RRD: Note posting does not imply complete agreement with source. Apparently All That Stuff About Needing SOPA To Go After Foreign Sites Was Bogus | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/17190821152/apparently-all-that-stuff-about-needing-sopa-to-go-after-foreign-sites-was-bogus.shtml ….. ”First off, if you remember, one of the key reasons why we were told SOPA was needed was that for all of ICE’s previous domain takedowns it was “impossible” for it to take down foreign domains. Except… as ICE’s own announcement here shows that was completely untrue. It seems to have had no difficulty finding willing law enforcement partners around the globe to seize websites without any due process: …recognizing the global nature of Internet crime, this year the IPR Center partnered with Europol, who, through its member countries, executed coordinated seizures of foreign -based top -level domains such as .eu, .be, .dk, .fr, .ro and .uk. This effort is titled Project Transatlantic and resulted in 31 domain name seizures. “This operation is a great example of the tremendous cooperation between ICE and our international partners at the IPR Center,” said ICE Director John Morton. “Our partnerships enable us to go after criminals who are duping unsuspecting shoppers all over the world.”….
Tag Archives: SOPA
Odd,ICE manages to take down infringing content on foreign servers despite its “needing” #SOPA to do so.
RRD:One would think that given the public backlash and outcry SOPA’s supporters would address the very real & legitimate concerns of Engineers,Lawyers,Entrepreneurs etal & return with a more rational anti-piracy bill.
Of course not.
Instead RIAA CEO Sherman denounces the “biased” Facebook and Wikipedia for daring to use their websites,which they built,to protest against legislation that they believe violates individual rights & harm the internet.
He contrasts them with the supposedly unbiased Mainstream Media.
Everyone who opposes SOPA,whether SANDIA Labs,Cerf,Vixie & other engineers,Facebook, Google,Legal Scholars,etc,we are all either Pirates,supporters of Piracy,or dupes of supporters of Piracy.
No evidence is offered for this idiotic claim,it is pure Ad Hominem.
No detailed rebuttal of the arguments against SOPA is offered.
Just a unbelievably obnoxious ”I hope you’ve learned your lesson”,now pass SOPA.
The man is delusional.
It is as if he believes that begging the question,and using the stock “To oppose SOPA is to support piracy line”,as if no alternative to SOPA(such as OPEN) has ever been proposed or could be proposed,would make opposition melt away.
Internet Evolution – Editor’s Blog – RIAA CEO Hopes SOPA Protests Were a ‘One-Time Thing’
…..”The developments were a setback for former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who has made fighting online piracy his No. 1 priority since becoming head of the Motion Picture Assn. of America last March. The Connecticut Democrat was selected in part for his political savvy and 30-year experience in Congress.
Dodd said Friday that the industry would now seek a compromise version of the legislation. He acknowledged that Hollywood lost the public relations battle and blamed his Silicon Valley counterparts.
“You’ve got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there’s no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want,” he said. “We need to engage in a far better education process. People need to know … that 98% of people who work in the entertainment industry make $55,000 a year. They’re not moguls and they’re not walking red carpets.”…..
RRD:This is not the first time that statists have complained about the alleged lack of a “fact checker” on the internet,by which they presumably mean a “independent” fact checker,who works for the government,and polices the web for “lies” directed against government officials and laws.(fn1)Nor do I suspect it will be the last.Of course there is a “fact checker” built into the law:The First Amendment.Countless groups and individuals can and do fact check stories at Politifact,Factcheck,Snopes etc,(and some in turn fact check those sites’ “facts”)It was bloggers who used their ”unfactchecked” blogs,to check the facts of Dan Rather.
”Oh,Robert you’re being unfair,he wasn’t advocating censorship….”.Which universe are we living in?
The one where we should afford the benefit of the doubt to lying statist politicians(see below)?
If he wanted to criticize Facebook,Wikipedia,Google and WordPress why not just say”They’re wrong,here’s why”,why use this phrase: “You’ve got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there’s no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want,” without a fact-checker?What kind of “fact-checker”?From where?Who is the MPAA’s “fact checker”?
Who is Dodd’s?
And why is it outlandish for Facebook,Wikipedia,and Google to object to laws that they think will harm their businesses?
Don’t they have a right to speak on their own website?
Or to shut it down if they wished?
Again why this phrase:” “You’ve got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there’s no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want,”.
Dodd is the representative of a multi-billion industry,which has vast resources at its disposal to argue for their case night and day,and to lobby congress,and they do just that.I have not argued that the problem,or a problem,is that Dodd “can say whatever he wants”,I’ve said that he’s wrong.
The solution to(allegedly) false speech is more speech,not to bewail the fact that “people can say whatever they want”,which is a vital right,and which is one of the key features of a free society that distinguishes it from a dictatorship.(And it cuts both ways,Dodd etal have the same right to say “whatever they want” though since Dodd and his collegues speak TRUTH and the rest of us who oppose him speak LIES,I suspect that he would argue that there is no comparison).
Chris Dodd is a former Senator,& advocate of Cap & Trade.
Chris Dodd: Dodd Touts Energy Plan At Biodiesel Plant, Kitchen Tables In Southeast Iowa | All American Patriots: Politics, economy, health, environment, energy and technology
And a man who ruled out lobbying after he ended his Senate career:
Chris Dodd on life after the U.S. Senate – Capitol Watch
Dodd said he will not lobby, but, like Hagel and Nunn, he may teach
Dodd forswears a lobbying career | The Connecticut Mirror
….”No lobbying, no lobbying,” Dodd said in a recent interview. That Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington’s “revolving door,” using his policy and political expertise–and a thick Rolodex–to launch a new career in the influence industry, may come as a surprise”…
Dodd to be Hollywood’s top man in Washington – The Hill’s Hillicon Valley
….“Sen. Dodd is a battle-tested leader whose reputation as a strong leader on major issues facing this country has prepared him to serve as the ambassador for the movie business. I, along with my colleagues, agree that he was worth the wait,” said Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman Jim Gianopulos in a statement, joining his fellow studio bosses in cheering Dodd’s hiring.”…
RRD:But Robert why do you cite this?Are you saying that because a statist is one of those leading the charge for SOPA that that invalidates arguments for it?
Not at all.
Ron Wyden is one of SOPA’s leading opponents and a longtime supporter of Socialized Medicine,it does not logically follow that all opponents of SOPA are either advocates of Socialized Medicine,or dupes of Wyden,any more than SOPA supporters are dupes of Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy
(e.g. now ex-SOPA/PIPA supporter Marsha Blackburn).
It is certainly true that some SOPA supporters are irrational,as are some SOPA opponents.That does not address the specific criticisms of the bill:that it is vague,violates due process,breaks or damages the internet by damaging the DNS system(which is a highly technical matter requiring technical expertise to evaluate,forcing layman to evaluate the arguments & credibility of various experts in the field.),Other arguments have been presented on those matters but saying,in effect,that:”Since some of SOPA’s critics were irrational on some past issues,their arguments about SOPA breaking the net must be wrong”,is not a valid argument.There are many cases of otherwise rational people who make irrational arguments on some issues,and other cases where otherwise irrational people make rational arguments on some issues.
And there are cases where a rational person and a irrational person make the same argument, though for different motives.
(And this does not even take into account the cases of people,with flawless past records for rationality,simply making mistakes).
It is for precisely this reason that I look at the argument rather than the man.It is true,as I noted,that there are highly technical issues in which one is forced,to a degree,to trust in expert witnesses.But even in those cases,the matter is complicated by the fact that experts do not always agree,and also by cases where a good person,with a good philosophy,gets it wrong,and a person with a bad philosophy,happens to be simply better versed in a particular technical issue(science,medicine,engineering etc),and is right.
(And what does one do when the person with the most expertise in a field,has a bad philosophy?)
This is precisely why any law that affects the technology underlying the internet,or that may harm it,( in the opinion of some experts in the field),must be subject to the most intense scrutiny.
We have far too much evidence of the government smashing peoples lives to pieces and then saying “oops”,(and in some cases not even that).The cases range all through all branches of government,from false imprisonment and accusations and wrongful executions,to banning life saving medications,to using “reason”,and “science” to ban DDT at the cost of countless lives,to taking down a internet site under existing laws,and then,returning it a year later.(fn2),to accept the argument that ”abuses happen”.
It is precisely for that reason,that abuses can occur under any legal doctrine no matter how well crafted,that the law must be very carefully vetted,against anything that needlessly violates individual rights.(Or that can be misinterpreted).
Lord knows we have far too many cases of the courts,or the executive,or Congress,ignoring the plain meaning of existing laws without making the Statist’s job easier for them.
(As I have noted before,posting a link does NOT imply agreement with everything said)
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone” #sopa #stopsopa
RRD:Recently a individual essentially told us to dismiss most criticism of SOPA.He asked us to look at their motives,& their past statements.I don’t think that past hyperbolic statements by individuals,pro or con regarding IP laws invalidate future arguments.After all,circumstances may change.
But since this person does I wonder why the past statements of Laurence Lessig etc,which did not pan out,invalidate oppostion to SOPA,but this beaut,from Valenti, doesn’t invalidate the pro-SOPA arguments?
”I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone”
Vint Cerf one of the ”fathers of the internet” explains why he believes that #SOPA will damage the internet infrastructure #stopsopa #tcot #tlot #p2 #teaparty
Vint Cerf: SOPA means ‘unprecedented censorship’ of the Web | Privacy Inc. – CNET
“By way of background, I am a Vice President and the Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. I also serve as a Fellow of the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and I am a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
I have held positions at MCI, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Stanford University, UCLA and IBM. Until 2007 I served as chairman of the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and I was the founding president of the Internet Society.
As one of the “fathers of the Internet” and as a computer scientist I care deeply about issues relating to the Internet’s infrastructure. In that spirit I wish to join the Internet and cybersecurity experts who have already expressed concern about the original version of SOPA’s DNS provisions. Former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker, Sandia National Laboratories, small businesses such as OpenDNS, inter-industry groups such as the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG), five leading DNS engineers (Steve Crocker, David Dagon, Dan Kaminsky, Danny McPherson, and Paul Vixie), and dozens of individual security experts have detailed these concerns in previous letters.
Unfortunately, the amendments to SOPA do not resolve the fundamental flaws in this legislation; the bill will still undermine cybersecurity including the robust implementation of DNS Security Extensions, known more commonly as DNSSEC.
Section 102(e)(2)(i) continues to require service providers to block access to sites. While that provision no longer mandates DNS blocking in order to accomplish that goal, it still permits falsifying IP addresses in response to domain name resolution requests. Any response that provides a false IP address triggers potential damage to the intent of DNSSEC.
If these changes were meant to dispel the concerns of the security community, then they fall far short of the mark. The Section 102(e)(2)(ii) “safe harbor” effectively singles out the manipulation of DNS as the preferred mechanism for blocking access to sites. A key presumption in the Internet design and architecture is the global consistency of DNS lookup responses.
I continue to have concerns regarding the efficacy and wisdom of this legislation. First, attempts to manipulate DNS will reduce the utility of DNS as our chief mechanism for locating sites, and encourage abusers to adopt alternative mechanisms, such as IP address lists. Second, clients of the infringing content can readily change their DNS settings to utilize offshore DNS resolvers. Third, sites dedicated to infringement have many options for evading these measures, such as registering multiple domain names with offshore registries in order to stay ahead of court orders. Fourth, falsifying responses to domain name resolution requests will compromise the “downgrade resistance” of next-generation improvements to DNSSEC, because systems that do not receive a signed answer from a resolver will fall back to accepting unsigned responses to resolve a domain name.
Thus, even with the proposed manager’s amendment, SOPA’s site-blocking provisions remain problematic. They would undermine the architecture of the Internet and obstruct the 15 year effort by the public and private sectors to improve cybersecurity through implementation of DNSSEC, a critical set of extensions designed to address security vulnerabilities in the DNS.
This collateral damage of SOPA would be particularly regrettable because site blocking or redirection mechanisms are unlikely to make a significant dent in the availability of infringing material and counterfeits online, given that DNS manipulation can be defeated by simply choosing an offshore DNS resolution provider, maintaining one’s own local DNS cache or using direct IP address references.
The search engine remedy also suffers from the fact that it will not be effective in preventing users’ access to illegal, offshore websites. A congressional “tech mandate” on search engines to delete a domain name from search results does not result in the website disappearing. Users can and do today find their way to these websites largely without the help of search engines. Relative to the questionable efficacy of this proposed remedy, requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented “censorship” of the Web.
Rather than continuing to promote ineffective and harmful “technical” solutions as those found in the managers’ amendment to SOPA, I urge Congress to pursue a more tailored, effective approach, such as the “follow-the-money” tactic. Such an approach would cut off funding mechanisms to rogue foreign sites by withholding their ability to generate advertising revenue and their ability to have payments processed.”
….”Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued the following statement in response to
Chairman Leahy’s announcement that the DNS provision of the Protect IP Act may be modified:
“It is welcome news that proponents of PIPA are finally
accepting that it contains major flaws. Unfortunately, this
announcement to study the DNS provision does not eliminate the clearly identified threat to net security contained within this bill. Beyond the DNS provisions, the
bill still establishes a censorship regime that threatens
speech, innovation, and the future of the American economy. I remain firm in my intent to block consideration of the PIPA bill until these issues are addressed and I am
committed to doing all I can to ensure that whatever legislative course is taken, that it is fully transparent, fully understood and fully considered by all those who value the Internet. ”…
RRD:There is a bill in Congress that threatens the functioning of the internet,and,potentially,your free speech rights. It is a bill that has been drafted and redrafted in different versions with different names:COICA,(the Combating Online Infringements & Counterfeits act),PIPA(the Protect Intellectual Property Act) aka the Protect IP Act,The E-Parasite Act,& SOPA(the Stop Online Piracy Act). Under whatever name all the variants share two things in common: 1.They are intended to stop online piracy of intellectual property. 2.They go to far and give the government broad powers to take down legitimate,non-infringing content.And those powers could be abused to suppress free,speech. The history of the legislation is convoluted.Rather than rehashing it, in detail I will give you a brief overview & then point you to the links which support my assertions. 1.The bill permits content and blogs to be taken down without adequate legal safeguards to protect the innocent.(See “legal problems with the bill” below) 2.The bill will have the unintended side effect of “breaking” the internet by its requirement to block certain DNS addresses(the technical details are spelled out in the letter of the internet engineers linked to below). RRD:The technical problems with the law. An Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the Senate Judiciary Committee | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; Shouldn’t You? | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100927/10290611182/tim-berners-lee-comes-out-against-coica-censorship-bill-shouldn-t-you.shtml RRD:Argues that Protect IP could outlaw TOR (The Onion Router),a service used by political dissidents to protect themselves from their dictatorships. PROTECT-IP Act Becomes E-PARASITE (And Gets Much Worse) – HotHardware http://hothardware.com/m/News/PROTECTIP-Act-Becomes-EPARASITE-And-Gets-Much-Worse/Default.aspx RRD:The legal problems with the law: The Volokh Conspiracy » Once Again, the Copyright/Trademark Tail Tries to Wag the Internet Dog http://volokh.com/2010/11/13/once-again-the-copyrighttrademark-tail-tries-to-wag-the-internet-dog/ The PDF of Law Professors arguing COICA(the original bill)was unconstitutional,referred to above.Though the name has changed,the bill presents the same problems. http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/LawProfCOICA.pdf OTHER LINKS: Sequel To COICA Bill, The PROTECT IP Act, May Be Even Worse – TechCrunch http://m.techcrunch.com/2011/05/10/sequel-to-coica-bill-the-protect-ip-act-is-even-worse/ Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/13285714230/son-coica-protect-ip-act-will-allow-broad-censorship-powers-including-copyright-holders.shtml Disastrous IP Legislation Is Back – And It’s Worse than Ever | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever What Congress Can Learn from the Recent ICE Seizures | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-congress-can-learn-recent-ice-seizures New Letter From Artists & Content Creators Against PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE Act | PHP Hosts http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/10/new-letter-from-artists-content-creators-against-protect-ipe-parasite-act/ Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn’t Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors | Techdirt http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/11305113129/ron-wyden-speaks-out-against-coica-we-shouldnt-toss-out-first-amendment-just-to-go-after-few-bad-actors.shtml