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).

18 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. They're NOT opposed to SOPA by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, no, a hundred thousand times NO. That's known as "changing the window," and it's a well known problem with politics.

      Example: For the kids, we're now going to conduct random warrantless household searches across the nation.

      With your approach, we should approve of a less offensive alternative, like, say, "but this will only happen twice a year, instead of once a month." You feel like you "won" something when in reality, by any measure, you have objectively lost. This is basically how the Constitution and our "inalienable rights" have been eviscerated over the last century or so.

      This approach is extremely common in politics, and less offensive alternatives are absolutely NOT the way to address it! Wholehearted refusal of THE ENTIRE PREMISE is required, potentially along with civil disobedience if either version does get enacted.

      CAPTCHA: frauds. How appropriate.

    3. Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA by Shatrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The mindset of drawing battle lines in terms of 'right' and 'left' is what has allowed politicians to move steadily into lobbyist pockets (like hermit crabs) for the past 30 years... I can't think of a better illustration than the SOPA, ACTA, DMCA et cetera garbage that has been getting pushed through lately with bipartisan support and almost zero outcry or media coverage. Everyone is too busy fighting about stem cells and carbon credits and which politician is banging their stenographer.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA by jmac_the_man · · Score: 4, Informative
      This isn't actually true. OPEN makes it harder to transfer money to sites that have been ruled "infringing" by a court. It doesn't include capabilities for takedowns, blocks from searches, etc. SOPA, on the other hand, could possibly require deep packet inspection to keep people off infringing sites.

      Basically, OPEN only goes after commercial infringement, and only does so in a commercial way. I'm OK with that.

    5. Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      The Right? Damn, man. I've been alive and aware those 30 years and you're so wrong. It's been moving steadily toward totalitarianism, which is neither Right (limited government) nor Left (social welfare). Left and Right in America aren't opposites of one another, they just happen to use the same resources (like a family does). Social welfare *in moderation* is what makes a great country. They're two players on the same team. If you bring in totalitarianism, that's unlimited government (anti-right), and temporarily, the Left is unrestrained, and everyone thinks it's great to get all this free stuff (because people will always be greedy)... until the totalitarian decides that enough bread and circuses have been given out, and then it's time for Social Inequity, Totalitarian's partner in the league of super-villainy, to enter into the picture and slay the Left (because people will always be greedy). Limited Government died a while back, and Social Inequity is rising. The Left needs to help the Tea Party bring back Limited Government before society has no one that fares well, save nobility.

    6. Re:They're NOT opposed to SOPA by TheLuggage2008 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly this.

      I've used this very tactic at home; I started out telling my wife that our entire AV setup is outdated, the larger living room in our new home necessitated a 70" TV and surround sound to fill the room, as well as my aging computer no longer being able to handle the demands of a home theater PC server...

      What I actually really wanted: The green-light on building a new computer. We negotiated down from the TV, surround sound and new computer to just the new computer. My wife feels that that she managed to put the breaks on a lot of needless spending and I got exactly what I wanted short-term. In truth, I eventually want all three, but I have the patience to wait a while before complaining loudly that I can never hear the TV properly because of the crappy speakers, and the game will be afoot again. I wonder how long after the passage of SOPA or OPEN before they start complaining loudly that they can't fully protect us without expanding their reach to U.S. sites as well...

  2. Meet SOPA author Lamar Smith, Hollywood's favorite by mbone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. And this is good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So these two politicians can do what countless citizens petitioning,calling,and writing cannot... What a tragedy.

  4. Re:And if you don't know offhand what SOPA is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    is it the Stop Online Privacy Act?

  5. Re:All this and we still don't have a budget by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:And if you don't know offhand what SOPA is... by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  7. Re:Meet SOPA author Lamar Smith, Hollywood's favor by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."
  8. Re:And if you don't know offhand what SOPA is... by Genda · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the same way that cyanide is a cure for over-eating... it just has side effects.

  9. Bait and switch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:And if you don't know offhand what SOPA is... by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article fails at describing SOPA and is super vague in most of its descriptions.

    Better description

  11. Re:And if you don't know offhand what SOPA is... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Corporatist by hellfire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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"