Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Best and Worst US Internet Laws

Posted by kdawson on from the rhymes-with-shoeless dept.

An anonymous reader writes "When a US legislator describes the Internet as a 'series of tubes' you just know that you're going to end up with some wacky laws on the books. Law professor Eric Goldman takes a look at the best and worst Internet laws in the U.S. Goldman offers an analysis of the biggies such as the DMCA, but also shines light on lesser-known laws like the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002. And he actually finds four Internet laws that aren't all bad."

25 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Better link to article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    An easier to read, all on one page version of the FA is here.

  2. Best and worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aritcle headline incorrect.

    Should read:

    The Worst and Least Worst of US Internet laws

    1. Re:Best and worst? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. The NET Act is horrible public policy. Not only that, the guy himself says that "criminal sanctions do not deter warez traders", linking to this paper on warez trading and the law, which "...discusses the motivations for warez trading, how criminalizing the behavior may counterproductively encourage it, and why legislators and prosecutors continue to target warez trading despite the counterproductive effects," in order to state his case, but then turns around and says that "[r]emoving warez traders from the Net, one by one, is a crude but ultimately effective method for curtailing warez trading" becuase "a couple of hundred warez traders have been busted by the law." (Whoop-de-doo!) So, uh, which is it? The law doesn't deter warez traders, or is the law effecting in curtailing them? You can't have it both ways.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Best and worst? by Nf1nk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The laws don't do anything, Law enforcement does.

      As with most laws, there was an old law that did the job and would have continued doing the job just fine if it had just been enforced. The fun part is that the new law will likely be enforced with all the vigor of the old law and the problem will continue unsolved.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  3. While we're discussing terrible internet laws... by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I strongly urge any European slashdot denizens to contact their MEP(s) and advise them to vote for amendments to IPRED2 on the twenty-fifth of April. There's a BoingBoing post about it *here*, please don't let Cory's well-intentioned hyperbole sway you away from action.

    The ammendments would-

    * LIMIT the scope of IPRED2 to true criminal enterprises, involving copyright piracy and trademark violations done on a commercial scale, with malice and the intention of earning a profit from the enterprise, rather than criminalizing all intellectual property infringement as the current directive does; * AVOID creating an unprecedented scope of secondary liability for Internet intermediaries, ICTs, software vendors and a range of legitimate business activity, by removing the words "aiding or abetting and inciting" from Article 3. * PROVIDE LEGAL CERTAINTY by adopting precise and appropriate definitions of "on a commercial scale" and "intentional infringement" in Article 2 as commercial activity done with the intent to earn a profit directly attributable to the infringing activity.


    There's some more info *here*.
  4. US lawmakers dont understand global Internet by scsirob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I did read TFA, and it's just amazing how US lawmakers think they can govern the way Internet is being used and how it evolves, all from behind their desks. 10 out of 10 laws, good and bad, fail to take into account that these laws have no juristriction in other countries.

    How does a US legislator come up with a law that tries to regulate information that may be property of an Australian entity, that sits on a German server and links to a French database hosted by a Lithouanian ISP? These laws are totally useless. Defective-by-design. And contrary to what that guy in the White House may think, America does not rule the world.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet by Lithdren · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its not about actually getting anything done.

      Its all about being sure you can say "Look, look what I did!" when re-election comes. Even if what you did, is completly idiotic, if it 'protects consumers/children/women/whatever' you get more votes, because people dont bother to research..anything, when it comes to things like this.

      Most, if not all, of the people in office realize this, realize these laws are utterly pointless, unenforceable, and overall useless. Thats why they're writing them. Easier then actually making something that WORKS.

    2. Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While your rant is on target for a limited subset of the laws listed, it doesn't actually cover them all substantively.

      In particular, there are laws on the books regulating US Government behavior regarding the Internet, amongst other things, which is certainly within Congress's purview.

      I suppose knowing that wouldn't have stopped you from making your anti-US post, since in most circumstances that's worth an easy +2 to karma, but I hope you apply a little more understanding and a little less kneejerk reactionism in the future.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet by Lockejaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't get it. What's so "anti-US" about the suggestion politicians do stupid things and waste time? "Kneejerk reactionism" describes almost every use I've seen of the term "anti-US."

      --
      (IANAL)
    4. Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "....fail to take into account that these laws have no juristriction in other countries"

      Well, that is because most of the lawmakers are also lawyers, and are familiar with a legal concept called "Long Arm Jurisdiction" which allows a Federal Court to use the most relevant state's long arm statute to pursue foreign states. For example:
      "LOCAL INJURY; FOREIGN ACT. In any action claiming injury to person or property within this state arising out of an act or omission outside this state by the defendant, provided in addition that at the time of the injury, either:
      (a) Solicitation or service activities were carried on within this state by or on behalf of the defendant; or
      (b) Products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed within this
      state in the ordinary course of trade."

      The use of a long arm statute is usually constitutional where the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state and there has been reasonable notice of the action against him or her. Courts look at 3 factors: purposeful availment of an individual or entity to another jurisdiction, whether an act was done in another jurisdiction, and whether the jurisdiction is reasonable for the defendant to expect to defend himself there.

      So, if a judgment is obtained in a US Court, there is a process, by treaty or letters rogatory, to execute and enforce the judgment in the foreign country.

      This is how our global village works. Basically.

    5. Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      10 out of 10 laws, good and bad, fail to take into account that these laws have no jurisdiction in other countries.
      I know this isn't news to anyone on slashdot, but as an European it never ceases to amaze me how American lawyers and politicians are misguided in over-thinking their importance.

      Pass dumb law in the US, and for the most part those of us outside your borders just point and laugh. The DMCA (as one example) is of no interest nor value to 90% of the World, and why it should be so absorbing to the other 10% is difficult to understand.

      There's not really any such thing as a sensible Internet law. Since for a law to be sensible it needs to be internationally enforceable - there are no laws whatsoever that currently meet that criteria.

      The only thing that going to work is adoption of something similar to International Marine Law.
  5. He couldn't have made a worse description by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tubes! The naive old fool!

    Every geek on this site knows that the Internet is actually a series of pipes.

    In the case of the main backbones, great big fat pipes!

  6. Where's CAN-SPAM ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm apalled that the author excluded CAN-SPAM from tfa. Easily #1 worst internet law in my books, for the fact that it is almost entirely unenforcable. (amongst many other enormous problems)

  7. Re:While we're discussing terrible internet laws.. by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Welcome to the Internet! Click here!

    -Peter

  8. Re:attn slashdot, I have a penis by Calydor · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see your penis has been rated redundant. How does that make you feel?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  9. Biased toward copyright/anticompetive behavior by Aoreias · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How could there be no mention in this article of Title 18 1029, 1030, 2510, and 2701, which, among other things, makes most of the following illegal in most circumstances
    • Possession of counterfeit credentials involving interstate commerce, such as credit card numbers
    • Accessing a computer in an unauthorized manner
    • Gaining privileges in excess of those otherwise granted
    • Unauthorized wiretaps
    While our ability to exercise certain rights is important, let us not forget that we also need the ability to restrict others from trespass and fraud.
    --
    We've upped our standards. Up yours.
  10. Yeah, what kind of idiot would you.. by mikkelm · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. have to be to use "series of tubes" as an analogy for the Internet? What's next? Buffering? Routing? Flow control? HAH! Ignorant politicians.

    1. Re:Yeah, what kind of idiot would you.. by vivaoporto · · Score: 2
      Well, don't this sounds ignorant? At least funny it does :D

      Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

      [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
  11. Laws which assume that small children by Burz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...have the right to play in the middle of the 'Information Superhighway' are almost always rotten.

    Handing over the keys to the car is something you do when your kid turns 15. There ought to be a similar ethic WRT Internet access.

  12. How about law by sponsor, support, opposition? by mnemotronic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What would help me is a chart of the laws, who sponsored them, who voted for them and who voted against them. Granted, the "voted for" and "voted against" columns are rendered useless by porcine pork politics and the absurd nature of the American legislative process. All legislation receives the benefit of "earmarking". A truely bad bill may become law, not for it's primary purpose, but because of the attendant special interest amendments and good-ol-boy reach-arounds. How strange that HRBF George feels that the line item veto is a vital tool to combat ineffective laws, yet no-one believes that the Congress should be endowed with complementary powers, as in a line item vote. Legislators have the time to meet with the money (campaign contributors, special interests), construct loopholes, graft them onto other laws, and schmooze their compatriots, but do they actually have the time, as a body, to research and vote on each and every issue? Not likely.

    Still, knowing who sponsored the bills would be useful (yea, I could look it up myself, but I'm a complainer, not a doer).

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  13. 18 USC 2257 by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They missed one of the worst, 18 USC 2257, which makes a large chunk of internet sites impossible to run legally, like any site where people are uploading content or streaming video. This includes anonymous rateme sites like ratemyboobies, flashyourrack, and arguably even things like tinypic, flickr, and photobucket.

    Of course nobody will admit to hating it as it protects the children and if you dont like it you're a creepy pedophile.

    Impossible to hate the law because it makes distributors have to keep a copy of everything they distribute (technologically impossible for a cam site, not enough storage exists), makes pornstars give up a lot more personal info that all needs kept on file, even though they're usually the type that would want to stay anonymous or at least not have random guys able to come find and rape them, and makes it impossible for a girl to randomly post a tit picutre on a forum, imageboard, or whatever.

    Nope. None of those are valid complaints. Don't like the law = want to dick an 8 year old. Must be why it was left out from the article.

    --
    Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    1. Re:18 USC 2257 by armando_wall · · Score: 2, Funny

      ratemyboobies, flashyourrack? I've been missing out. Thank you!

  14. 2 + 2 + 10? Some how I think it's a bit biased. by kinglink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, we can all agree that the government has not been able to understand the internet, and I think that's pretty sad, but I have a feeling that there has been more than 14 laws put into place about the internet. He even admits there's been 100s of laws passed. My problem is that we can only find 2 good laws, 2 questionable laws and 10 bad laws? This sounds like the article's writer has a bit of an axe to grind and decided to take it out on laws while pretending to maintain impartiality. He admits he's biased, but I could admit I'm biased and repeat some of the stuff that Venezuelan president Chavez says about out country and Bush. Doesn't make what I say news, or even worthy of a title "The good and bad of Bush".

    Personally I find this article to be subpar for our standards. Slashdot isn't a soap box, something we seem to have forgotten.

  15. Missing: CAN-SPAM ACT by merc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The CAN-SPAM act is terrible legislation, not because of what it attempted to accomplish, but because of what it actually accomplished: Nothing. Even worse, it failed to criminalize spam, effectively legitimizing it.

    Aside from that the law has no real teeth. You can't seek redress from spammers unless you're an Attorney General or an ISP.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  16. So how does this compare to other laws? by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The internet is something we know about, so we can interpret the laws. How many laws are out that that we do NOT know how it works, or is there a reason to believe Internet laws are different?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.