Active Users:1101 Time:22/11/2024 01:16:03 PM
And yet you're still arguing the matter. Aemon Send a noteboard - 18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM
Thing is, the administration has effectively suspended action on both bills pending already solicited public feedback and suggested improvements. Reacting to that with blackouts and protests that "we MUST stop this fascist law threatening the very existence of all ehumanity111" seems like the typical over the top hysteria that breaks out every time the US government considers clamping down on peoples "freedom" to do any irresponsible or larcenous thing they like on the internet that government created. It might be a great way for people to vent their spleens, but will not change anything, because it does not provide any of the superior alternatives the administration has requested.


You really shouldn't trivialize this. Even if I can't convince you of the detriment these bills would cause, you can't pretend this is just the geeks flipping out over nothing. There are a lot of MAJOR companies actively lobbying for both sides. Hundreds of websites are going to black out tomorrow, including some huge names. Heck, even Google has thrown their weight in and announced that they're going to protest the bill on their homepage. To my knowledge this sort of thing has never happened before.

Also, this is nowhere near over, as you seem to be saying. SOPA, which was tabled for a bit, has just been revived. PIPA goes to the floor for a vote in 7 days. Oh, and about the blackouts? Most of them were formulated/planned before the white house's announcement. Guess what, though? Google, Scribd, Wordpress and a lot of other big sites joined the protest AFTER the Obama administration had already come out against the bills. Clearly, there are some major powers out there that don't think this is anywhere near "over."

Meanwhile, the government WILL enact SOME kind of legislation to restrict activity it deems undesirable; there are ample and powerful strategic reasons to do so wholly apart from any commercial ones. That "next generation security protocol that we badly need"? I am QUITE sure Congress, the President and the DoD agree with you on that need; instead of inciting mass epanic over their attempts to implement SOMETHING in that direction, why not include that in a response to their reasonable request that people tell them "not what is wrong, but what would be RIGHT"? Because as long as the definition of "right" is "nothing at all" they will dismiss that ludicrously untenable "suggestion."


That's just the thing; there's already a LOT of legislation out there! The entertainment industry has enormous censorship powers online. How many times have you gone to watch a video, only to see "this video has been removed due to copyright violations?" Such things don't require anything more than a request! Heck, arstechnica, a major tech blog with over 10 million unique viewers per month, lost their official Facebook page for several days due to an anonymous copyright complaint that didn't specify the infringing content. How about that? There is more than enough legislation in place.

Let's move on, though, and talk about your comment regarding the White House's request for "what would be right?" There is, of course, nothing wrong with them asking that question. It doesn't make sense, though, to pass a bad bill just because there's no other solution on the table. The current situation, flawed though it may be, is preferable to the SOPA/PIPA bills. The overwhelming opinion among those not connected to the entertainment/content industry is that this bill will cost the economy far more than it saves. It doesn't make sense to pass something if the "solution" does more harm than good!

The US government will not preserve, not just commercial vulnerabilities to piracy, but national vulnerabilities to military espionage, surveillance and sabotage, simply because the netizens of the world feel threatened by attempts to eliminate those vulnerabilities. Nor should it. There WILL be a new regulatory law; the only question is whether the people most affected by it choose to be involved with its design and thereby produce a largely positive law that accomplishes necessary reform and regulation without unduly censoring anyone or restricting their access to data that should be freely available. If, however, this is just another case of people asserting their "right" to download the location of US missile silos, and their computer access codes, then the government will ignore them, as it should.


Wait, what? "National vulnerabilities to espionage?" Neither SOPA nor PIPA have any meaningful impact on "national security."

Just out of idle curiosity, do we have an estimate of how many of the sites and servers that might be shut down under this law are actually owned and operated by the US government? I know the internets infrastructure has experienced a lot of private growth in the past decade or two, but have we reached the point where the internet could just keep on truckin' if the US government took all its systems offline tomorrow? If the answer is "no" is it all that unreasonable for them to perform at least a LITTLE regulation of that infrastructure, certainly their share of it? Just enough that the hundreds of daily cyberattacks from China do not shut down our radar defenses or download schematics of an Abrams MBT?


There would be zero impact if the US government took its systems offline, except for the websites they directly operate (.gov and .mil sites, primarily). The government does not own or operate any of the internet's important infrastructure. It does maintain final approval over the root DNS zone, but that's only a regulatory thing that it won't let go of, not a service provided to help the internet stay afloat.
Reply to message
English Wikipedia Anti-SOPA Blackout - 17/01/2012 08:31:46 AM 2101 Views
Yeah, man, because currently copyright holders have no recourse, am I right? - 17/01/2012 11:47:35 AM 935 Views
"altering the infrastructure of the Internet so as to render RAFO virtually inaccessible"? - 17/01/2012 08:12:27 PM 1038 Views
I'll go ahead and ask before I get my panties in a bunch: do you understand these bills? - 17/01/2012 09:09:22 PM 1130 Views
I admit I have not looked into it much - 17/01/2012 11:42:30 PM 985 Views
And yet you're still arguing the matter. - 18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM 1090 Views
I love you. *NM* - 18/01/2012 03:41:03 AM 631 Views
heh, thanks. I usually find myself pushing minority opinions. Nice to be "appreciated" for once. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:01:10 AM 618 Views
Can i second the adulation? - 18/01/2012 04:07:17 AM 821 Views
I too (three?) appreciate the common sense and reasonable explanations. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:12:59 AM 616 Views
Thanks guys. - 18/01/2012 04:39:00 AM 982 Views
Right, because the argument is not just over THIS bill but, apparently, over ANY bill. - 18/01/2012 11:09:13 AM 987 Views
Alternatives to SOPA/PIPA have been proposed for months now. Please stop arguing this. - 18/01/2012 05:42:10 PM 940 Views
That is really all I ask. - 18/01/2012 06:26:37 PM 975 Views
"sensitive federal content"? Provide a source justifying this claim and it's relevance, please. - 18/01/2012 05:59:47 PM 1004 Views
I would not have thought a source necessary. - 18/01/2012 06:24:44 PM 1000 Views
Okay, I'm with Aemon now. - 18/01/2012 07:36:21 PM 1013 Views
OK. - 18/01/2012 10:16:16 PM 1036 Views
Surreal. It's like you're a spam-bot or something. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:23:35 AM 749 Views
That was constructive. - 19/01/2012 03:29:53 PM 912 Views
Very nicely summarised. *NM* - 18/01/2012 02:06:02 AM 552 Views
should be interesting - 17/01/2012 12:41:47 PM 859 Views
Could be; depends on a lot of factors. - 17/01/2012 07:38:55 PM 927 Views
See, that's one of the biggest problems that people aren't understanding. - 17/01/2012 09:31:38 PM 945 Views
So tell them that. - 17/01/2012 11:54:19 PM 1089 Views
Could've done without the snide rejoinder, but, good. - 17/01/2012 02:20:08 PM 864 Views
I love the black banner, like some kind of internet Holocaust. - 17/01/2012 08:03:27 PM 1003 Views
Are you aware that SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with hackers and everything to do with copyright? - 18/01/2012 02:08:56 AM 845 Views
There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 01:08:22 PM 968 Views
Re: There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 08:13:15 PM 839 Views
Er, what Ghav said. - 18/01/2012 02:30:37 AM 869 Views
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments. - 18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM 911 Views
Okay, another analogy: - 18/01/2012 02:04:12 PM 896 Views
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP - 18/01/2012 08:32:44 AM 875 Views
"As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I'm a sysadmin." - 18/01/2012 12:47:16 PM 1134 Views
wow, you are totally correct! - 18/01/2012 03:45:54 PM 903 Views
That is a separate issue. - 18/01/2012 04:01:24 PM 904 Views
Thank you for posting that. - 18/01/2012 03:09:07 PM 922 Views
Wikipedia has already convinced me - 18/01/2012 03:26:01 PM 755 Views
Trying to stop this legislation without proposing an alternative is trying to stop ANY legislation. - 18/01/2012 03:44:18 PM 980 Views
It isn't their job to propose legislation - 18/01/2012 04:12:53 PM 900 Views
No, but they have as much RIGHT to do so as anyone else. - 18/01/2012 05:31:55 PM 878 Views
Strike three. - 18/01/2012 05:37:55 PM 937 Views
That is fine; that is what people SHOULD be doing. - 18/01/2012 06:03:59 PM 753 Views
Things being better now than they would be under SOPA seems like a legitimate argument to me - 18/01/2012 09:04:18 PM 1016 Views
Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 18/01/2012 10:46:48 PM 859 Views
Re: Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 19/01/2012 12:15:48 AM 932 Views
That is a poor approach to drafting legislation, at best. - 19/01/2012 04:37:22 PM 972 Views
About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM 1014 Views
So true - 18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM 953 Views
Not to go off on a tangent about combatting piracy... - 18/01/2012 05:38:12 PM 853 Views
Entirely agree *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:13:13 PM 606 Views
That was an excellent post. *NM* - 19/01/2012 11:18:19 PM 584 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM 1091 Views
For those who want a short, one page explanation... - 18/01/2012 05:41:49 PM 883 Views
Yeah, so I use Russian wikipedia for a day. Or German wikipedia, or French, or Italian... *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:23:36 PM 669 Views
We get it: You are a polyglot. - 18/01/2012 06:27:48 PM 873 Views
Or just hit stop right before the script runs. *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:52:40 PM 653 Views
Or just disable Java. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:58:03 AM 515 Views
That's not as much fun though. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:13:44 AM 643 Views
Exactly, this way its kind of a game. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:20:37 AM 457 Views
Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... - 19/01/2012 01:07:38 AM 1002 Views
They all did it on twitter - 19/01/2012 01:26:19 AM 937 Views
I was asleep much of the day - 19/01/2012 02:40:11 AM 994 Views
Oh, no; now Congress will be inundated with complaints from lazy college students! - 19/01/2012 04:40:12 PM 1024 Views
13 previously unopposed senators now do not support SOPA. - 19/01/2012 11:36:15 PM 986 Views
How does that "rebutt" what was a facetious post in the first place? - 20/01/2012 09:24:27 PM 1086 Views
a joke can, indeed, be rebutted... - 21/01/2012 09:07:32 PM 973 Views
Oh, draggie, I ALWAYS see what you do there. - 21/01/2012 10:01:58 PM 930 Views

Reply to Message