Slashdot Mirror
Meet the Strange Bedfellows Who Could Stop SOPA
jfruhlinger writes "In a political environment that's become very strongly defined by partisan lines, the SOPA debate has offered an unexpected ray of hope: the two main Congressional opponents of the bill are Ron Wyden, an Oregon Senator deemed a 'hardcore liberal' and Darrell Issa, a California Representative who is one of the Obama Administration's fiercest critics. (There are both Ds and Rs in favor of the bill, too.)" (Read more below.)
In the technical rather than political world, opposition seems easier to find: Trailrunner7 writes "A group of engineers, networking specialists, security experts and other specialists deeply involved with the Internet's development and growth have sent a letter to lawmakers criticizing the highly controversial SOPA and PIPA bills and imploring them not to pass the legislation, which they say would stifle innovation and 'threaten engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government.' The letter is signed by a long list of Internet pioneers and other respected figures, including Steve Bellovin, Paul Vixie, Vint Cerf, Jon Callas, Tony Li, Robert W. Taylor, Esther Dyson and Fred Baker, among many others. Both SOPA and PIPA have been criticized heavily by technologists, privacy advocates and security experts who say that not only would the proposed bills make it difficult for companies to create innovative new technologies, but they also would likely not even accomplish the goals their authors' had in mind, namely preventing copyright infringement and content piracy."
And (hat tip to Rob Malda), here's the letter itself (PDF).
And (hat tip to Rob Malda), here's the letter itself (PDF).
This summary makes it sound like they're heroes fighting for our freedom or something. In actuality, they're just advocated for their own alternative Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN). And the only difference between their bill and SOPA is that SOPA will put enforcement in the hands of the Justice Department and OPEN will put it in the hands of the United States International Trade Commission, which in practice will make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to most sites being busted.
The only reason Darrel Issa and Ron Wyden are supporting it is because it provides more protection for the Googles, Facebooks, etc. and they're both from states where those companies are big players.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There are both Ds and Rs in favor of the bill, too.
Meet SOPA author Lamar Smith, Hollywood's favorite Republican.
He may be a Tea Partier from rural Texas with an "A+" rating from the National Rifle Association," but the TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to Smith's 2012 campaign committee, according to data complied by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Tea Party are marks. His donors are his real constituency.
So these two politicians can do what countless citizens petitioning,calling,and writing cannot... What a tragedy.
is it the Stop Online Privacy Act?
The only thing Congress can agree on is that something must be done to "stop those thieves!"
Meanwhile people on every side lie to them. Ruthlessly so.
You mean the foxes guarding the henhouse could actually be entrusted to propose actually guarding the henhouse?
Trusting Congress to do the right thing is like expecting a snake to get up and walk in a straight line -- they may get about where you'd like them to be, but only with a lot of twisting, turning, amending and consulting with their friendly neighborhood lobbyists to leave in loopholes where more evil legislation could easily be inserted later, perhaps wadded up in a 662 billion dollar defense bill.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Stop Online Piracy Act.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The Tea Party are marks. His donors are his real constituency.
Because the Tea Party has staked out such a strong opinion on copyright? I'll bet if you explained this bill to random people on the street, 5% would be in favor, 5% would be opposed, and the rest would stare at you blankly. Copyright affects programmers directly since we are content creators, but most people are as interested in copyright law as they are in foreign-fish importation law.
When voters don't care about a subject, it leaves the congress-people free to do whatever they want. So they do.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In the same way that cyanide is a cure for over-eating... it just has side effects.
This is the mindset that has caused the US to move steadily to the right for the past 30 years. The lesser evil is still evil.
We have not really moved left or right exactly, so much as we have moved towards statism - where the state controls everything. That is what we must withdraw from to regain freedoms we have lost.
However it must be noted that currently the Left is far more into promoting statist ideals than the Right (which was body-checked by the Tea Party over this issue).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wait. So the main opponents to such a bill are Ron Paul and Pelosi, but IT World would rather poo-poo Ron Paul because they (like so many other liberals I could mention) would rather cut their nose to spite their face, and support a watered down version of the bill coming from more mainstream politicians? And Pelosi isn't worth mentioning at all?
Yeah, fuck you IT World.
The only practical solution to this is to legislate that all elections are State-funded, and any outside money found in any campaign is the end of that campaign
That's also open to abuse, because how do you determine who qualifies for state funding? If the barrier to entry is too high, then you risk keeping the same oligarchy you have (or swapping it for a new one). If it's too low, then people can easily use it to funnel money to their own pockets (e.g. set up a leaflet printing company, nominate 10 candidates that all use you to print their own content-free leaflets, profit). Or they can simply flood the system with generic like-the-opposition candidates. For example, in the UK a few elections ago we had a Literal Democrat candidate, who got enough votes to get their deposit back because people confused him with the Liberal Democrats and split the Liberal Democrat vote just enough to cause them to lose the election to the Conservatives (who weren't running against a Conservatory Party candidate in that election). If you have a constituency that is 60% liberal and 40% conservative and the barrier to entry is sufficiently low, the best strategy for the conservatives is to back half a dozen liberal candidates...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The article fails at describing SOPA and is super vague in most of its descriptions.
Better description
SOPA I would say isn't reasonable for everyone to know what it is or what it stands for. For one it is new. It is for a new bill, it hasn't been around for years. Secondly it is what the United States Congress calls it, Other countries are not always involved what the US is doing all the time... Also us Americans may not always be into seeing every bill that comes out of the US. Third Slashdotters don't always log in every day, or week or month. So when they come it these articles make no sense.
SOPA has been mentioned at least once a week on /. for at least a few weeks, if not months, and you still don't know what it is?
SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act AKA the U.S. Government Lets RIAA/MPAA Hijack DNS With No Oversight Act.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Wrong. The US is not becoming statist, it's becoming (is?) corporatist. You got modded up by all the Libertarians, who love this line of argument but it doesn't make sense.
The traditional left, especially the progressive wing of the Democratic party, espouse civil libertarianism, regulation of corporations, and control of industries where they feel competition does not work (i.e. medicine).
The traditional right, espouses fewer regulations on corporations so as not to become a dictator ship that picks winners unfairly and fiscal responsibility of the government as a whole, and striking a balance between federal and state powers. In the past, they have not liked spending, but when spending was called for, they called for a sensible balanced budget at all times.
The current Democratic part still espouses civil Libertarianism as a whole, but doesn't push it too hard because it stirs certain idiot groups to froth at the mouth and rather than go after them, they quiet down, and because Americans as a whole aren't very socially progressive (one of the last developed nations to free black slaves and give women the right to vote, and we'll probably be one of the last to allow some kind of marriage reform). Corporations actually fund these idiot groups and claim it's grassroots behind cleverly used laws designed to shield nonprofit corporations. The no longer push hard, as a group, for corporate regulations, because the only people able to put together enough money to help them run for office are the corporations, so they don't chime up too much about regulations. So thanks to clever corporate greed, the Democrats as a group are simply pussies.
The current Republican party still espouses fewer regulations, but to the detriment of the people as if to have no regulations and an anarchy state. This is thanks to corporations donating to them and giving them speeches that simply state that we have too many regulations and taxes when corporations are already free to run rampant and we are going broke. They get donations from those same corporations that fund the idiot groups, and are basically paid to say the same things these idiot groups say about social causes. They no longer push fiscal responsibility because they don't care if we have the money, they just keep chanting "lower taxes" instead of "fair taxes" or "just enough taxes." The taxes are lowest on the upper class and keep going lower, under the guise that if the rich get more money, they'll hire more people, which hasn't shown any truth in in decades. It's called trickle down economics, and it doesn't work. But they don't have time to talk about any other fiscal matters because they are too busy pushing the idiot group agenda. And they push it so hard then end up being supreme dicks about any issue they are on. And they look like dicks when open their mouths about some social issue that people just want to stop talking about. So thanks to clever greed, Republicans as a group are really big dicks
So yes, our government is run by a bunch of pussies and dicks fucking around and not getting anything done, being directed by corporations to not get anything done unless it makes more money for them. And we all watch it expecting something new to happen when it's the same boring stupid shit over and over. Welcome to porn Washington, DC style. Statist my ass, the state is dead!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
SOPA has been mentioned at least once a week on /. for at least a few weeks, if not months, and you still don't know what it is?
What if they mailed the link to their non-techie relatives? What if they just joined Slashdot? What if the person is a writer with a mind for words and phrases not acronyms? Journalistic standard is to use the full name first before using the acronym. The exception is headlines. So Slashdot should have posted:
Headline: Meet the Strange Bedfellows Who Could Stop SOPA ...
jfruhlinger writes
"In a political environment that's become very strongly defined by partisan lines, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) debate has offered
See, here's the thing. The constitution only authorizes limited government. No sane person can read it any other way. The federal government, for its part, has found such actual authorization too limiting... seriously... and so basically ignores the constitution. In doing so, it has exercised the power to enable various things it doesn't actually have the authority to implement, such as a nationwide social safety net. It has also destroyed the bill of rights and unleashed a veritable laundry list of evils upon the population.
Now, if you want the federal government to be restrained, either you need an entirely new constitution to be put in place (how???), or you need the government's exercise of power to be chopped back to the current constitution's authorized limits, and then the constitution will need amendment so that the good things, which actually consist of a fairly long list despite the long, long list of evils, can be legitimized as functions of the federal government -- because really, the constitution as it stands doesn't authorize much power for the feds at all unless you read it with a mumble, two glass eyes, and a brain tumor.
On the other hand, if you want the federal government to be free to do whatever it wants, constrained only by what congress can agree upon, so that inconveniences like constitutional conventions aren't required to implement, for instance, nationwide medicare for old folks, nationwide schooling and standards for children, and making it legitimately illegal for your neighbor to own an anthrax factory or a nuke, then (a) we're already in that situation, but (b) it unfortunately has brought with it a whole host of evils, like the sundering of almost the entire bill of rights, the inversion of the commerce clause, ex post facto law, usurpation of article 5 powers under the guise of article 3, assassination of US citizens (aka premeditated killing by stealth without anything even remotely resembling due process), congress-folk voting in things like their own raises and being immune to insider trading laws. From my POV, government freedom has been tested and found extremely wanting.
But getting to a constitutionally restrained government... I haven't got even a clue about a workable process for that. I don't think anyone else does, either. The "ammo box", so beloved of Internet tough guyz, I can't see working. Supposing the unlikely event of a successful armed revolution, I truly can't imagine enough of a framework remaining to create a new government. OTOH, if the military does it for us, that'll leave us directly in the hands of a known conservative religious organization with huge firepower, and I think the only thing that would possibly arise successfully from that is a theocracy -- something considerably worse, IMHO, than what we have now, strange as that may sound. Certainly the congresscritters aren't going to limit themselves, they're quite literally fat and happy with the status quo, and looking at the political requirements for becoming one (basically you need to be corrupt) and the bennies once you're there, why wouldn't they be?
What's going to happen here -- IMHO, of course -- is that our society is going to continue this slide down to the outright ultimate power of the 535; elections will continue to be less and less subtly rigged, as we see with the media ignoring Paul, despite his essentially equal to front runner status, with the public being steered carefully to vote only for approved candidates, and/or voting machines rigged as required, when required, again as we have already seen; laws will continue to be made regardless of constitutionality, and then backed up by the bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces on the supreme court; and the vast majority of the country will continue to not care. Technology will step in with robotics and manufacture on demand, and keep the population generally happy with "stuff" and comfort, and all will be well, as long as you are willing to be the round peg in the round hole the government makes available fo
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.