Slashdot Mirror

Did you read that article you quote? It DOES NOT claim there is a 40% exit tax. Link to the ACTUAL LAW: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6081&tab=summary

Note that it does not tax all assets at 40% AT ALL. Please stop spreading lies. Allow me to quote the relevant section:

Sets forth additional rules for the tax treatment of high-income individuals who relinquish U.S. citizenship or residency to avoid U.S. taxation (expatriates). Treats all property of expatriates as sold for fair market value on the day before the expatriation date and includes gain (over $600,000) or loss from such sale in their gross income. Allows expatriates to elect to defer payment of any tax resulting from expatriation if adequate security for payment of such tax is given.

When you leave the country, all your assets are assessed at fair market value. If your assets gained MORE THAN $600,000 in value since you bought them, you are taxed on any capital gains OVER $600,000. Meaning the first $600,000 in CAPITAL GAINS (not assets) are not even taxed.

Aha! Rights only relate to other people! That is what I am saying. Rights do not relate to the individual, as you claim. And you admit it. But you go on to claim that there ARE such things as natural rights, we just can't know what they are. Seriously, I would love to see your 'scientific' experiment that determines once and for all, in an unambiguous manner, what are and are not natural rights. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

If you define government as involuntary and coercive, you are defining it wrong. Sand does not mean cake. Why use words in ways that other people will not understand? If I offer you some cake, but give you some sand to eat, would you eat it? I SAID it was cake, it MUST be cake. It is not my fault that you define "cake" as "a sweetened quick bread" and I define it as "small granular minerals," right? No, wrong. Cake is cake and sand is sand. You define government as coercive. Okay, what would you call a group of people who define a set of rules that all members of the group must abide by, if they want to be members of that group? I call that a government. There is no other word. What they are doing is self-governance.

You can't just redefine language to "win" an argument.

Before the civil war, there were ABSOLUTELY publicly funded schools. How can you claim there were not? States have always been free, in our Republic, to fund public education, and after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, fully half the states had funding for public education as part of their constitution.

Yes, if you want to go to a private school, you still have to pay for education. Even if you have no children, and receive no education, you are richer for living in a country that supports a publicly funded education open to all students. More educated people create more value, giving more back to society. If you want to live in a society like ours, you agree to help pay for education. If you hate paying for other people's education more than you like receiving the benefits of living in an educated society, feel free to move to Somalia.

You say public education is an example of a public good as natural monopoly. You misuse the term natural monopoly, which refers to the case where the first entrant in a market has an overwhelming advantage over all other players because of the high marginal cost of entry into the market.

You have not even attempted to demonstrate how competing police forces and schools will produce better schools. Why would I choose to buy police service? If they are out there, removing criminals, do I not see the benefit even if I don't pay? If a man murders me, will he get off scott free if I am not paying for police service? THINK! Consider the realistic consequences of your ideals.

Competition does not necessarily foster innovation or better products. First, a free market

At least you don't need a license to grow food in your backyard...

The Senate bill, which is what specifically what the Republicans voted down,

Incorrect. The Senate bill passed unanimously. The House bill was voted down.

The H.R. 2103, available here, doesn't explicitly say provide healthcare, but it does "provide assistance... [by] ensuring access to healthcare services."

I usually sway to the Red

Which in this particular case is a good slant to have.

The bill was put forth by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) with 17 co-sponsors: 6(R) and 11(D).

Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
George Voinovich [R-OH]

Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Arlen Specter [D-PA]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]

Oh look, Hatch and Specter....anyone surprised?

The standards won't be in the legislation, which you can be sure most of the Congress hasn't read anyway. The law will just assign some agency (most likely DHS itself) with setting the guidelines. Those guidelines will give some office of the agency or the President the authority over when to switch from an everyday set of guidelines to a stricter set for "national emergencies".

Why don't you follow your own advice to read the bill? Then you'd see that if it's passed:

• the agency sets the standards (section 224, subsection c)
• the director of the agency determines which private networks are covered (section 224, subsection e)
• the agency approves up the specific plan for each private network (sec. 224 f)
• the operator of the private network must pay to certify that they meet the criteria
• the operator must submit to government audits (224 i)
• the private network operator could be fined up to $100,000 per day for each instance of noncompliance (224 m)

So, what type of government exactly puts a private company under such close regulation of day-to-day business to assure the company reinforces the stability of the regime?

The basic intent of the bill was to wipe out the competition. All the problems with the food supply so far have been traced back to the big operators. And yet we see: "Outreach to food industry sectors.."

This poll (probably fairly accurate) shows 12% supporting the bill. Clearly it must pass :-/ Bad democrats! This is another trophy on the mantle for the republicans if they ever wanted to play it right.

More info

This is like health "care" "reform" for food. A bureaucratic wonderland to create a culture that could put us in danger of a real famine. Eh, time to cull the population, I guess. Drown 'em in paperwork. It's madness, I tell ya.. Madness!

From what I can gather from the amendment is that it only delays enforcement on small and "very small" business for one and two years respectively.

It's a very horrible bill, as toxic as anything that has passed over the last ten years, giving the feds permission to march onto your farm on any pretext of "food safety". You can bet this "cyber security" bill is no different in the draconian powers this gives to the government.

Its very difficult to come up with an example of the legislative branch (or the judicial or the executive for that matter) doing a thorough, cogent job of dealing with technology and the law.

You're not lying. The whole premise of the bill (s3804) is that, if a site is infringing, make (some) DNS servers not resolve the IP correctly or steal and lock the domain name. The whole thing is a joke and destined to fail.

(1) DOMESTIC DOMAINS- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(1) applies, the Attorney General shall serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on the domain name registrar or, if the domain name registrar is not located within the United States, upon the registry. Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name.

‘(2) NONDOMESTIC DOMAINS-

‘(A) ENTITY TO BE SERVED- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(2) applies, the Attorney General may serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on any entity listed in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B).

‘(B) REQUIRED ACTIONS- Upon receipt of a court order issued pursuant to this section--

‘(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address;

‘(ii) a financial transaction provider, as that term is defined in section 5362(4) of title 31, United States Code, shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent--

‘(I) its service from processing transactions for customers located within the United States based on purchases associated with the domain name; and

‘(II) its trademarks from being authorized for use on Internet sites associated with such domain name; and

‘(iii) a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet sites shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent its network from serving advertisements to an Internet site accessed through such domain name.

I've been keeping an eye on this bill for over a month now. Here is where it currently stands.

The bill has been referred to committee. For those not familiar with the process of a bill entering into law in the US, this is the second step (the first being the introduction of the bill). In this case it is the Senate Judiciary Committee to be precise. At this point, the only Senators who have any say about the bill are the members of the committee.

It is scheduled for consideration by the committee on 11/18/2010.

The committee's job is to discuss the bill, make modifications to it, and decide it it should be put before the entire senate for discussion and a vote.

Ideally, a bill such as this could be killed in committee, that is the committee does not agree to move it on the entire Senate. In this case that is unlikely to happen. All but 4 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm are co-sponsors http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804 of this bill. And the chairman of the committee is also the sponsor of the bill.

Perhaps you're too young to remember or just trying to bash Obama, but I seem to recall during the Bush administration that the telcos were all coerced to enable illegal blanket wiretaps on US citizens without warrants.

And I seem to recall Obama voting for FISA2008 which gave the telcos and government a get-out-of-jail-free card for said wiretaps.

Why won't the tea-partiers call it like it is?

Take off the party-line blinders.

It's apparently become trendy to hate the constitution.

I don't think you can blame the high unemployment and and lower tax receipts on them when they inherited a broken economy.

In October 2007, the unemployment rate was less than 4.5%. That's not what I'd call inheriting a broken economy.

Things may have looked good on the outside, but under the hood was a different story. Just because unemployment was below %4.5, doesn't mean the economy was healthy and sustainable.

So it's the 2007 Democrat Congress' fault that an unsustainable housing bubble burst...

Actually, it was Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. See, they blocked the billS. 190:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 from ever leaving committee. Here is what John McCain said about it on May 26, 2006:

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

So, um.. it wasn't Republicans.

There have been other bills that have been introduced and subsequently killed by the Republicans too. Really, you can blame both parties. Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae issues go all the way back to the 60s; this wasn't something that happened overnight. I don't think this situation deserves to be simplified into "The Democrats did this in 2007" just like it shouldn't be simplified into being Bush's fault.

several companies "too big to fail" failed causing the worst recession since the Depression (and arguably almost another Depression if nothing had been done about it)?

I guess you don't remember the late 70's. I don't care what Obama says, Carter's recession was much worse that we have today.

The recession of the 70s may have felt worse to the public because of the gas shortages, but that doesn't mean it was a worse recession. You're entitled to your opinion though.

I don't think you can blame the high unemployment and and lower tax receipts on them when they inherited a broken economy.

In October 2007, the unemployment rate was less than 4.5%. That's not what I'd call inheriting a broken economy.

So it's the 2007 Democrat Congress' fault that an unsustainable housing bubble burst...

Actually, it was Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. See, they blocked the billS. 190:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 from ever leaving committee. Here is what John McCain said about it on May 26, 2006:

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

So, um.. it wasn't Republicans.

several companies "too big to fail" failed causing the worst recession since the Depression (and arguably almost another Depression if nothing had been done about it)?

I guess you don't remember the late 70's. I don't care what Obama says, Carter's recession was much worse that we have today.

House version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1722

Senate version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-707

Grond: Thanks for the bill name!

House version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1722

Senate version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-707

Grond: Thanks for the bill name!

How long do you think it will take our leaders to demand a system by which THEY can add sites or domains to the blacklist directly?

Not very long.

The house counterpart is worded a bit more broadly. It would extend the provisions described to cover text based messages as well.

The house counterpart is worded a bit more broadly. It would extend the provisions described to cover text based messages as well.

(2) DEFINITIONS- (A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.
(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark.
(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.

And the test

(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), `dilution by blurring' is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.
(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark.
(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark.
(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark.
(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.
(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

Don't forget that the whole point of the thing is consumer protection - your average person being able to buy a thing with a reasonable sureness about its origins. As in all things tech related the mom-test is probably best: If your mom was out shopping and found a VideoPod on the shelves would she assume it was an Apple product and make her purchasing choice accordingly.

This is not enforced as hard as you seem to think:

http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=9963126

Also, formal amendments are coming up:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-560

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16176

Now if you run a VoIP service you have to pay into the government fund to support TTY services. Also if you have a browser on your phone it has to have a built in screen reader or you have to provide a way for a cheap screen reader to run on it.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3101

Where shall we begin? Oh... I guess this will kill Youtube or significantly stifle it, since all programming will be required to have CC, they will be required to relay emergency information, and all mobile devices will be required to have decoders for CC and emergency information.

And VoIP providers will have to contribute specified amounts to the Telecommunication Relay Services fund, even if not interconnected. Bye bye free VoIP services like Skype. The government is making things more expensive for everyone, and eliminating a lot of free stuff, for the supposed benefit of a minority of the population.

govtrack summary

Redefines "telecommunications relay services." Requires interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund.

Requires every provider of Internet access service and every manufacturer of Internet access equipment, unless it would be an undue burden, to make user interfaces accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Requires that apparatus that receives or plays back video programming and has a picture screen of any size be capable of decoding closed captioning,

Ratifies and considers in full force and effect the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) video description regulations contained in a specified Report and Order. Defines, for certain portions of this Act, "video programming" as including programming distributed over the Internet or by other means. Requires video programming owners, providers, and distributors to convey emergency information accessibly to blind or visually-impaired individuals.

If they object, why haven't they and their staff managed to come up with a proposal of their own?

She did come up with (or at least co-sponsor) a proposal: the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009.

What research did you do before posting this opinion? Reading Eshoo's wiki page or a basic search would have brought up the very bill you like to pretend doesn't exist.

TFA is the summary segued into mentioning the Data Accountability and Trust Act is before the Sentate. Here is the tracking site for that act, and the important Summary:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221&tab=summary

It's fairly straightforward. It defines terms and requires the information holders to follow a structured method of protection and reporting. Places oversight with the FTC. Notably "Prohibits the FTC ... from requiring the deployment or use of any specific products or technologies." Does not mention encryption.

But also note this is hardly the first time such a bill has been presented.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221&tab=related

Nor is there mention of what bizarre shotgun-marriage legislation this bill is combined with, or indicates what kind of support there currently is for this bill.

I don't know... I'm horribly cynical about this sort of thing. But one good result might be that legislated and audited & enforced care of personal information (simple as name + credit card number) might finally make sites and services not just a little more careful with databases, but start to question whether they should have them at all. Right now, there's nearly no costs or responsibility overhead for collecting everything you can about your customers, and passers by. This bill makes it costly; that'll limit businesses to acquiring (and holding) only the information they need to conduct business.

Still, I'd like to see specific time limits on holding things like credit card number after a transaction, and very specific limit on sharing that information with "partners" etc. Also I'd like to see my "conduct business" above limited to processing the original transaction with you; that the personal information acquired cannot be used to make money in any other way whatsoever.

(Sorry for doing your job, Soulskill, by supplying those links. Perhaps you could add the car analogy?)

TFA is the summary segued into mentioning the Data Accountability and Trust Act is before the Sentate. Here is the tracking site for that act, and the important Summary:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221&tab=summary

It's fairly straightforward. It defines terms and requires the information holders to follow a structured method of protection and reporting. Places oversight with the FTC. Notably "Prohibits the FTC ... from requiring the deployment or use of any specific products or technologies." Does not mention encryption.

But also note this is hardly the first time such a bill has been presented.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221&tab=related

Nor is there mention of what bizarre shotgun-marriage legislation this bill is combined with, or indicates what kind of support there currently is for this bill.

I don't know... I'm horribly cynical about this sort of thing. But one good result might be that legislated and audited & enforced care of personal information (simple as name + credit card number) might finally make sites and services not just a little more careful with databases, but start to question whether they should have them at all. Right now, there's nearly no costs or responsibility overhead for collecting everything you can about your customers, and passers by. This bill makes it costly; that'll limit businesses to acquiring (and holding) only the information they need to conduct business.

Still, I'd like to see specific time limits on holding things like credit card number after a transaction, and very specific limit on sharing that information with "partners" etc. Also I'd like to see my "conduct business" above limited to processing the original transaction with you; that the personal information acquired cannot be used to make money in any other way whatsoever.

(Sorry for doing your job, Soulskill, by supplying those links. Perhaps you could add the car analogy?)

TFA is the summary segued into mentioning the Data Accountability and Trust Act is before the Sentate. Here is the tracking site for that act, and the important Summary:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221&tab=summary

It's fairly straightforward. It defines terms and requires the information holders to follow a structured method of protection and reporting. Places oversight with the FTC. Notably "Prohibits the FTC ... from requiring the deployment or use of any specific products or technologies." Does not mention encryption.

But also note this is hardly the first time such a bill has been presented.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2221&tab=related

Nor is there mention of what bizarre shotgun-marriage legislation this bill is combined with, or indicates what kind of support there currently is for this bill.

I don't know... I'm horribly cynical about this sort of thing. But one good result might be that legislated and audited & enforced care of personal information (simple as name + credit card number) might finally make sites and services not just a little more careful with databases, but start to question whether they should have them at all. Right now, there's nearly no costs or responsibility overhead for collecting everything you can about your customers, and passers by. This bill makes it costly; that'll limit businesses to acquiring (and holding) only the information they need to conduct business.

Still, I'd like to see specific time limits on holding things like credit card number after a transaction, and very specific limit on sharing that information with "partners" etc. Also I'd like to see my "conduct business" above limited to processing the original transaction with you; that the personal information acquired cannot be used to make money in any other way whatsoever.

(Sorry for doing your job, Soulskill, by supplying those links. Perhaps you could add the car analogy?)

Too late

callerid spoofing is about to be illegal. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1258

Iowa has detailed rules on how district lines are drawn, and therefore well known for preventing Gerrymandering. In contrast, Illinois has some interesting Gerrymandering going on.

Iowa has detailed rules on how district lines are drawn, and therefore well known for preventing Gerrymandering. In contrast, Illinois has some interesting Gerrymandering going on.

I can't wait for H.R. 1206 to pass. A Syrian democracy will do wonders for the federal reserve system. You probably meant H.R. 1207, apparently a companion bill to S. 604 Hope that helps some readers.

I can't wait for H.R. 1206 to pass. A Syrian democracy will do wonders for the federal reserve system. You probably meant H.R. 1207, apparently a companion bill to S. 604 Hope that helps some readers.

I can't wait for H.R. 1206 to pass. A Syrian democracy will do wonders for the federal reserve system. You probably meant H.R. 1207, apparently a companion bill to S. 604 Hope that helps some readers.

It hasn't been signed into law yet: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-30

This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

That practice, not recording each rep's vote, should be illegal.

Also, there is a bill in committee, HR 3149 that would ban the practice of credit checks for hiring. Contact your congressperson and tell them you want them to sponsor this and vote for it!

just look at how many Senate votes that John Kerry has missed in the past 12 years. Something like 1000 or more a year according to Fox News.

Did Fox News really say that? I guess with their usual level of honesty I wouldn't be surprised.

In fact, the number is really 623 total since 1989, about 9% of the total, and most of them were during his campaign. At other times he was usually around average. See this link.

For months now, some RIAA-influenced Congressmen have been working on a crazily overbroad P2P regulation bill, H.R. 1319: The Informed P2P User Act. It just passed out of committee last month.

I would expect Congressmen to be falling all over each other to bring this to a vote now. After all, it's they're no longer just doing it for the RIAA/MPAA "campaign contributions." Now, it's personal.

One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address [...] gerrymandering

In case anyone doubts gerrymandering still happens: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=17 and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=4.

One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address [...] gerrymandering

In case anyone doubts gerrymandering still happens: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=17 and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=4.

This is propaganda, disinfo, lies and bullshit.

They will take the net down to prevent uncontrolled information sharing and disclosure. They are prepping this under the framework established in The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), last April. This gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, dismissed the entire premise of the Cybersecurity Act when she pointed out the fact that granting centralized power to the government to control networks would in fact make the stability of the Internet less safe, because allowing one person to access all information on a network "makes it more vulnerable to intruders," she said. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

enator John Rockefeller betrayed the true intent behind the legislation when he stated, "Would it have been better if we'd have never invented the Internet," while fearmongering about cyber attacks on the U.S. government and how the country could be shut down.

See him rave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8PCmLPPVnA&feature=player_embedded

Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.

That's not correct. HR3458 does not propose ANY specific regulations. It authorizes the FCC to create regulations and specifies a set of guiding principles for those regulations.

Further, it says that ISPs have the duty to:

'(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet;

Emphasis mine. DOS attacks are presumptively not lawful until proven otherwise.

Finally, it leaves a specific exemption for any reasonable QoS.

(d) Reasonable Network Management- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act. For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available. In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the Commission shall consider, among other factors, the particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider.

Again, emphasis mine. You can pretty much skip everything not in bold and you'll get the gist of the paragraph.

In other words, injecting TCP resets into BitTorrent traffic: banned; throttling bandwidth of excessive users only during periods of heavy load on the network and only to the extent necessary to give reasonable bandwidth to people just browsing the web casually: allowed. For once, the government got the regulation almost exactly right.

I generally support a more libertarian (small 'l') view of government intervention - less is more. But the ideas of 'Net Neutrality, when it was being proposed, seemed to me to be one of those "necessary evil" things that government needs to do. Much of that has to do with the current landscape of Internet providers, where in most places it's a monopoly or near-monopoly of 1 or 2 providers. (What government policies, or lack there of, encouraged or allowed that situation to unfold is up for debate).

But this seemed reasonable. Internet access is now part of our critical infrastructure. Allow ISPs to shape traffic, sure, but provide some rules to prevent them from discriminating based on content, providers, applications, or end-points. All very reasonable. If ISPs want to get in the content business, fine, but don't allow them an advantage over other providers.

That is, I used to be all for it. But now I'm nervous. I want the Internet to be free from interference - that's the goal. But I'm afraid the administration wants more than just to keep ISPs from interfering - they want to take control themselves. They've already started creating rules for bloggers. Sure, they are reasonable rules that almost everyone can agree are useful. This time. And I'm not a blogger that accepts gifts, so I didn't speak up. Then there's the Cybersecurity Act, which seems reasonable on the surface, but is also pretty far-reaching, and could be interpreted to give some Federal bureaucracies some pretty onerous powers. You know, kind of like that Patriot Act that's about to be extended.

And then there's this HR 3458, which goes way beyond what we have traditionally supported for 'Net Neutrality. It's a big, new licensing regime putting the government thumb on every ISP, large or small, and regulating everything they do - it'll be like starting a new TV station if you want to offer Internet access.

So I have to re-think my stance on this. Maybe we're better off with what we have right now.

Let's look at an example, shall we? I picked a bill from govtrack.us: Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.

The bill would change the United States Code. You would not have to know the "Respect for Marriage Act" at all, you just have to know the United States Code.

My point: law makers use a kind of revisioning system already. The Respect for Marriage Act is like a proposed patch for the United States Code.

Doesn't matter.

The encrypted data exists as files on a hard drive. No great mystery to it.

The software just needs to be up-front about what files those are (nevermind the content of them), and that it's sharing them.

It's a short bill, and written in very plain English. I strongly suggest reading the whole thing.

The bit about file sharing is such:

SEC. 2. CONDUCT PROHIBITED.

(a) Improper Disclosure of Personal Information Without Notice and Consent- It is unlawful for any person who is not an owner or authorized user of a protected computer to cause or induce an owner or authorized user of the protected computer to make files from a protected computer available to another computer through a peer-to-peer file sharing program without--

(1) immediately prior to the installation of such program--

(A) providing clear and conspicuous notice that such program allows files on the protected computer to be available for searching and copying by another computer; and

(B) obtaining the informed consent to the installation of such program from an owner or authorized user of the protected computer; and

(2) immediately prior to initial activation of a file sharing function of such program--

(A) providing clear and conspicuous notice of which files are to be made available to another computer; and

(B) obtaining the informed consent from an owner or authorized user of the protected computer for such files to be made available.

(b) Preventing the Disabling or Removal of Certain Software- It is unlawful for any person who is not an owner or authorized user of a protected computer--

(1) to prevent the reasonable efforts of an owner or authorized user from blocking the installation of a peer-to-peer file sharing program or function thereof; or

(2) to fail to provide a reasonable and effective means to disable or remove from the protected computer any peer-to-peer file sharing program or function thereof that the person caused to be installed on that computer or induced another person to install.

Again, there is no discussion about the content of the files. Just that the user must consent to those files being shared. So what if they're encrypted?

This is about as reasonable as any new legislation that I have ever seen.

S. 449: Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 seems like an interesting response.

(c) Remedies-
(1) ORDER TO BAR ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- In a cause of action described in subsection (a), if the court determines that the applicable writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the underlying foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law, the court shall order that any foreign judgment in the foreign lawsuit in question may not be enforced in the United States, including by any Federal, State, or local court, and may order such other injunctive relief that the court considers appropriate to protect the right to free speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) DAMAGES- In addition to the remedy under paragraph (1) and if the conditions for release under that paragraph are satisfied, damages shall be awarded to the United States person bringing the action under subsection (a), based on the following:
(A) The amount of any foreign judgment in the underlying foreign lawsuit.
(B) The costs, including reasonable legal fees, attributable to the underlying foreign lawsuit that have been borne by the United States person.
(C) The harm caused to the United States person due to decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding.

(d) Treble Damages- If, in an action brought under subsection (a), the court or, if applicable, the jury determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person or entity bringing the foreign lawsuit which gave rise to the cause of action intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States by discouraging publishers or other media from publishing, or discouraging employers, contractors, donors, sponsors, or similar financial supporters from employing, retaining, or supporting, the research, writing, or other speech of a journalist, academic, commentator, expert, or other individual, the court may award treble damages.

If you agree with the parent, here is a list of the forty three representatives that have the bill (H.R 3311) in their court. Unfortunately, the site can't go to the specific subcommittee, so vote them *all* out if it passes and you can't get the voting detail. The bill can be tracked here.

If you agree with the parent, here is a list of the forty three representatives that have the bill (H.R 3311) in their court. Unfortunately, the site can't go to the specific subcommittee, so vote them *all* out if it passes and you can't get the voting detail. The bill can be tracked here.

If you just woke up from a coma, America went through 8 years of voodoo economics,

Not an official term, but I'll accept it since it was the elder Bush that coined it.

record deficit spending by a runaway congress,

Agree that congress spent like drunken sailors, both D's and R's. However, I don't think the deficits were record even though the spending was. I remember that the economy at one point was booming so well that the gov't did pull in record tax receipts. And this was after tax cuts. It's sad that after such an awesome economic boom that Democrats took over congress and ruined it all.

a jobless recovery

BZZZTTTT! Wrong. Unemployment was at the low 4's at one point. It was the first time I had heard the term "virtually full employment".

and an economy propped up with record low interest rates that lead to a housing bubble.

Partially, but not completely. It's not really a bubble until it bursts. Unfortunately, it was the Fannie/Freddie mess that caused the burst. Unfortunately, it COULD have been prevented. (Please read that whole article and tell me how it was the Republican's fault again)

Combine that with a failure to monitor the largest financial institutions because of an ideological aversion to regulation, and you have a perfect financial storm.

See the link above. It wasn't "ideological aversion to regulation". It was Chris Dodd and Barney Frank protecting their largest contributors. (read: Bribe Providers)

Now that you're up to date, we have a new American President who is not beholden to special interests, especially energy interests, who has some vision for a clean energy future.

You can't be serious!

All of that was sardonic. What do you not understand?

Crap!

I think a lot of the lack of R&D goes back to decisions made many years ago by the government. At one point all employee salaries regardless of how outrageous they were were a deductible expense. Congress decided they wanted to tax high salaried people. Therefore companies found ways around those laws. In comes stock bonuses and stock options. The problem with that is that a highly paid employee (most likely a decision maker) will do what is best for them, which is kick up the stock price so that they get higher effective pay. Easy way to do that, kill long term R&D. In addition with companies hiring people with business BS degrees who then get an MBA to manage, instead of the engineers, everything is looked at on the current P&L statement, not the 10+ year roadmap.

Well actually, it wasn't to "tax high salaried people", that would be income tax. This is a change in the corporate tax structure. (After all, how can one deduct his/her income as an expense?) Stock options are taxed differently from normal compensation. Namely, options are recorded as an expense for the value of the option at time of issuance, but when exercised, a tax deduction is made for the new (read: "higher") value of the option. That is deduction is more than the expense claimed. Back in 2007, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) introduced legislation to eliminate this loophole. It stalled in committee.

Ironically, stock option based compensation was touted at the time as ensuring long-term profitability and performance of the company, since the employees were now "co-owners." Instead, it encouraged maximizing short term rewards, at the expense of the long term.

House Resolution 1020 is a bill that will address this kind of forceful arbitration. However, the bill is currently in committee and if people do not get the members of this committee to move this resolution to a floor vote, then this is all pretty moot. Please take a look at the members of the House Committee on the Judiciary. If one of the members is your Representative, write them. Otherwise this thing will most surely die in committee since this is not the most pressing matter on the public's mind.

If your Representative is not listed as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary but you live in the same state as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. Write your Representative to urge the member to move the bill to the floor, so that your Representative can get a chance to help you out. Usually, members of the same state know each other pretty well and talk to each other about broad topics that affect the state as a whole.

If you live in a state that has no members on the committee. Check to see if your Representative or a Representative from your state co-sponsored the bill. If so, make your case using that point; if not, write your Representative asking why they did not co-sponsor the bill and make your point about how not having legal recourse affects you and your community in general.

Always remember one big point when you write your Representative...Always make sure you make it entirely clear what it is you expect your Representative to do, and make sure it is within their power to do so. If you just tell them about HR 1020 and that they should support it, then all you are going to get back as a reply is, 'their sorry but it must make it out of committee before they can do anything about it, but if it does make it to the floor they'll be sure to consider it carefully. Yours truly, Rep. Blah Blah Blah (X-Your state).'

House Resolution 1020 is a bill that will address this kind of forceful arbitration. However, the bill is currently in committee and if people do not get the members of this committee to move this resolution to a floor vote, then this is all pretty moot. Please take a look at the members of the House Committee on the Judiciary. If one of the members is your Representative, write them. Otherwise this thing will most surely die in committee since this is not the most pressing matter on the public's mind.

If your Representative is not listed as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary but you live in the same state as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. Write your Representative to urge the member to move the bill to the floor, so that your Representative can get a chance to help you out. Usually, members of the same state know each other pretty well and talk to each other about broad topics that affect the state as a whole.

If you live in a state that has no members on the committee. Check to see if your Representative or a Representative from your state co-sponsored the bill. If so, make your case using that point; if not, write your Representative asking why they did not co-sponsor the bill and make your point about how not having legal recourse affects you and your community in general.

Always remember one big point when you write your Representative...Always make sure you make it entirely clear what it is you expect your Representative to do, and make sure it is within their power to do so. If you just tell them about HR 1020 and that they should support it, then all you are going to get back as a reply is, 'their sorry but it must make it out of committee before they can do anything about it, but if it does make it to the floor they'll be sure to consider it carefully. Yours truly, Rep. Blah Blah Blah (X-Your state).'