Active Users:191 Time:07/05/2024 04:58:35 PM
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments. Joel Send a noteboard - 18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM
This isn't a security bill, it's a copyright/censorship bill.

And, more to the point, and the reason people who know what they're talking about (of which I am barely one, so bear with me) are so upset, is that it creates the infrastructure for potentially more restrictive things. It creates infrastructure for censorship (and much more, as more and more things become "online".)

I was reading this short piece written by someone from Denmark-


7 years ago we got a child pornography filter on the Internet in Denmark. Some people said that it was a bad idea, but others said these people were just paedophiles, or trying to help paedophiles. Some people said that it was against our constitution, which it was. So the censorship was implemented in a way so it was formally (but not in reality) voluntary, which ensured that it was not formally a violation of our constitution.

Some people warned that once the censorship infrastructure was in place, it would most likely be used to censor other things. But they were told "Never! This is ONLY to prevent this horrible crime, and will never be used for other censorship."

Fast-forward a few years, and the Danish recording industry did not like allofmp3.com, so they went to court to get a court order against the Danish ISPs to start censoring allofmp3 off the Danish Internet. The judge basically said "ahh, you already have the infrastructure in place, so there will be no extra cost", and issued the order to censor allofmp3.com. It was not a violation of our constitution because it was ordered by a judge.

Since then other "pirate" sites have been censored. Most notably The Pirate Bay, which found out that the court would not even allow them to speak their case in court, or even submit a written brief.

Then our politicians found out that they wanted to protect and expand income from taxes. In particular the high taxes gambling providers pay. The official excuse was to limit the horrible disease of ludomania. So they decided that foreign gambling providers had to pay the taxes in Denmark too if they were on the Internet and could be seen in Denmark. If they refused to pay taxes, they should be censored off the Danish internet. So they passed a law saying that if a foreign gambling provider refused to pay taxes in Denmark, a court would - on the request of our government - have to order ISPs to censor its sites off the net, and payment processors to block all payments to it. If an ISP does not censor, or a payment processor or bank does not block payment, hefty fines are issued.

Now our politicians worry that some foreign companies selling medicines on the net are not licensed to sell medicines in Denmark. So they are preparing new legislation that will censor these sites off the net, and block payments to them.

So our Internet censorship started a few years ago with a very limited purpose and good intentions. And it was solemnly promised that nothing else than child pornography would be censored.

But once the infrastructure for censorship was in place, the censorship started spreading to other areas. And the censorship is getting more and more widespread.


Source- the url space didn't work for some reason

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/03420017156/how-sopa-creates-architecture-much-more-widespread-censorship.shtml#c710

Which is a great example of what I am talking about here: If people want to argue existing penalties against already illegal activity are sufficient, that is a sound argument to make; in THAT respect (only) it is even a good argument against any additional laws. However, when people argue already illegal activity should not BE illegal, and therefore NO penalty is valid, they're in the same boat as people who want to legalize recreational drugs: Good luck getting the feds to go for that. ;)

From the little I have read it is both a security and censorship bill, because it would restrict access to web content, which includes a lot of intelligence and strategic data, as well as paths to access more. The funny thing is that if a nominally legitimate site were discovered hosting dozens of foreign espionage programs the feds would almost certainly take it down the moment that was discovered. The government already has the POWER; it is simply considering legislation whereby it would USE that power far more often and broadly. Once again, anyone who dislikes the proposed use of that power is best served by offering an alternative, not categorically opposing its use on principle, which was never on the table in the first place.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
English Wikipedia Anti-SOPA Blackout - 17/01/2012 08:31:46 AM 2050 Views
Yeah, man, because currently copyright holders have no recourse, am I right? - 17/01/2012 11:47:35 AM 877 Views
"altering the infrastructure of the Internet so as to render RAFO virtually inaccessible"? - 17/01/2012 08:12:27 PM 988 Views
I'll go ahead and ask before I get my panties in a bunch: do you understand these bills? - 17/01/2012 09:09:22 PM 1065 Views
I admit I have not looked into it much - 17/01/2012 11:42:30 PM 934 Views
And yet you're still arguing the matter. - 18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM 1041 Views
I love you. *NM* - 18/01/2012 03:41:03 AM 605 Views
heh, thanks. I usually find myself pushing minority opinions. Nice to be "appreciated" for once. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:01:10 AM 585 Views
Can i second the adulation? - 18/01/2012 04:07:17 AM 772 Views
I too (three?) appreciate the common sense and reasonable explanations. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:12:59 AM 595 Views
Thanks guys. - 18/01/2012 04:39:00 AM 929 Views
Right, because the argument is not just over THIS bill but, apparently, over ANY bill. - 18/01/2012 11:09:13 AM 933 Views
Alternatives to SOPA/PIPA have been proposed for months now. Please stop arguing this. - 18/01/2012 05:42:10 PM 891 Views
That is really all I ask. - 18/01/2012 06:26:37 PM 927 Views
"sensitive federal content"? Provide a source justifying this claim and it's relevance, please. - 18/01/2012 05:59:47 PM 946 Views
I would not have thought a source necessary. - 18/01/2012 06:24:44 PM 950 Views
Okay, I'm with Aemon now. - 18/01/2012 07:36:21 PM 966 Views
OK. - 18/01/2012 10:16:16 PM 987 Views
Surreal. It's like you're a spam-bot or something. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:23:35 AM 721 Views
That was constructive. - 19/01/2012 03:29:53 PM 863 Views
Very nicely summarised. *NM* - 18/01/2012 02:06:02 AM 526 Views
should be interesting - 17/01/2012 12:41:47 PM 812 Views
Could be; depends on a lot of factors. - 17/01/2012 07:38:55 PM 874 Views
See, that's one of the biggest problems that people aren't understanding. - 17/01/2012 09:31:38 PM 890 Views
So tell them that. - 17/01/2012 11:54:19 PM 1029 Views
Could've done without the snide rejoinder, but, good. - 17/01/2012 02:20:08 PM 815 Views
I love the black banner, like some kind of internet Holocaust. - 17/01/2012 08:03:27 PM 954 Views
Are you aware that SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with hackers and everything to do with copyright? - 18/01/2012 02:08:56 AM 796 Views
There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 01:08:22 PM 917 Views
Re: There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 08:13:15 PM 791 Views
Er, what Ghav said. - 18/01/2012 02:30:37 AM 818 Views
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments. - 18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM 866 Views
Okay, another analogy: - 18/01/2012 02:04:12 PM 843 Views
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP - 18/01/2012 08:32:44 AM 823 Views
"As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I'm a sysadmin." - 18/01/2012 12:47:16 PM 1083 Views
wow, you are totally correct! - 18/01/2012 03:45:54 PM 856 Views
That is a separate issue. - 18/01/2012 04:01:24 PM 855 Views
Thank you for posting that. - 18/01/2012 03:09:07 PM 878 Views
Wikipedia has already convinced me - 18/01/2012 03:26:01 PM 703 Views
Trying to stop this legislation without proposing an alternative is trying to stop ANY legislation. - 18/01/2012 03:44:18 PM 930 Views
It isn't their job to propose legislation - 18/01/2012 04:12:53 PM 850 Views
No, but they have as much RIGHT to do so as anyone else. - 18/01/2012 05:31:55 PM 828 Views
Strike three. - 18/01/2012 05:37:55 PM 877 Views
That is fine; that is what people SHOULD be doing. - 18/01/2012 06:03:59 PM 702 Views
Things being better now than they would be under SOPA seems like a legitimate argument to me - 18/01/2012 09:04:18 PM 965 Views
Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 18/01/2012 10:46:48 PM 807 Views
Re: Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 19/01/2012 12:15:48 AM 885 Views
That is a poor approach to drafting legislation, at best. - 19/01/2012 04:37:22 PM 929 Views
About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM 963 Views
So true - 18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM 896 Views
Not to go off on a tangent about combatting piracy... - 18/01/2012 05:38:12 PM 803 Views
Entirely agree *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:13:13 PM 578 Views
That was an excellent post. *NM* - 19/01/2012 11:18:19 PM 558 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM 1039 Views
For those who want a short, one page explanation... - 18/01/2012 05:41:49 PM 822 Views
Yeah, so I use Russian wikipedia for a day. Or German wikipedia, or French, or Italian... *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:23:36 PM 643 Views
We get it: You are a polyglot. - 18/01/2012 06:27:48 PM 831 Views
Or just hit stop right before the script runs. *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:52:40 PM 613 Views
Or just disable Java. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:58:03 AM 492 Views
That's not as much fun though. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:13:44 AM 609 Views
Exactly, this way its kind of a game. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:20:37 AM 432 Views
Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... - 19/01/2012 01:07:38 AM 951 Views
They all did it on twitter - 19/01/2012 01:26:19 AM 884 Views
I was asleep much of the day - 19/01/2012 02:40:11 AM 949 Views
Oh, no; now Congress will be inundated with complaints from lazy college students! - 19/01/2012 04:40:12 PM 977 Views
13 previously unopposed senators now do not support SOPA. - 19/01/2012 11:36:15 PM 930 Views
How does that "rebutt" what was a facetious post in the first place? - 20/01/2012 09:24:27 PM 1035 Views
a joke can, indeed, be rebutted... - 21/01/2012 09:07:32 PM 915 Views
Oh, draggie, I ALWAYS see what you do there. - 21/01/2012 10:01:58 PM 874 Views

Reply to Message