5 ms·

Reddit PAC aims to kick SOPA's daddy Lamar Smith out of Congress

130 points by seminatore 15y ago

tzs 15y ago
> the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (AKA "the Spy on Everyone Always Act") Add Cory Doctorow to the list of authors who write about legislation they haven't read. What it actually requires is the keeping of IP address assignment records and the mapping of them to custormer records. A few sites have claimed it requires keeping a log of all sites actually browsed and data downloaded and such, but that's completely made up. It's disappointing that Doctorow apparently gets his information from such sites and doesn't verify it. The relevant parts of the legislation are only a couple of paragraphs. Why do bloggers find it so damned hard to read it for themselves instead of just repeating what other bloggers write?
- unimpressive 15y ago
  > The relevant parts of the legislation are only a couple of paragraphs. Why do bloggers find it so damned hard to read it for themselves instead of just repeating what other bloggers write? The same reason that most people run from the command line and other "Computer" stuff. Because someone, somewhere, convinced them that doing such a thing is beyond their capability. You'll find elements of this in every field I reckon.
- marshray 15y ago
  If you believe in the possibility of anonymity on the Internet, then you should probably oppose laws requiring "the keeping of IP address assignment records and the mapping of them to custormer records". I've also heard that this law requires ISPs to turn this information over without a warrant. Is this not correct? After there are data retention laws for IP assignment info, it's only one step away from requiring it of websites. "To protect the children" of course.
  - dissident 15y ago
    > I've also heard that this law requires ISPs to turn this information over without a warrant. Is this not correct? That isn't correct, you could go and read the bill if you want: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1981/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1981/text Calling it the "Spy on Everyone Always Act" is sensationalized no matter what your opinion is on the bill. Most ISPs wouldn't even have to change their current behaviors to comply with it. (To be fair, that's not saying much anyway...) The more bills we shoot down because of misinformation, the less likely we can defeat bills with more serious problems.
    - marshray 15y ago
      > That isn't correct, Fair enough. But don't ISPs and other commercial entities tend to share that stuff "voluntarily" already? > you could go and read the bill if you want I like the part about "the term ‘Internet’ has the same meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934." It says "the term ‘commercial provider’ means a provider of electronic communication service that offers Internet access capability for a fee to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of the facilities used" Why wouldn't that apply to a coffee shop that offered free Wifi? Wouldn't they then be required to collect and retain information which "enables the identification of the corresponding customer"? Are coffee shops and libraries going to have to check photo IDs like Iran and China?
    - Natsu 15y ago
      How Internet Companies Would Be Forced to Spy on You Under H.R. 1981 Excerpted from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-internet-companies-would-be-forced-spy-you-under-hr-1981 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-internet-companies... Because the actual language of the bill is somewhat vague, activists at Demand Progress have correctly noted that this legislation might force Internet companies to retain even more data just to be on the safe side. The proposed bill is an amendment to 18 USC § 2703, the law currently defining the circumstances under which companies that store electronic data on customers must disclose it to the government. H.R. 1981 is attempting to amend and expand this law in a way that “enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.” So what is subsection (c)(2)? It requires a provider to turn over to the government without a warrant: Name Address Records of session times and durations Length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized Credit card or bank account number
- radu_floricica 15y ago
  And this is bad enough. There are plenty of services that could make anonymity and privacy as part of their offer, and laws such as this make it a moot point. Worse, it touches defaults. By default, most sites don't keep IP addresses (no point really, for most businesses). Changing this opens so many possibilities for law enforcement, and they are all the kind I'd expect the chinese government to be happy about.
  - keithpeter 15y ago
    The ISPs can, and in the UK there is one of our lovely 'voluntary agreements' that has the ISP retaining information about web sites visited, but only for 4 days. Police need to move quickly, as they did in the riots last summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retenti...
- Natsu 15y ago
  To be fair, you're reading quite a bit into that statement. EDIT: Also, because it's not very clear, why do you think that the requirement to enable identification under 18 USC § 2703(c)(2) is not that much of a concern?
r00fus 15y ago
Bravo. This is action I support (and can support with $$). Lamar Smith is almost completely corrupt - almost all the bad bills are co-sponsored by this clown. There are Dems as bad as this guy, but Congressman Smith seems far more effective in his corruptive capacity than any other congressman on the hill.
- maeon3 15y ago
  If you were serious about the donating money part, the best way to do this now (if they havn't already met the goal) is to donate to a billboard sign saying Lamar Smith is Killing the internet, with a big picture of a noose with a hashtag: "#unseatlamar": Proposed picture of billboard: http://testpacpleaseignore.org/dollar-by-dollar-we-can-make-a-difference/ http://testpacpleaseignore.org/dollar-by-dollar-we-can-make-... Donation status: https://secure.piryx.com/donate/EKph3wRp/Test-PAC-Please-Ignore/lamar-smith https://secure.piryx.com/donate/EKph3wRp/Test-PAC-Please-Ign...
  - zht 15y ago
    It doesn't seem like having a picture of a noose in an ad attacking a politician is a good idea.
    - draggnar 15y ago
      It is what humans have done for generations. Heck some parts of the world still do it. At least we use metaphorical ones. This guy is a crook and deserves the opportunity to make a lot of money doing something else.
cafard 15y ago
I am reminded of a simile from _The Manchurian Candidate_: about as effective a rubbing a jar of vanishing cream onto the flight deck of the USS Enterprise would be in making the carrier disappear. (Quoted from distant memory--may be the wrong carrier.)

130 points by seminatore 15y ago

tzs 15y ago

> the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (AKA "the Spy on Everyone Always Act") Add Cory Doctorow to the list of authors who write about legislation they haven't read. What it actually requires is the keeping of IP address assignment records and the mapping of them to custormer records. A few sites have claimed it requires keeping a log of all sites actually browsed and data downloaded and such, but that's completely made up. It's disappointing that Doctorow apparently gets his information from such sites and doesn't verify it. The relevant parts of the legislation are only a couple of paragraphs. Why do bloggers find it so damned hard to read it for themselves instead of just repeating what other bloggers write?

unimpressive 15y ago
> The relevant parts of the legislation are only a couple of paragraphs. Why do bloggers find it so damned hard to read it for themselves instead of just repeating what other bloggers write? The same reason that most people run from the command line and other "Computer" stuff. Because someone, somewhere, convinced them that doing such a thing is beyond their capability. You'll find elements of this in every field I reckon.
marshray 15y ago
If you believe in the possibility of anonymity on the Internet, then you should probably oppose laws requiring "the keeping of IP address assignment records and the mapping of them to custormer records". I've also heard that this law requires ISPs to turn this information over without a warrant. Is this not correct? After there are data retention laws for IP assignment info, it's only one step away from requiring it of websites. "To protect the children" of course.
- dissident 15y ago
  > I've also heard that this law requires ISPs to turn this information over without a warrant. Is this not correct? That isn't correct, you could go and read the bill if you want: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1981/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1981/text Calling it the "Spy on Everyone Always Act" is sensationalized no matter what your opinion is on the bill. Most ISPs wouldn't even have to change their current behaviors to comply with it. (To be fair, that's not saying much anyway...) The more bills we shoot down because of misinformation, the less likely we can defeat bills with more serious problems.
  - marshray 15y ago
    > That isn't correct, Fair enough. But don't ISPs and other commercial entities tend to share that stuff "voluntarily" already? > you could go and read the bill if you want I like the part about "the term ‘Internet’ has the same meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934." It says "the term ‘commercial provider’ means a provider of electronic communication service that offers Internet access capability for a fee to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of the facilities used" Why wouldn't that apply to a coffee shop that offered free Wifi? Wouldn't they then be required to collect and retain information which "enables the identification of the corresponding customer"? Are coffee shops and libraries going to have to check photo IDs like Iran and China?
  - Natsu 15y ago
    How Internet Companies Would Be Forced to Spy on You Under H.R. 1981 Excerpted from: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-internet-companies-would-be-forced-spy-you-under-hr-1981 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-internet-companies... Because the actual language of the bill is somewhat vague, activists at Demand Progress have correctly noted that this legislation might force Internet companies to retain even more data just to be on the safe side. The proposed bill is an amendment to 18 USC § 2703, the law currently defining the circumstances under which companies that store electronic data on customers must disclose it to the government. H.R. 1981 is attempting to amend and expand this law in a way that “enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.” So what is subsection (c)(2)? It requires a provider to turn over to the government without a warrant: Name Address Records of session times and durations Length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized Credit card or bank account number
radu_floricica 15y ago
And this is bad enough. There are plenty of services that could make anonymity and privacy as part of their offer, and laws such as this make it a moot point. Worse, it touches defaults. By default, most sites don't keep IP addresses (no point really, for most businesses). Changing this opens so many possibilities for law enforcement, and they are all the kind I'd expect the chinese government to be happy about.
- keithpeter 15y ago
  The ISPs can, and in the UK there is one of our lovely 'voluntary agreements' that has the ISP retaining information about web sites visited, but only for 4 days. Police need to move quickly, as they did in the riots last summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retenti...
Natsu 15y ago
To be fair, you're reading quite a bit into that statement. EDIT: Also, because it's not very clear, why do you think that the requirement to enable identification under 18 USC § 2703(c)(2) is not that much of a concern?

r00fus 15y ago

Bravo. This is action I support (and can support with $$). Lamar Smith is almost completely corrupt - almost all the bad bills are co-sponsored by this clown. There are Dems as bad as this guy, but Congressman Smith seems far more effective in his corruptive capacity than any other congressman on the hill.

maeon3 15y ago
If you were serious about the donating money part, the best way to do this now (if they havn't already met the goal) is to donate to a billboard sign saying Lamar Smith is Killing the internet, with a big picture of a noose with a hashtag: "#unseatlamar": Proposed picture of billboard: http://testpacpleaseignore.org/dollar-by-dollar-we-can-make-a-difference/ http://testpacpleaseignore.org/dollar-by-dollar-we-can-make-... Donation status: https://secure.piryx.com/donate/EKph3wRp/Test-PAC-Please-Ignore/lamar-smith https://secure.piryx.com/donate/EKph3wRp/Test-PAC-Please-Ign...
- zht 15y ago
  It doesn't seem like having a picture of a noose in an ad attacking a politician is a good idea.
  - draggnar 15y ago
    It is what humans have done for generations. Heck some parts of the world still do it. At least we use metaphorical ones. This guy is a crook and deserves the opportunity to make a lot of money doing something else.

cafard 15y ago

I am reminded of a simile from _The Manchurian Candidate_: about as effective a rubbing a jar of vanishing cream onto the flight deck of the USS Enterprise would be in making the carrier disappear. (Quoted from distant memory--may be the wrong carrier.)