Slashdot Mirror
DNS Provision Pulled From SOPA
New submitter crvtec sends this excerpt from CNet:
"Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), one of the biggest backers of the Stop Online Piracy Act, today said he plans to remove the Domain Name System blocking provision. 'After consultation with industry groups across the country,' Smith said in a statement released by his office, 'I feel we should remove (DNS) blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [U.S. House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision.'"
He said he'd postpone it until further research had been done... In other words, pass the bill now and then shove it down our throats later.
We'll slip this back into some other bill later on when you sheeple are not paying attention.
Bad laws never go away forever in america. They just keep comming back until they stick.
The idea is to back-pedal a little bit on this bill so we heave a sigh of relief over the DNS part and don't notice what they left in.
Next time around they do DNS thing plus something far worse. We protest the "worse", they back-pedal a bit on that and DNS blocking gets passed amidst all the sighs of relief.
Rinse, repeat until they get everything they want.
Bottom line: Unless we defeat the WHOLE of this bill and get a few morons kicked out of office then we might as well just hand the keys of the Internet over to the MAFIAA. They'll get them eventually if we don't.
No sig today...
(1) Expect A;
(2) Ask for something else A+B+C, where B and C are even more insane-sounding things and C is pratically unworkable;
(3) Make concessions to get people onside by suggesting that you're prepared to renegotiate on C;
(4) Wait for objections to be made to much of B and a near complete elimination of C;
(5) End up with all of A and a few scraps from B and C.
Notice this pattern in every jurisdiction with every proposed law. Always tackle the principles, which will be in A - you'll probably find that you want to eliminate the bill entirely. (That's at the second reading at the latest, if you're looking at the UK Parliament. Beyond that it's too late unless the increasingly castrated Lords throw up a fuss.)
Honestly, I dont think anyone can breathe any sighs of relief until all the current politicians are either replaced by people who are younger and know what's going on, or are heavily educated in the ways that this shit works,
First it was not for US citizens, then it was to be changed to exclude US citizens, then ..... :) :) Even the 2 page ones like S. 1698 the Enemy Expatriation Act
All you have now is a signing statement about values to protect you from indefinite detention
As for US law enforcement and the inter tubes, recall the 84,000 "a domain" website efforts:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110220/17533013176/ice-finally-admits-it-totally-screwed-up-next-time-perhaps-itll-try-due-process.shtml
Ignore the pre committee PR and follow the bills
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's not enough to change the people. We have to change the system. We need publicly financed elections, some form of preference voting, and a "no confidence" option with actual teeth on every ballot.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Excuse me, sonny boy, but "younger" isn't the problem. Some of us old folk (aka, fifty in my case) know what the hell is going on here: We're all being frelled by morons and ignorati with this bill and other pieces of stupid legisilation.
I don't give a damn about who's on my lawn (literally, kids walk thru my yard all the time) -- I want these damned politicians out of my head, thank you very much.
All about me
That statement assumes that those elected officials currently in office and favor such legislation do so out of ignorance. As has been noted, it's not technological ignorance that motivates the push for SOPA: it's money. We're talking LOTS of money, offered by the entertainment industry lobbyists.
Everyone needs to wake up and realize that we don't live in a representative system of government. We live in a plutocracy, in which government policy is shaped solely by those who have the money and power to buy it. The Citizens United SCOTUS decision was not so much evidence of such bribery as it was a reflection of the brazen impunity with which corporations now feel they may act. Same thing with SOPA and Protect-IP. The government knows EXACTLY what it's doing. Don't think for one second that they're just clueless, doddering old fools who barely understand email. They know full well the consequences of their actions--they just don't care, because they're being paid off. Most Americans in their place would do the exact same thing.
The stuff that is still in the bill is still completely unacceptable. It still gives the MAFIAA the power to shut down the revenue of a company based merely on accusations, and removes any liability for payment processors or advertising programs for refusing to do business with a company based exclusively on a hit list written by the MAFIAA.
Between the MAFIAA shutting down the MegaUpload song and Warner's admission in court that checking whether they actually own some copyright is too much trouble, they cannot be trusted with that kind of authority.
Moreover, we have already given them law after law after law for more than a decade. They keep saying, "We need this to stop copyright infringement, even though it is going to be costly, intrusive, and strain the bounds of civil liberties." And it keeps not working, and they keep abusing what we do grant them, and they keep asking for more.
We have given them more than we have given any other industry except maybe the investment banks, and they are still telling us they need more.
It does not make sense for us to keep going to more and more extreme lengths to protect this business model. Either it works in the Internet age, or they need to come up with some ideas for funding their production that does not rely entirely on heavy-handed interference in the marketplace. Centralized enforcement is a blunt and expensive weapon. If this particular government-granted monopoly is no longer a cost efficient means to channel revenue into science and the useful arts, we need to try some new approaches instead of just plugging holes in the failing levee.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
We have it. It's called "voting."
Gee, I wonder if "preference voting" might be a specific term for something which allows votes to express more nuanced opinions than first-past-the-post plurality votes do and could lead to better outcomes, more viable third parties, and other beneficial features?
Nah, it must just be a synonym for voting.
I did not know this kind of thing growing up. that was the 70's and some of the 80's and there was no mass communication other than the boob tube, for us. it spoke and we watched. at school, the approved textbooks gave us the 'view' on things. we really didn't know any better! the disney view of life they rammed down our throats (cops are trustable good guys, politicians care about us, judges and lawyers are honest. ok, the last one was never ever taught, lol) is mostly what we knew. dissent was not allowed and effectively was filtered.
but NOW, its really different. kids at school can hear the bullshit preaching by the teachers who are paid to carry the company line and not really tell things how they are - then they can come home, login and read the real truth by people, totally unfiltered and make up their own minds! the info is NOW THERE for them. it wasn't for me when I was growing up.
this is a huge difference from now compared to ALL of mankind's past. ALL of it. for the first time in earth history, people can directly exchange ideas even if they are not approved ideas by their current state. that's HUGE. and its hugely scary to those in usual old-style control positions.
my point is that there is hope for the future because the next generation will be at least potentially informed about how the world really runs. they can possibly make it different. if they do not, they have a LOT of blame on their hands. we have half the blame (us older guys) but the new ones can see how bad the architecture is and try to correct it when they get power, when they grow up.
I don't see change in my generation or lifetime. but I would hope for it for the next one.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Notice how the Democrats have the exact same problem?
Actually, that's a perfect example of how it should be done. A copyright owner notifies the infringer of a violation. The infringer says, "Sorry, my bad, I didn't know. I'll address that immediately." The infringing material is removed. Both parties go on their merry way.
Because infringement is very easy to do unintentionally, as Representative Smith found out, I feel there needs to be a safe-harbor course of action. If infringement is removed within (picks a number from thin air) seven days, then the infringement should be presumed to be unintentional and not liable for any damages. Furthermore, there should be a process where an alleged infringer can say to an accuser, "No, you've got it all wrong. I have a right to use this because of [insert reason here]." The matter would be settled either inside or outside of courts, using well-established procedures from Civil Law, but the matter would eventually be settled.
Anyway, that's my fantasy world. It's happy there. I only wish it could actually happen.
This is a boring sig
The problem is that there's really no other choice that preserves democracy. Either you spend taxpayer dollars to ensure that everyone who meets some reasonable set of criteria (e.g. getting n signatures) is funded equally from the public treasury or you have elections in which the politicians are inherently for sale.
This is one of the few issues that is absolutely black and white. Giving money to a politician is a bribe, and those who give the most money will inherently have more influence. There's just no good way to prevent that. Public funding prevents corruption precisely because you are forced to support not just your candidate, but also everyone else, thus ensuring that politicians have no incentive to try to raise more money than their competitor. Without that built-in leveling, you cannot have a truly free election.
The founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned a world in which the cost to run for President would be equal to an average person's salary over eleven thousand years (based on 2011 U.S. median income). They did their best to make sure that we would not end up in a plutocracy, but we managed to end up there anyway. So clearly, those founding fathers you so are so enamored with didn't know everything....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Goes from a civil tort to a federal felony, which is a pretty big fucking deal.