I am not. - Rocket River http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html Stop the Internet Blacklist By David Segal and Aaron Swartz When it really matters to them, Congressmembers can come together -- with a panache and wry wit you didn't know they had. As banned books week gets underway, and President Obama admonishes oppressive regimes for their censorship of the Internet, a group of powerful Senators -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet. Help us stop this bill in its tracks! Click here to sign our petition. COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list. The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked. One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court. But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored. Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.) COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship. Please help us fight back: The first step is signing our petition. We'll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your Senator.
I'm guessing the bill is thoroughly written enough to distinguish between the YouTubes, Redtubes, Rapidshares and Mediafires of the world. If not, those companies' respective lobbying budgets would probably do the trick. The only real concern I have is abusing this law to go after sites like Wikileaks or Smoking Gun.
I'm torn between the positive and negative aspects of this bill. Can the law be written to rid the internet of kiddie p*rn / bomb-making / etc. while protecting free speech / political speech / etc.? That is the question
Highly unlikely. Seems like the united states is becoming Saudi Arabia before Saudi Arabia becomes the united states. Ultra conservatives are rejoicing under the banner 'i told you the infidels will eventually find out we are right'. Great stuff.
It could. I think they could get censorship of a few targeted offenses for a while and I think it would work as outlined initially. But itd be the typical gateway effect. Inevitably government will take the next step past a law's intended purpose, extending its parameters interpreting EVERYTHING as a threat to civility. It doesnt make sense to me either how people can distinguish certain threats and certain threats ONLY, but government can't. People are able to filter out the the bad apples from the bunch, but government and law enforcement will politicize everything and totally miss the mark. Or they'll go where the big money tells them to go serving the needs of a few over the liberty of everyone.
I'm quite sure that with the "War on Terror", it's easy for the government to interpret just about everything as threats to national security and shut down whatever the hell they want. Even if the language is strict, they can always make exceptions during war times. I don't think it's possible for the people to check it. How do you argue against the "Muslims will kill you if we don't take drastic steps" argument?
Even in that . . . once they start putting blocks in place How will we even know it? they would probably either redirect or have the page say it shut down or something. Rocket River
Well, there are always ways around it. The question is whether it would matter. For example, there are tons of holes within the Chinese censorship/firewall. But 99+% of the people don't care or don't know how to get around it. So even if a few can see the problem, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. In time, the masses will likely just go along with it as the norm.
I'm in favor of not being the moron who believes you can restrict the internet. Let's take an extreme example of censorship and see how it works. Do you think that people in Iran can not get p*rn, learn how to make drugs, learn how to make a bomb or hmmm.. lemme see... initiate an almost-succesful CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT just by using twitter and facebook? I am partially on board with internet monitoring. I havent got a clue who still believes internet censorship can have any success. Facebook was banned in Saudi Arabia last week. It will take the entire nation one week to find a way around it. The problem is not the websites and the videos. The problem is the people. You have to reach WHO THEY ARE rather than just put a blindfold on them. A blindfolded terrorist is still a terrorist, and they will enact the terror as soon as the blindfold is off. It seems the government has started making decisions for people, with complete disinterest in allowing people to educate each other or the government educating them. Censorship is the cheaper and easier answer. It's less hassle. Like belting your kid instead of telling him what he did was wrong. It will work, at least for now. It's easier. It's less tiresome. I get it. You want to be a belter or beltee, go ahead. My preference is to solve the problem, rather than e-blindolding it. I'm sorry that you think there are only two possibilities (allowing/censoring kiddie p*rn and bombs). I can't agree with that.
I am against censorship. It seems obvious to me that they would rather go after copyright infringers than after child p*rn distributors because there is lobbying money involved in one and not the other. Mathloom, I agree with you for the most part, but I find it interesting, as you work at a regulator in Dubai, and you are certainly aware that Dubai is one of the countries in the world where A LOT of websites are censored/blocked.
Perhaps I don't regulate that specific part? lol Censorship in Dubai is through the ISP, not the government, and they are currently discussing removal of all censorship other than illegal stuff (piracy). Also, I'm confused at why you feel I have to agree with everything Dubai does? Do you agree with everything Germany does?
But the government requires the ISP, no? I remember the messages I got when something was blocked and it certainly sounded like it was a governmental thing. I don't feel you have to agree with everything Dubai does, where did you get that from? I said I find it interesting that your opinion differs from what seems to be the official government stance on things. I agree with you. And no, I don't agree with everything Germany does, for instance I believe there are similar efforts on the way as those discussed in this thread, and I do not agree with those either.
Judging from the name of the bill, it won't do anything to fight kiddie p*rn or bomb-making, unless said kiddie p*rn has been copywritten or the bomb-making method has been patented. I do think the laws need to change because the threat the internet poses to the copywrite regime. And it is a big and difficult change. But, censorship isn't going to be the solution.
The internet can be restricted, but free speech could be eliminated at the same time. That is the problem. It's moronic of you for criticizing restriction and praising censorship when they are one and the same. The trick is where and how to draw the regulatory lines. Unfortunately, I have no answer for that. It doesn't sound like you do either.
Like you, I have grave doubts about whether lawmakers can regulate the internet without harming it. I would like to see and hear proposed solutions to prosecute websites that promote kiddie p*rn and other criminal activities. However, the problem always boils down to "one person's bomb building crime is another person's home booby trap defensive system," i.e. definitions of and/or restrictions of free speech.
There are already enough agencies in existence who are constantly investigating this sort of thing. We don't need ANY NEW LAWS to regulate the internet.
When did I praise censorship exactly? The answer is: if no one has ever been able to empirically show that it helps, then don't do it.
