Slashdot Mirror
Internet Blacklist Back In Congress
Adrian Lopez writes "A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission."
With the huge backlog of important legislation requiring immediate attention in an already gridlocked congress, it's sad this is even being considered. I guess the financial incentives to its backers are just too large. Set the controls for the heart of the sun, we are doomed.
I've been saying for a long time that the day will come very soon when typing in thepiratebay.org or other torrent site will only get you a "This site has been blocked for illegal material" message. the only question was whether it would happen by government mandate or voluntary ISP decision.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
That's all we need, is more lists for the government to maintain. They do a bang up job already with no-fly.
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, so I didn't vote for Obama (although I would have).
The Obama administration has turned out far worse than GWB's eight years with respect to the digital age. For all the command they had of social media and running under the 'change' they were bringing with them, they sure seem to want to bow to their old masters.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
You might want to read up. This isn't 'blacklisting' the way you are likely to think about it. This is removing items from the Root DNS server.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As soon as they pass legislation like this, people will just move to using proxy servers. Proxy servers lists change hourly. And I do not expect this to survive a challenge in court -- it is a restriction of trade and commerce, and it will only be a matter of time before they shut down the wrong site, cost them millions, and are forced to pay restitution.
So let's be clear -- this isn't about piracy. It's about killing free speech. Because no sooner will they pass this, than they'll add a rider saying they can shut down sites which host "terrorist" material as well... and then Greenpeace, PETA, and a lot of other political undesireables will find themselves on the list.
GO AMERICA!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
While it's often said that a Lame Duck congress can't get much done, it is the perfect time for them to pass unpopular legislation that powerful lobbies want passed. It's one of the few times congress can get away with it while having very few political repercussions.
He said limited government, not no government. I have never heard of a libertarian who did not support a criminal justice system and police force designed to protect civilians.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
So, just wait for them to add an amendment here, or on some other bill...making it illegal for a US citizen to use alternate roots.
While I agree with your sentiment...there is real danger letting them set a precedent of this fashion, and we need to stop this kind of shit right in its current tracks.
I applaud current moves to try to get rid of earmark/pork barrel spending.
Lets also try to convince the congress critters to quit fscking with the internet (something they really don't understand to begin with)...and leave it free.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with America, it's government and how its constitution before asking such obviously answered questions. How about the socialized health care for one, Obama and the leadership of the democrat party espouses them, and yes they are bad because A: the US federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose systems like that in the constitution's present state, B: there is a way to amend the US constitution in order to give the federal government the authority but for some insane reason, ignoring the US constitution seems to be the route chosen. C: this equals little more then an attempt to destroy the fabric of the US constitution which like it or not, will result in things like the Bill of rights being completely decimated in the process.
It's not necessarily that they are bad ideas, It's that the constitution doesn't allow it and if you think things like the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion- or even the non-existent constitutional separation of church and state, the right to a fair trial and so on are somehow able to survive, you would be wrong. This is because of they can ignore the constitution based around political ideology, then they can ignore the entire constitution based around political ideology. In other words, if they skip the necessary processes required to give the government the power and authority, then they can skip the necessary requirements for the government to take rights away.
And yes, even FDR knew his programs were unconstitutional. In fact, there was a supreme court battle over most of them that ended up ending with FDR ignoring the court and the court invented the expansion of the interstate commerce clause to avoid a constitutional meltdown at the time. The US federal government is not equivalent to parliament or any other country's central government. It is by design only intended to be a state face for foreign diplomacy, an arbitrator for disputes between the states, and an overseer of trade between the states. This is why the country is called the United States of America. -It's a collection of State bound by a common defense. Not some over ridding power structure that controls the people. It retains it's authenticity through the consent of the governed and that consent was given though the US constitution.
"I am with the Government and I want to control everything and I don't give a shit if it hurts someone."
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Nobody bothered to actually ask what kind of "change" he was talking about. D'oh!
I get so tired of hearing this sentiment. I know exactly what kind of "change" he was talking about. He specifically stated he intended to change the way Washington politics worked. He promised to get rid of the partisan bickering, gridlock and blatant disregard for the populace that define Washington politics.
Unfortunately, he got into office and concentrated on his progressive agenda instead. The conservatives stopped trying to actually get anything done, and instead focused on a 24/7 dirty PR campaign. In an inept attempt at fighting the smear attacks, Mr. Obama sank into the same partisan bickering that he had previously railed against.
I liked him and voted for him. Even now, I like him better than anyone likely to run against him. But, he has not lived up to his promises. He's become just another politician, doing what politicians do. That's why the left lost their energy, and the right was able to make some gains in the recent election.
In a typical election, 40% of the vote goes one way, 40% goes the other. It's almost always unthinking party loyalty. There is no hope for most of those people. I know Democrats, for example, who vote Democrat despite the fact that Barack Obama, Reid and Pelosi have literally almost nothing in common with their views. It's all because "they're a Democrat/Republican family."
The points you raise are hardly insightful. Those problems have existed in literally every system of government from feudal monarchies, to Communism, to whatever-it-is-we-have-today. The establishment always plays hardball, no matter what form the establishment takes.
One of the interesting things our founders realized, like the Romans and others before them, is that a limited government with minorly democratic features is the closest thing to an ideal. If you look past the issue of slavery in the South, the US was the freest it ever was when it was the least democratic. The reason for that is simple: people in democratic states tolerate 5x more shit than those in nominally or outright undemocratic states in most cases because they don't have the pretense of "choosing their tyranny." Therefore, the government has to actually be judged on what it does, not the process by which it gets there (after which it gets a free pass because a temporary majority agreed with it).
I tried to find a well phrased way to head off this kind of crappy reply. I didn't find one. So here goes the tl;dr version:
Without a corporate charter, such 'bands' would be much smaller and fewer than current corporations. Why? Ownership and trust issues. There would be no corporation to own any of the assets, just a bunch of people. Each member of the company would have a big interest in making sure one of the others doesn't just walk off with all the stuff. Or sell it and disappear with the cash. These trust issues would be a huge limit to the size and number of companies. Just think of how much smaller corporations would be if they couldn't do IPOs or issue more stock. And without corporate charters and corporate law, this would be impossible.
With no stockholders to screw, or stock valuations to inflate, many of the abuses that CEOs currently do would be pointless. Pumping up the stock for short-term gains and long-term pain would be stupid if the company was run by the owners of the company instead of some CEO looking for a big bonus and golden parachute. It wouldn't happen. Cutting corners in product safety to make a fast buck looks a lot less inviting when you go to jail for manslaughter when things go bad, instead of losing some of your bonus.
Corporate charters are very relevant to our current situation. They are the current, but not the key problem.
"its not a contemporary issue. it is an issue of social dynamics -> if groups are allowed to acquire more power than others, they dominate others. this was so in 5000 Bc, this is as such now."
You are correct. This is the key problem. Shall we explore how this happens? There are two basic methods that have been used throughout history, and they both amount to the same thing in the end. Bad government.
Method 1: The wealthy/ambitious get the current government to pass laws giving them special status of some sort that allows them to dominate. Examples are special laws for 'nobles', inheritance laws, like primogeniture to keep the wealth in one piece, and regulations that keep out smaller competitors. (EPA, OSHA, and licenses of most kinds fit here). Corporate law - including the charter are a modern version of this.
Method 2: Hire thugs/soldiers and take over by direct force. The result of this is to become the de facto if not de jur government. Feudal europe is a good example of this method.
Notice in both cases this is a problem of government. A proper 'limited' government would prevent both methods from happening. In fact the emphasis should be on 'proper' and not 'limited' - a fact that most limited government advocates don't seem to get either. They seem to think that free market competition would prevent this. They don't seem to get that each and every business is trying to prevent competition, and only government power can sustain a free market. I don't claim to know exactly what form of government it would take to achieve this. I am hopeful, but not certain that it is even possible. Mainstream Libertarian ideas usually don't understand these points. They would be sadly disappointed in the results of the kind of government they advocate, and largely because what you have stated would indeed happen. What libertarians do get is that a big government with lots of regulations is inefficient, expensive and ripe for it's own brand of tyranny. And it still doesn't prevent the strong/rich from dominating the weak/poor.
T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.