81–90 of 91 posts
It would be easy enough to get around a DNS ban. Especially since they can't stop people from using whatever name server they choose or mapping IPs locally themselves.
The bill in question is COICA – "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" EFF has this to say: The main mechanism of the bill is to interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS), which translates names like "www.eff.org" or "www.nytimes.com" into the IP addresses that computers use to communicate. The bill creates a blacklist of censored domains; the Attorney General can ask a court to place any…
I'm shocked and ashamed that Russ Feingold appears on this list. I thought him to be an upstanding senator until now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More evidence that "net neutrality", like "reform", is a fill-in-the-blank phrase meaning whatever one thinks it means. In this way listeners to a politician speaking automatically fill in the blank with whatever they personally would support. That the actual legislation the politician implements might be anathema to the ostensible supporters is a humorous side-effect.
Well, originally (that is, somewhere before the term Net Neutrality was coined & lobbyists were hired), there was this plan by the big telecoms that they had recently announced. They were going to slow down internet traffic to sites, especially big ones like Google, unless those people gave them money. There was no talk about infrastructure, just a naked money grab, and this was in a speech to others in the telecom i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are the current members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm They don't really have anything else in common other than their committee membership.
Got it. I missed the judiciary tie-in. Then I think a much better headline would be "Senate Judiciary Committee Unanimously Votes In Favor Of Internet Censorship Bill" since the unanimous nature of the vote is the real story here. Very strange that there were no dissenters. Anybody have a line into what sort of testimony the committee heard? Either an extremely persuasive case was made or there is some other part of…
"Campaign Contributions" and access to a resort in the Bahamas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's also the Senator of Hollywood, though, and traditionally the LA-based media industry has had more clout in California politics than the Bay-Area-based tech industry has.
Technically true, but Feinstein is from NorCal (San Francisco) Boxer is from SoCal (near Riverside). In a big state like CA, there's a bit of an unofficial division of loyalties.
AL FUCKING FRANKIN SIGNED THAT??????
As someone else posted in another article, there are plenty of ways around this law that it will have very little impact.
Extra Credit: Why aren't the senators' party affiliations listed?
Because it doesn't matter. Quite often, those parties are two sides of the same coin. If they didn't list party affiliation on ballots, people would instead vote based on what? The names they like most? That's about how informed some voters are, unfortunately. It takes effort to get informed, and the entities that should inform them, often fail to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I emailed my Senators (native Minnesotan). If I get anything other than an automated response I'll be sure to edit and include it. I'm really dismayed that Franken supported this, especially considering his stance on net neutrality. We might need 10 or 20 more Jammie Thomas-Rassets to get enough of a popular response from citizens to really change our Senators minds. Here's hoping...
I worked on the Google Twin Ports initiative in Duluth and am also shocked that Al is on this list. He participated in a the production of a video in support: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2i_piWVXuc Please let me know what you hear back. If we need to raise hell about this issue I'm in and know a number of others in MN that will help...
November 24, 2010
Dear Steve,
Thank you for contacting me about the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
I believe that intellectual property enforcement is extremely important. We must protect American jobs from piracy, which has become rampant on the Internet. We don't tolerate shoplifters in stores, and we should not tolerate them online.
COICA would give the Department of Justice an expedited process for cracking down on websites whose primary purpose is to sell pirated goods. Right now, if a company finds that its products are being pirated or counterfeited online, its only recourse is to sue in civil court, a process that can take years, during which time the offending website continues to do harm. Under COICA, the Justice Department gains jurisdiction over off-shore infringers--something that is extremely difficult under current law--and can use expedited legal procedures to stop the worst of these offenders.
I was initially wary of COICA, but there have been some important improvements that have addressed my concerns. The most controversial provision of this bill, sometimes called the "Internet Blacklist," originally directed the Justice Department to publish a list of offending websites and encouraged Internet service providers (ISPs) and other relevant parties to shut down the listed websites without a judicial process. This provision was clearly wrong, and I was glad to see it removed prior to the bill's consideration. I also worked with Chairman Leahy to narrow the definition of an infringing site to include only sites where copyright infringement is "the central purpose" of the site, not sites which may be engaged in copyright infringement incidentally but are also devoted to other purposes.
This bill has also been amended to protect net neutrality. In the initial version of the bill, ISPs were given legal immunity to voluntarily enforce the bill's provisions and block access to websites. This provision has been removed. As it currently stands, this bill won't allow a fast lane and a slow lane of Internet traffic. It will not affect net neutrality, which has always been about protecting users' access to legal content.
It is unlikely that this bill will come to the floor of the Senate before the end of the year. This means that it must pass through the legislative process again in the next Congress. I look forward to working with Chairman Leahy to further improve the bill next year.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to contact me again on this or any other issue that may be important to you.
Sincerely,
Al Franken
United States Senator