3 ms·
I find the title a bit confusing. If my understanding is correct, one of the really bad bits of SOPA is that action can be taken without court orders. If there
by tspiteri 15y ago
I find the title a bit confusing. If my understanding is correct, one of the really bad bits of SOPA is that action can be taken without court orders. If there is a court order, then it is not SOPA-style.
- trip42 15y agoThe title contradicts itself, keeping the courts involved was a goal of the anti-SOPA movement.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago> Deep Packet Inspection. I have a problem with this whether a court was involved or not.
- nextparadigms 15y agoThat was just one aspect of SOPA. The most important SOPA aspect was the DNS-based blocking.
- ajross 15y agoBut a court can order DNS changes too (and they have, on many occasions and for many purposes, all over the world). The worry about SOPA was that it introduced that as an unsupervised bureaucratic mechanism available to law enforcement. This isn't the same thing.
- joelmichael 15y agoYou are mistaken. SOPA required a court order.