you find yourself in doubt, just think "what would fakegrimlock do?"
xorglorb 15y ago
Another concerning section is the power to take action against, "any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described". Does this mean that the Tor Project would be shut down? It would be nearly impossible to eradicate a piece of open source software, but if this bill has passed, it would not be a leap to imagine a bill making the use of Tor or related services a felony passing.
dminor 15y ago
Didn't Wyden put a hold on the "PROTECT IP" act in the Senate? Does that make this moot, or will there be a new bill in the Senate?
- Natsu 15y ago
  I'm not sure, but I bet there's some way around it. And that lobbyists will be trying to unseat him.
- cdh 15y ago
  Weird coincidence. I just saw Wyden speak a few minutes ago at a town hall style meeting here in Oregon, and asked him about PROTECT IP when he was taking questions. I'm not sure he can keep it on hold indefinitely, but he definitely sounded committed to doing whatever is within his power to oppose it.
- davidu 15y ago
  This is a new bill.
jonnathanson 15y ago
The sad thing about all of this is that the backers of the legislation stand to lose, in the long run, if their legislation is passed. Consider the VCR. Back in the 1980s, when the VCR was a new and disruptive piece of technology, the film industry lobbied to have it outlawed or at least severely restricted. They lost that battle, and it's fortunate for them that they did. A decade or so later, home video sales and rentals would grow to account for nearly half the revenue of the entire industry. What had initially been seen as a menace came to be seen as a savior. Highly ironic, to say the least, and the irony is compounded even more by this attempted legislation.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Totally agreed. The internet is merely a medium, you aren't going to stop piracy by "banning" it. What really pisses me off is that I have to wait 2-3 months for a film to go from cinema to dvd. I don't pirate because I'm fiscally short, I pirate because I just saw an amazing movie and I want to watch it again. I don't want to go back to a theatre, I want to watch it at home, but I can't. The irony is, I can go to a nearby hotel and rent pre-pay-per-view movies that are still showing in the secondary phase of the cinema market (cheapie theatres). Why can't I rent pre-pay-per-view at home? I pay 8 bucks for a fucking PPV as it is, why can't I pay the $11 I would at the hotel or at a theatre. I don't get why when I want to pay them more money they make it impossible for me to do so.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    Film studios and TV networks are eventually going to come to the realization that piracy is a marketing vehicle for them. Of course, they'll still need to find a way to make money off of their content, and that's an understandably tricky situation. But recent studies have shown that movie pirates are also movie studios' biggest paying customers. The big challenge for studios right now is that there used to be two lifecycles for any given film: the exhibition lifecycle (i.e., the theatrical release window), and the ownership lifecycle (i.e., DVD or Blu-ray purchase). These days, both are being compressed, and ownership is increasingly unnecessary. Piracy may or may not be a legitimate threat to ownership, but that's sort of beside the point, because ownership -- as a fundamental concept -- won't matter in the cloud-driven, on-demand world of the very near future. But piracy can still exist as an interesting exhibition tactic. It just needs to be harnessed in the right way, and/or a compelling and equally convenient alternative needs to be created. This is a very tough spot for studios, but legislative attempts at sticking their heads in the sand are not going to solve any problems for them -- and may, in fact, exacerbate their problems by putting innovation attempts on hold.
marquis 15y ago
How is this working out for Australia? I understand a blacklist/firewall was put in the place there?
- zhwang 15y ago
  Not yet, in fact I haven't heard much on the subject for a while now. Currently, a few of our major ISPs have agreed to a voluntary Interpol blacklist, but that's about it currently. And it seems to be working for its designated purpose well. http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/19/telstras-filter-has-blocked-84000-requests/ http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/19/telstras-filter-has-block...
- brc 15y ago
  No, it died just before the last election in August 2010. Officially it's 'on hold', but practically, it is dead. How? A lot of pressure put on a lot of politicians in the run-up to the last federal election, which promised to be very close (and was actually one of the closest in history). You obviously have to pressure whomever holds the majority, but you've got to let the other side know about it as well. So Australia is filter-free for the foreseeable future - it's become a 'dead issue' that politicians aren't willing to spend political capital on. US Folks should take this as a bright data point that these battles can be won, but it will take a lot of effort. Personally it's something that Tea Party and OWS types could get together on, because it sucks for everyone. That's what happened in Australia - they took heat from both 'sides' of politics and it got dumped (sorry, postponed)
  - ericd 15y ago
    That's great news! Do you have any nuts and bolts information on how this was organized? (Was there any formal opposition?) If so, that could be very useful here...
libraryatnight 15y ago
These things scare me because I think a significant amount of citizens don't know what they stand to lose, and I think politicians understand just enough to know exactly what they're taking away.
danilocampos 15y ago
As long as our bandwidth and/or content is in the hands of corporations who'd rather fuck us than cultivate virtuous, reciprocally beneficial relationships, we will never be free. I always worried, as a kid, that one day I'd grow up and think nostalgically back to days before the internet had been made dull and sterile by government rules. I wasn't imaginative enough then, or even as a young adult, to predict this kind of nonsense would happen instead. The internet is destined for a bleak period. We care, we're pissed, sure. But most people aren't. Most people don't even know. And wouldn't care if they did. This law, or one like it, will be subverted in breathtaking and terrifying ways. Thought using the DMCA to shut down early thanksgiving coupon sites was bad? That's going to seem cute by comparison to what you can do when a moronic, bureaucratic authority can disappear entire websites at will. I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human history is either in the hands of inept, short-sighted, unimaginative buffoons or subject to regulation from the same. I'm excited for the practical and technological revolution that upends this control. But I can't imagine what it would look like or how it would work. And that leaves me a pretty sad panda while we wait for it. But – this kind of stupidity is bad for everyone. Even the morons who want this law passed. So I'd like to believe that this period will pass with the same inevitability that will bring on its start.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  >I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human history is either in the hands of inept, short-sighted, unimaginative buffoons or subject to regulation from the same. if you think about it, the Earth's most advanced political systems - the US and the other Western democracies - are just refined implementations of 2000+ years old architectural principles - the Greek's "democracy" (decisions and laws are made by a group of people limited to the size of the big room, the modern refinement of this ancient system is that the members of that group are supposedly elected instead of just being rich and powerful elite of the society) and the Rome's "rule of law" (a law overrides moral and any other motivation/rationale). It's somehow disappointing that human race hasn't been able to come up with (or more precisely - hasn't evolved enough for) a better system. [The most recent attempts to build new, and thought at the time as significantly improved, systems - fascism and socialism/communism - turned out to be catastrophic disasters.] >I'm excited for the practical and technological revolution that upends this control. But I can't imagine what it would look like or how it would work. every time significant technological development happens - be it steam engine, Smith&Wesson, radio, cars, phone, television - it looks like it would change the world and free the people from the control of the system ... well, as it happens, the system just absorbs the technological development as a more advanced tool for the control. And it is happening the same way with the computers and the Internet. All the improvement in the society comes from improvement in people (which of course is frequently technically facilitated and accelerated by the technological advances). "Peasants are also humans, not a property", "women are also humans, not a property", "blacks are also humans, not a property", "gays are also humans", ..., (some day we will even evolve enough to recognize the rights of animals and look back in horror to today's treatment of them as property) - all this is just a change in people minds, not a change in law (which follows the change in minds) and not a change in technology (which though does usually help a lot) >And that leaves me a pretty sad panda while we wait for it. Look at the "Occupiers" - like the new born kittens they don't know what to do, where to go, yet they have already "born" while we're sitting and waiting :) [ note : i don't have illusions - many of the Occupiers will become lawyers, government employees, political officials ... - ie. indistinguishable part of the system and will try to forgot their "stupid mistakes of youth", yet just for a moment they are "born" and it became an undeletable part of the whole human race history and evolution]
nobody3141 15y ago
I do like American government acts. I always picture the governor in Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles: "Patriotism is good isn't it?" "Yes Governor" "So I should sign this PATRIOT act without reading it?" "Yes Governor" "Parasites are bad aren't they?" "Yes Governor" "So we ban them ?" "Yes Governor" .... If only Mr Obama had found a way of making his health care bill spell out "IF YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS YOU ARE SO GAY" ACT - he would have got it through.
- trusche 15y ago
  > he would have got it through Huh? You realize it's law, right?
ojbyrne 15y ago
I thought the name change was great. As long as you recognize who the real parasites are.
- ericd 15y ago
  Yeah, the irony is pretty intense.
anigbrowl 15y ago
Rep. Lamar Smith is also the legislative genius behind the bureaucratic monstrosity that is our current immigration system. I don't like him much, as you can probably tell. Two things you can do: Write, on paper, to your congressional representatives and explain briefly and politely that this legislation will hinder job growth, hurt exports, and mention that you will donate only to legislators who vote against this bill. Then follow through. If you can afford it, make a donation to a known existing opponent and include a copy of your receipt with the letter to your representative. Money talks like nothing else does. It does not have to be a large amount. Nor is it important for you to agree with the other politician about everything. All you need to do is make it clear that there are votes and issues at stake on this particular margin. A pattern of small donations outside of election season will get people's attention. Donate to either a primary or general election challenger in Rep. Smith's district.
- ericd 15y ago
  Here's the wiki for the 21st district of TX (Mr. Smith's): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_district http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_distr... Seems like he's been in office since 1987, so there may not be much hope for a challenger in any given election. Any standout opponents of this thing that I could donate to instead?
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Ron Wyden seems to be the leading legislator for tech freedom, but I admit to being a poor scorekeeper in this area - I like law more than politics, so I don't pay enough attention to individual congresspersons.
    - ericd 15y ago
      Yeah, I've donated to him this year already. Wondering if he has any counterparts on the house side...
AJ007 15y ago
Consider a blacklist of our own, if you write, vote for, or play a role in legislation that restricts and censors the internet you will be barred from using our service. Imagine a future in which politicians are incapable of using even the most basic web services and technologies because they have been barred from use. It would be quite an embarrassment if you could not have a Facebook or Twitter account, couldn't advertise on Google, and your email was rejected by most ISPs. Of course, this should paint an image of how ludicrous the notion of any blacklist is.
- colinyoung 15y ago
  I think this may actually be genius. Someone call Zuck, Jack, and Larry.
  - notahacker 15y ago
    I think Wikipedia Italia had a better idea. Forget the politicians, Google and Facebook have the ability to highlight the implications to virtually everybody in the US. Big corporations might not often be inclined towards grandstanding, but there's precedent when it comes to Google objecting to censorship. A little "if this Bill passes, we'll be serving a lot less search results" message above every search performed by US users would be sufficient to make the bill politically suicidal, methinks.
  - AJ007 15y ago
    Thinking about it more, this is a great way to spread the message of how awful this bill is. We do not need the big tech companies to sign on, we just need a handful of small startups. Startups are representative of future economic growth and everyone understands this. Example headline would go something like this -- "Fearful new legislation will cripple the internet, a growing number of young tech companies have banned 28 senators from ever using their products." If anyone wanted to do this, I would put up a few thousand dollars.
hugh3 15y ago
The problem is that the only people who bother getting up in arms about this are the objectively pro-piracy crowd -- the folks who think that they ought to be allowed to freely download a copy of any movie in existence without paying for it if they happen to feel like doing so. Otherwise known as the "I want to do X, therefore X should be legal" school of legal thinking. I see some of that crowd in this thread. I'm not interested in arguing with 'em. But when the loudest spokesmen against some particular piece of silly law (and this is a silly law) turn out to be extremists with a position that most thoughtful people would disagree with, it makes it difficult to put forth a coherent argument against it.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  the folks who think that they ought to be allowed to freely live on the Crown's lands without owing the duty and/or paying taxes to the Crown.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  Full of shit as always.
- billybob 15y ago
  'Otherwise known as the "I want to do X, therefore X should be legal" school of legal thinking.' You mean like "I want a monopoly, therefore monopolies should be legal. Also, I should have police powers to enforce my monopoly: search people's computers, shut down their internet access, make accusations based on flimsy evidence like IP addresses, and presume guilt rather than innocence." Like that? I mean, if society were a roomful of people, and someone stood up and suggested that, would you nod and agree? I'm not saying copyright isn't a useful tool for society to encourage creation of works, but it does need to be balanced with other things. Not least is the fact that it hinders the creation of derivative works. This argument is even stronger in the realm of patents.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 15y ago
I think I'm just going to start copyrighting trivial javascript and CSS code, then sue the fuck out of the MPAA when one of their offshore developers steals it from me. Fight fire with fire, they say.
- AndyKelley 15y ago
  I'm with you in spirit, but I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about how successful your crusade would be.
- DanBC 15y ago
  Has anyone done an audit for all the websites of the supporters of this act? I remember some recent HN article about someone (German politician?) who had used a photo without permission on his website. Lily Allen has spoken out about piracy, but used then distributed music via her blog.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
crizCraig 15y ago
Tell your congressman: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968 https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968
dsghrtjrt 15y ago
Click on our website: ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== The website wholesale various fashion shoes, such as Nike, Jordan, prada, also includes the jeans, shirt, bags, hats and decoration. All these products are our free transport, prices are competitive, we can also accept paypal j, after the payment within short time, can ship. Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15 New era cap $12 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20 accept paypal and free shipping ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )=====
charlieok 15y ago
The government has identified DNS as an especially vulnerable component of the internet and intends to attack it: "A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent [...] the domain name [...] from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address." Hard to tell which incarnation of this effort will become law, and when, but it seems prudent to assume that it will. Rather than simply hope the government won't attack the network, or petition the government not to attack it, we should engineer improvements to the network which increase its resistance to attack. Time for a more distributed, probably peer-to-peer, DNS. It's been said that the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. That's precisely what these threats call for.
srl 15y ago
I hate this sort of article. Every month or so, another "look at this evil bill that will destroy our liberties" article comes out, and everybody gets all worked up about it. tl;dr - The judges sitting on federal courts and the supreme court aren't responsible to voters, don't need campaign funds, and don't have a career to worry about. In the unlikely event that this bull makes it out of congress and past the president, it'll be struck down. Just like it has been every time before. Sure. If this bill was an enforced law, that would be bad. Unthinkably bad. But that goes for a great deal of what happens in congress - especially the House. A small portion of this manure actually manages to make it out of congress and past the president - and it gets taken to the courts. The more interesting cases make it to the Supreme Court, where the nine judges who aren't up for re-election, have no career to worry about, and are already rich enough to be well impossible to buy off, get the pleasure of telling - in this case - the entertainment industry to go stuff it. The supreme court has repeatedly refrained from supporting this sort of thing, and they're unlikely to start in the future. Even if the worst happens, and this thing gets passed, the courts will strike it down long before the bureaucracy finds a way to start enforcing it. It's highly unlikely to affect any of us. Some other commenters have almost correctly pointed out that "they're not going to give up" - because in many cases, fighting for these inane laws is their day job. First, there's also a group of people whose day job is to argue these sorts of laws. And another group whose day job is to strike them down, _even if_ the opposition is poorly argued. Second, those lobbyists are likely to be loosing their jobs soon as the industry paying for them begins to fall apart. So, please. Stop freaking out every time one part of the government does something stupid. Writing to your local dimwit to point out the obvious: ok. Running in panicked circles on the internet: unhelpful and irritating. /rant
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Some would arguing that the panic raises awareness which helps kill these things before they become a reality. Also many of us would not like to wait several years if such a bill is passed to see which way the Supreme Court will decide.
- geori 15y ago
  After Citizens United, I no longer trust the court.
jcromartie 15y ago
The sad thing is that it seems that the worse a bill is, the more likely it is to pass.
brandon6 15y ago
How would this effect Canada or Europe?

491 points by yanw 15y ago

I would have called this too ridiculous to pose an actual danger before the PATRIOT Act. It points to a deeper problem, though: Lawmakers intent on passing something that a large portion of the public finds objectionable can often achieve their goal simply by persistence; renaming and resubmitting a bill each time oppositional furor dies down, or slipping pieces of it into unrelated bills until it's effectively passed. I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill, or with legislation by subterfuge.

0x12 15y ago
That's a special case of what I believe is called the ratchet effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect
gloob 15y ago
Is there a "canonical" justification for why the US legislative system allows non-germane additions to a bill? Or is ball-of-mud style legislation the norm due to tradition, rather than some philosophical ideal?
- sp332 15y ago
  Do you mean riders? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rider_%28legislation%29 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rider_%28legi... The House actually has a "germanness rule" (which is not in the Constitution), so they generally avoid it as a matter of policy. But the Senate has no such rule. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Christmas_tree_bill#Overview https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Christmas_tre... So a bill which passes the House goes to the Senate, where riders are added. Then the modifications go back to the house, where it might be passed depending on whether they like the new additions or not.
troutwine 15y ago
> I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill, or with legislation by subterfuge. I believe the intended result for this, if a sufficient portion of the represented find this behavior objectionable, is to lose one's office. This assumes an educated electorate , or at least the voting subset of the represented to be so educated and so opposed.
- sp332 15y ago
  But oftentimes, the party of the incumbent won't run another candidate (since that might split the vote and lose the seat to the other party). So the only way to vote an incumbent out is to vote for the other party, which may also be against your interests.
  - troutwine 15y ago
    You might also turn in a blank ballot. Depending on circumstance, this might be a fine way to signal to the incumbent that they did not do a Good Job, though you in general support the policy of their party. Close races, etc, will change the calculus of voting. Some states do not include blank ballots in the vote totals, others do.
    - dextorious 15y ago
      >You might also turn in a blank ballot. Which is equivalent to boosting the winning party.
    - sp332 15y ago
      Too bad writing a message invalidates the ballot. Otherwise you could write "Candidate A, with protest"
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Officeholders don't read ballots.
    - andymurd 15y ago
rhizome 15y ago
I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill There is: the ballot box (standard annoying answer), or by organizing and forcing them to pass a bill saying they can't do what is in the bad bill. Both the Occupy and Net Neutrality movements overlap here.

adestefan 15y ago

For a minute I thought this was satire put out by one of the campaigns against the Act. I was thinking, "Who would really call something that?" I'm glad I clicked the link to see that it's actually what happened.

Vivtek 15y ago
Same here - the utterly tone-deaf nature of the name literally made me think it was a link to the Onion. It is just freaking weird that the biggest, most blatantly rent-seeking organizations in the world call their own legislation the E-PARASITE bill.
- etherael 15y ago
  E-PARASITE bill; the bill by and for e-parasites. Seems legit, no?

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

The key point here, as another commenter pointed out, is they are not going to give up. You can win a battle here, perhaps rally around your congressman and get it killed, or petition the president to veto it, but it doesn't matter. They'll just be back again next year, and the next year, and the next. This is the importance of constitutional amendments: they settle things on a broad scale exactly to prevent this kind of nipping (although it still happens, it just takes much longer time) We need an amendment or two around internet and computer freedom, specifically that computers are extensions of our minds, not machines to play content on, and that the internet is our primary form of political organization and persuasion, not a fancy telephone line. I hate to be all doom-and-gloom, but I think that boat has sailed. The tech community might get its act together, give up all social causes and form some kind of committee or group to push for such amendments, but I seriously doubt it. Half the community is in bed with big media and the other half are just as concerned with other issues as this one. We are not organized, coherent, or focused. Just saw a great series on PBS, Ken Burns' "Prohibition". It was all about how focused groups can make big changes -- but it takes a long time. I don't see the kind of anger and outrage against this as we had against alcohol. Very sad, because this is a lot worse.

JoshTriplett 15y ago
I agree with you about the persistence problem; the government acts like a rotten two-year-old that keeps trying until it gets its way. Like a two-year-old, it learns what it can get away with and tries harder each time. Unlike a two-year-old, it doesn't grow up and learn what not to do. We shouldn't need a constitutional amendment here; the constitution is a whitelist of things the federal government may do, not a blacklist of things it may not do. While the constitution does sadly include the notion of copyright, it does not include anything allowing regulatory authority over the Internet.
- zacharycohn 15y ago
  To be fair, the repetition is how the system SHOULD work. Do you think the first attempt at passing a women's suffrage bill passed?
- 15y ago

fleitz 15y ago

Does stopping internet piracy mean no more talk like a pirate day?

brandon6 15y ago
I hope not

jneal 15y ago

IF this were to become law, that would definitely be scary, but from the description of what they require of the ISP, it sounds like they aren't blocking access to the server, just keeping the DNS from resolving to the IP. Thus, could you not use a public DNS (or foreign DNS) server, thus getting around the blocked DNS from your local ISP? Just an idea, or wonder, of mine.

dextorious 15y ago
Yeah, let's just allow them to pass their restrictions bit by bit in subsequent laws, arguing that "as it is we can still get around it". It doesn't matter if we can get around it using a public DNS server. For one, tomorrow they can even outlaw using non government compliant dns providers). What hackers tend to forget is that such problems are not technical, are political. "Bypassing" by technical expertise is not a solution, it's monkey-patching a system that's broken and dangerous. 1) Even if geeks can bypass some restrictions, they too tend to lose --content, community participation etc-- if the general populace cannot do it just as easily, or is scared not to do it. 2) Even the cleverest bypassing can be outlawed. 3) One should not trust one's self to always be one step ahead of the government in the bypassing game. Take P2P for example. Say you're totally bypassing the P2P download restrictions with some clever hackery that makes you untraceable online, be it Tor or whatever. What good will it do if the authorities can come knocking on your physical door and find that same illegally downloaded stuff in use on your computer?

manuscreationis 15y ago

Is anyone putting together any kind of concerted, consolidated effort to kill this bill? There must be some kind of movement one can throw their weight behind to help stop this nonsense.

there 15y ago
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/?source=eff http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/pipa_house/?source=eff
- manuscreationis 15y ago
  Thanks for this
akozak 15y ago
Yes. If you're an entrepreneur you can sign onto this effort: https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1_etELzzh_ngZAs-V_4dbvfgE_o1UEVMwA80bo3RZSXs https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1_etELz...

rooshdi 15y ago

First COICA, then Protect IP, now E-PARASITES Act? Looks like I have to contact my local congressmen again. Seems like they spend more time renaming this bill than actually reading it.

dextorious 15y ago
> Looks like I have to contact my local congressmen again. Yeah, you and some giant company with tons of cash to finance his next campaign. Guess who's gonna win his support.

JoachimSchipper 15y ago

Silver lining: the word "IP" is apparently so unpopular that it's better not to associate your proposals with it.

waqf 15y ago
I would like you to be right: do you have evidence that this was the reason the name was changed? I am personally hoping that "PARASITE" has a much more negative ring that will make it easier to campaign against the bill.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Yeah, the people we think of as parasites and the people they think of as parasites are two different sets. Brand them as the parasites and kill it. Maybe a Googlebomb is in order, listing the sponsors of this bill as e-parasites? Sadly, the document linked on SCRIBD doesn't seem to include the list of cosponsors and mentions only "Mr. Smith of Texas". Does anyone know where to find out who all is sponsoring this? A quick search only found a bunch of news about it and copies of the bill, but no further information.

fredwilson 15y ago

I am headed to DC tonight and my partner and I and a few other VCs entrepreneurs and folks from Google are going to try to talk some sense into congress on this bill. Wish us luck tomorrow.

brown9-2 15y ago
Can you share what types of meetings you have lined up, if you'll be speaking to any members of Congress in a formal setting, etc?
khafra 15y ago
I'm glad an excellent communicator with a solid reputation like you is going to bat on this issue. If you find yourself in doubt, just think "what would fakegrimlock do?"

xorglorb 15y ago

Another concerning section is the power to take action against, "any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described". Does this mean that the Tor Project would be shut down? It would be nearly impossible to eradicate a piece of open source software, but if this bill has passed, it would not be a leap to imagine a bill making the use of Tor or related services a felony passing.

dminor 15y ago

Didn't Wyden put a hold on the "PROTECT IP" act in the Senate? Does that make this moot, or will there be a new bill in the Senate?

Natsu 15y ago
I'm not sure, but I bet there's some way around it. And that lobbyists will be trying to unseat him.
cdh 15y ago
Weird coincidence. I just saw Wyden speak a few minutes ago at a town hall style meeting here in Oregon, and asked him about PROTECT IP when he was taking questions. I'm not sure he can keep it on hold indefinitely, but he definitely sounded committed to doing whatever is within his power to oppose it.
davidu 15y ago
This is a new bill.

jonnathanson 15y ago

The sad thing about all of this is that the backers of the legislation stand to lose, in the long run, if their legislation is passed. Consider the VCR. Back in the 1980s, when the VCR was a new and disruptive piece of technology, the film industry lobbied to have it outlawed or at least severely restricted. They lost that battle, and it's fortunate for them that they did. A decade or so later, home video sales and rentals would grow to account for nearly half the revenue of the entire industry. What had initially been seen as a menace came to be seen as a savior. Highly ironic, to say the least, and the irony is compounded even more by this attempted legislation.

electromagnetic 15y ago
Totally agreed. The internet is merely a medium, you aren't going to stop piracy by "banning" it. What really pisses me off is that I have to wait 2-3 months for a film to go from cinema to dvd. I don't pirate because I'm fiscally short, I pirate because I just saw an amazing movie and I want to watch it again. I don't want to go back to a theatre, I want to watch it at home, but I can't. The irony is, I can go to a nearby hotel and rent pre-pay-per-view movies that are still showing in the secondary phase of the cinema market (cheapie theatres). Why can't I rent pre-pay-per-view at home? I pay 8 bucks for a fucking PPV as it is, why can't I pay the $11 I would at the hotel or at a theatre. I don't get why when I want to pay them more money they make it impossible for me to do so.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  Film studios and TV networks are eventually going to come to the realization that piracy is a marketing vehicle for them. Of course, they'll still need to find a way to make money off of their content, and that's an understandably tricky situation. But recent studies have shown that movie pirates are also movie studios' biggest paying customers. The big challenge for studios right now is that there used to be two lifecycles for any given film: the exhibition lifecycle (i.e., the theatrical release window), and the ownership lifecycle (i.e., DVD or Blu-ray purchase). These days, both are being compressed, and ownership is increasingly unnecessary. Piracy may or may not be a legitimate threat to ownership, but that's sort of beside the point, because ownership -- as a fundamental concept -- won't matter in the cloud-driven, on-demand world of the very near future. But piracy can still exist as an interesting exhibition tactic. It just needs to be harnessed in the right way, and/or a compelling and equally convenient alternative needs to be created. This is a very tough spot for studios, but legislative attempts at sticking their heads in the sand are not going to solve any problems for them -- and may, in fact, exacerbate their problems by putting innovation attempts on hold.

marquis 15y ago

How is this working out for Australia? I understand a blacklist/firewall was put in the place there?

zhwang 15y ago
Not yet, in fact I haven't heard much on the subject for a while now. Currently, a few of our major ISPs have agreed to a voluntary Interpol blacklist, but that's about it currently. And it seems to be working for its designated purpose well. http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/19/telstras-filter-has-blocked-84000-requests/ http://delimiter.com.au/2011/10/19/telstras-filter-has-block...
brc 15y ago
No, it died just before the last election in August 2010. Officially it's 'on hold', but practically, it is dead. How? A lot of pressure put on a lot of politicians in the run-up to the last federal election, which promised to be very close (and was actually one of the closest in history). You obviously have to pressure whomever holds the majority, but you've got to let the other side know about it as well. So Australia is filter-free for the foreseeable future - it's become a 'dead issue' that politicians aren't willing to spend political capital on. US Folks should take this as a bright data point that these battles can be won, but it will take a lot of effort. Personally it's something that Tea Party and OWS types could get together on, because it sucks for everyone. That's what happened in Australia - they took heat from both 'sides' of politics and it got dumped (sorry, postponed)
- ericd 15y ago
  That's great news! Do you have any nuts and bolts information on how this was organized? (Was there any formal opposition?) If so, that could be very useful here...

libraryatnight 15y ago

These things scare me because I think a significant amount of citizens don't know what they stand to lose, and I think politicians understand just enough to know exactly what they're taking away.

danilocampos 15y ago

As long as our bandwidth and/or content is in the hands of corporations who'd rather fuck us than cultivate virtuous, reciprocally beneficial relationships, we will never be free. I always worried, as a kid, that one day I'd grow up and think nostalgically back to days before the internet had been made dull and sterile by government rules. I wasn't imaginative enough then, or even as a young adult, to predict this kind of nonsense would happen instead. The internet is destined for a bleak period. We care, we're pissed, sure. But most people aren't. Most people don't even know. And wouldn't care if they did. This law, or one like it, will be subverted in breathtaking and terrifying ways. Thought using the DMCA to shut down early thanksgiving coupon sites was bad? That's going to seem cute by comparison to what you can do when a moronic, bureaucratic authority can disappear entire websites at will. I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human history is either in the hands of inept, short-sighted, unimaginative buffoons or subject to regulation from the same. I'm excited for the practical and technological revolution that upends this control. But I can't imagine what it would look like or how it would work. And that leaves me a pretty sad panda while we wait for it. But – this kind of stupidity is bad for everyone. Even the morons who want this law passed. So I'd like to believe that this period will pass with the same inevitability that will bring on its start.

VladRussian 15y ago
>I've been scratching my head for years trying to think of a way out. But I just can't. The most powerful means of distribution and communication in human history is either in the hands of inept, short-sighted, unimaginative buffoons or subject to regulation from the same. if you think about it, the Earth's most advanced political systems - the US and the other Western democracies - are just refined implementations of 2000+ years old architectural principles - the Greek's "democracy" (decisions and laws are made by a group of people limited to the size of the big room, the modern refinement of this ancient system is that the members of that group are supposedly elected instead of just being rich and powerful elite of the society) and the Rome's "rule of law" (a law overrides moral and any other motivation/rationale). It's somehow disappointing that human race hasn't been able to come up with (or more precisely - hasn't evolved enough for) a better system. [The most recent attempts to build new, and thought at the time as significantly improved, systems - fascism and socialism/communism - turned out to be catastrophic disasters.] >I'm excited for the practical and technological revolution that upends this control. But I can't imagine what it would look like or how it would work. every time significant technological development happens - be it steam engine, Smith&Wesson, radio, cars, phone, television - it looks like it would change the world and free the people from the control of the system ... well, as it happens, the system just absorbs the technological development as a more advanced tool for the control. And it is happening the same way with the computers and the Internet. All the improvement in the society comes from improvement in people (which of course is frequently technically facilitated and accelerated by the technological advances). "Peasants are also humans, not a property", "women are also humans, not a property", "blacks are also humans, not a property", "gays are also humans", ..., (some day we will even evolve enough to recognize the rights of animals and look back in horror to today's treatment of them as property) - all this is just a change in people minds, not a change in law (which follows the change in minds) and not a change in technology (which though does usually help a lot) >And that leaves me a pretty sad panda while we wait for it. Look at the "Occupiers" - like the new born kittens they don't know what to do, where to go, yet they have already "born" while we're sitting and waiting :) [ note : i don't have illusions - many of the Occupiers will become lawyers, government employees, political officials ... - ie. indistinguishable part of the system and will try to forgot their "stupid mistakes of youth", yet just for a moment they are "born" and it became an undeletable part of the whole human race history and evolution]

nobody3141 15y ago

I do like American government acts. I always picture the governor in Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles: "Patriotism is good isn't it?" "Yes Governor" "So I should sign this PATRIOT act without reading it?" "Yes Governor" "Parasites are bad aren't they?" "Yes Governor" "So we ban them ?" "Yes Governor" .... If only Mr Obama had found a way of making his health care bill spell out "IF YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS YOU ARE SO GAY" ACT - he would have got it through.

trusche 15y ago
> he would have got it through Huh? You realize it's law, right?

ojbyrne 15y ago

I thought the name change was great. As long as you recognize who the real parasites are.

ericd 15y ago
Yeah, the irony is pretty intense.

anigbrowl 15y ago

Rep. Lamar Smith is also the legislative genius behind the bureaucratic monstrosity that is our current immigration system. I don't like him much, as you can probably tell. Two things you can do: Write, on paper, to your congressional representatives and explain briefly and politely that this legislation will hinder job growth, hurt exports, and mention that you will donate only to legislators who vote against this bill. Then follow through. If you can afford it, make a donation to a known existing opponent and include a copy of your receipt with the letter to your representative. Money talks like nothing else does. It does not have to be a large amount. Nor is it important for you to agree with the other politician about everything. All you need to do is make it clear that there are votes and issues at stake on this particular margin. A pattern of small donations outside of election season will get people's attention. Donate to either a primary or general election challenger in Rep. Smith's district.

ericd 15y ago
Here's the wiki for the 21st district of TX (Mr. Smith's): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_district http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texass_21st_congressional_distr... Seems like he's been in office since 1987, so there may not be much hope for a challenger in any given election. Any standout opponents of this thing that I could donate to instead?
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Ron Wyden seems to be the leading legislator for tech freedom, but I admit to being a poor scorekeeper in this area - I like law more than politics, so I don't pay enough attention to individual congresspersons.
  - ericd 15y ago
    Yeah, I've donated to him this year already. Wondering if he has any counterparts on the house side...

AJ007 15y ago

Consider a blacklist of our own, if you write, vote for, or play a role in legislation that restricts and censors the internet you will be barred from using our service. Imagine a future in which politicians are incapable of using even the most basic web services and technologies because they have been barred from use. It would be quite an embarrassment if you could not have a Facebook or Twitter account, couldn't advertise on Google, and your email was rejected by most ISPs. Of course, this should paint an image of how ludicrous the notion of any blacklist is.

colinyoung 15y ago
I think this may actually be genius. Someone call Zuck, Jack, and Larry.
- notahacker 15y ago
  I think Wikipedia Italia had a better idea. Forget the politicians, Google and Facebook have the ability to highlight the implications to virtually everybody in the US. Big corporations might not often be inclined towards grandstanding, but there's precedent when it comes to Google objecting to censorship. A little "if this Bill passes, we'll be serving a lot less search results" message above every search performed by US users would be sufficient to make the bill politically suicidal, methinks.
- AJ007 15y ago
  Thinking about it more, this is a great way to spread the message of how awful this bill is. We do not need the big tech companies to sign on, we just need a handful of small startups. Startups are representative of future economic growth and everyone understands this. Example headline would go something like this -- "Fearful new legislation will cripple the internet, a growing number of young tech companies have banned 28 senators from ever using their products." If anyone wanted to do this, I would put up a few thousand dollars.

hugh3 15y ago

The problem is that the only people who bother getting up in arms about this are the objectively pro-piracy crowd -- the folks who think that they ought to be allowed to freely download a copy of any movie in existence without paying for it if they happen to feel like doing so. Otherwise known as the "I want to do X, therefore X should be legal" school of legal thinking. I see some of that crowd in this thread. I'm not interested in arguing with 'em. But when the loudest spokesmen against some particular piece of silly law (and this is a silly law) turn out to be extremists with a position that most thoughtful people would disagree with, it makes it difficult to put forth a coherent argument against it.

VladRussian 15y ago
the folks who think that they ought to be allowed to freely live on the Crown's lands without owing the duty and/or paying taxes to the Crown.
bluedanieru 15y ago
Full of shit as always.
billybob 15y ago
'Otherwise known as the "I want to do X, therefore X should be legal" school of legal thinking.' You mean like "I want a monopoly, therefore monopolies should be legal. Also, I should have police powers to enforce my monopoly: search people's computers, shut down their internet access, make accusations based on flimsy evidence like IP addresses, and presume guilt rather than innocence." Like that? I mean, if society were a roomful of people, and someone stood up and suggested that, would you nod and agree? I'm not saying copyright isn't a useful tool for society to encourage creation of works, but it does need to be balanced with other things. Not least is the fact that it hinders the creation of derivative works. This argument is even stronger in the realm of patents.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jrockway 15y ago

I think I'm just going to start copyrighting trivial javascript and CSS code, then sue the fuck out of the MPAA when one of their offshore developers steals it from me. Fight fire with fire, they say.

AndyKelley 15y ago
I'm with you in spirit, but I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about how successful your crusade would be.
DanBC 15y ago
Has anyone done an audit for all the websites of the supporters of this act? I remember some recent HN article about someone (German politician?) who had used a photo without permission on his website. Lily Allen has spoken out about piracy, but used then distributed music via her blog.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

crizCraig 15y ago

Tell your congressman: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968 https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s968

dsghrtjrt 15y ago

Click on our website: ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== The website wholesale various fashion shoes, such as Nike, Jordan, prada, also includes the jeans, shirt, bags, hats and decoration. All these products are our free transport, prices are competitive, we can also accept paypal j, after the payment within short time, can ship. Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15 New era cap $12 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20 accept paypal and free shipping ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )===== ====( http://www.fullmalls.com http://www.fullmalls.com )=====

charlieok 15y ago

The government has identified DNS as an especially vulnerable component of the internet and intends to attack it: "A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent [...] the domain name [...] from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address." Hard to tell which incarnation of this effort will become law, and when, but it seems prudent to assume that it will. Rather than simply hope the government won't attack the network, or petition the government not to attack it, we should engineer improvements to the network which increase its resistance to attack. Time for a more distributed, probably peer-to-peer, DNS. It's been said that the internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it. That's precisely what these threats call for.

srl 15y ago

I hate this sort of article. Every month or so, another "look at this evil bill that will destroy our liberties" article comes out, and everybody gets all worked up about it. tl;dr - The judges sitting on federal courts and the supreme court aren't responsible to voters, don't need campaign funds, and don't have a career to worry about. In the unlikely event that this bull makes it out of congress and past the president, it'll be struck down. Just like it has been every time before. Sure. If this bill was an enforced law, that would be bad. Unthinkably bad. But that goes for a great deal of what happens in congress - especially the House. A small portion of this manure actually manages to make it out of congress and past the president - and it gets taken to the courts. The more interesting cases make it to the Supreme Court, where the nine judges who aren't up for re-election, have no career to worry about, and are already rich enough to be well impossible to buy off, get the pleasure of telling - in this case - the entertainment industry to go stuff it. The supreme court has repeatedly refrained from supporting this sort of thing, and they're unlikely to start in the future. Even if the worst happens, and this thing gets passed, the courts will strike it down long before the bureaucracy finds a way to start enforcing it. It's highly unlikely to affect any of us. Some other commenters have almost correctly pointed out that "they're not going to give up" - because in many cases, fighting for these inane laws is their day job. First, there's also a group of people whose day job is to argue these sorts of laws. And another group whose day job is to strike them down, _even if_ the opposition is poorly argued. Second, those lobbyists are likely to be loosing their jobs soon as the industry paying for them begins to fall apart. So, please. Stop freaking out every time one part of the government does something stupid. Writing to your local dimwit to point out the obvious: ok. Running in panicked circles on the internet: unhelpful and irritating. /rant

brown9-2 15y ago
Some would arguing that the panic raises awareness which helps kill these things before they become a reality. Also many of us would not like to wait several years if such a bill is passed to see which way the Supreme Court will decide.
geori 15y ago
After Citizens United, I no longer trust the court.

jcromartie 15y ago

The sad thing is that it seems that the worse a bill is, the more likely it is to pass.

brandon6 15y ago

How would this effect Canada or Europe?