Edit: Obama is against both bills (right until he gets re elected, I imagine).
Anonymous take down Department of Justice, RIAA, MPAA, Universal Music (http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-...f-justice-riaa-mpaa-universal-music-19210145/)
Sign the Google petition to stop government censorship of the internet!
No personal info is required!
LINK----->https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
This has been around for sometime and even posted about on here before, but as we're so close to major changes in how the internet is used and operated for citizens of the US, I wanted to bring this back. For those who don't know the government has two bills, one that will be voted on this month, and another being discussed this month and closing in on a date for voting, that will introduce invasive "security" measures from the government, limit the ability to create and maintain material online, and bring about a completely new way of how the internet works from both a technical and user perspective; with this also serving as a foot-hold for further regulation and a gateway for government controlled internet censorship. The first bill is being voted for on the 24th of this month, while the second is supposed to "continue debate in January 2012".
The first bill is the "PROTECT IP Act" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act):
"the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S."
The second being the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act):
"The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods."
This is a huge deal because, currently, the internet is fair game for all and everyone has the freedom to post what they want, where they want; with copyright laws and personal moderation still intact. I shouldn't really have to explain that this is something that can easily snow-ball out of control as the internet becomes the focus point of our government, where they will begin to regulate and control the internet; these two bills being on the level of the Patriot Act. A major concern for those in opposition to the bill is the future ability for free-flowing information on the internet, and how this can impede it.
Many internet organizations, like Wikimedia, Firefox, etc have openly protested the two bills. Personally, I see the big problem being that the people voting for it are so many generations behind that none of them fully understand what it is they're voting for, or what it will affect.
I HIGHLY recommend reading both Wiki links over the two articles (though you won't be able to tomorrow, as Wikimedia is blacking out the English Wikipedia globally for 24 hours in protest of the two bills).
As convoluted as this is, here's a bit of spice for you:
You like Google? They oppose it.
You like Ford? They support it.
Some important considerations mentioned:
For the Stop Online Piracy Act:
For the PROTECT IP Act:
I can't stress enough how important this really is, regardless of what your stance on it is, as it really is the start of drastically changing the internet.
Anonymous take down Department of Justice, RIAA, MPAA, Universal Music (http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-...f-justice-riaa-mpaa-universal-music-19210145/)
Sign the Google petition to stop government censorship of the internet!
No personal info is required!
LINK----->https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
This has been around for sometime and even posted about on here before, but as we're so close to major changes in how the internet is used and operated for citizens of the US, I wanted to bring this back. For those who don't know the government has two bills, one that will be voted on this month, and another being discussed this month and closing in on a date for voting, that will introduce invasive "security" measures from the government, limit the ability to create and maintain material online, and bring about a completely new way of how the internet works from both a technical and user perspective; with this also serving as a foot-hold for further regulation and a gateway for government controlled internet censorship. The first bill is being voted for on the 24th of this month, while the second is supposed to "continue debate in January 2012".
The first bill is the "PROTECT IP Act" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act):
"the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the U.S."
The second being the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act):
"The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods."
This is a huge deal because, currently, the internet is fair game for all and everyone has the freedom to post what they want, where they want; with copyright laws and personal moderation still intact. I shouldn't really have to explain that this is something that can easily snow-ball out of control as the internet becomes the focus point of our government, where they will begin to regulate and control the internet; these two bills being on the level of the Patriot Act. A major concern for those in opposition to the bill is the future ability for free-flowing information on the internet, and how this can impede it.
Many internet organizations, like Wikimedia, Firefox, etc have openly protested the two bills. Personally, I see the big problem being that the people voting for it are so many generations behind that none of them fully understand what it is they're voting for, or what it will affect.
I HIGHLY recommend reading both Wiki links over the two articles (though you won't be able to tomorrow, as Wikimedia is blacking out the English Wikipedia globally for 24 hours in protest of the two bills).
As convoluted as this is, here's a bit of spice for you:
You like Google? They oppose it.
You like Ford? They support it.
Some important considerations mentioned:
For the Stop Online Piracy Act:
Web-browsing software
The Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed concern that free and open source software (FLOSS) projects found to be aiding online piracy could experience serious problems under SOPA.[57] Of special concern was the web browser Firefox,[25] which has an optional extension, MAFIAAFire Redirector, that redirects users to a new location for domains that were seized by the U.S. government.[58] In May 2011, Mozilla refused a request by the Department of Homeland Security to remove MAFIAAFire from its website, questioning whether the software had ever been declared illegal.
Deep-packet inspection and privacy
According to Markham Erickson, head of NetCoalition, which opposes SOPA, the section of the bill that would allow judges to order internet service providers to block access to infringing websites to customers located in the United States would also allow the checking of those customers' IP address, a method known as IP blocking. Erickson has expressed concerns that such an order might require those providers to engage in "deep packet inspection", which involves analyzing all of the content being transmitted to and from the user, raising new privacy concerns.[63][64]
Policy analysts for New America Foundation say this legislation would "instigate a data obfuscation arms race" whereby by increasingly invasive practices would be required to monitor users' web traffic resulting in a "counterproductive cat-and-mouse game of censorship and circumvention would drive savvy scofflaws to darknets while increasing surveillance of less technically proficient Internet users."[30]
Online freedom of speech
On TIME's Techland blog, Jerry Brito wrote, "Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities' privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech?"[21] Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology warned, "If SOPA and PIPA are enacted, the US government must be prepared for other governments to follow suit, in service to whatever social policies they believe are important—whether restricting hate speech, insults to public officials, or political dissent."[22]
Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University professor of constitutional law, released an open letter on the web stating that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”
For the PROTECT IP Act:
Concern for user-generated sites
Opponents of the legislation warn that the Protect IP Act would have a negative impact on online communities. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon argued in an op-ed that making companies liable for users' actions could have a chilling effect on user-generated sites like YouTube. "The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar", she says.[citation needed] Policy analysts for New America Foundation say this legislation would enable law enforcement to take down an entire domain due to something posted on a single blog: "Yes, an entire, largely innocent online community could be punished for the actions of a tiny minority."
Companies and organizations
The legislation is opposed by the Mozilla Corporation,[31] Facebook,[31] Electronic Frontier Foundation,[32] Yahoo!, eBay, American Express, reddit, Google,[33] Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch,[34], English Wikipedia[citation needed], and Uncyclopedia[citation needed]. Internet entrepreneurs including Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams, and Foursquare co-founder Dennis Crowley signed a letter to Congress expressing their opposition to the legislation.[35] The Tea Party Patriots have argued that the bill "is bad for consumers".[36] A letter of opposition was signed by 130 technology entrepreneurs and executives and sent to Congress to express their concern that the law in its present form would "hurt economic growth and chill innovation in legitimate services that help people create, communicate, and make money online".[37] English-language Wikipedia sites will be joining other Internet sites on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 in protesting the PIPA and SOPA legislation by staging a "blackout" of service for 24 hours.
"If we need to amend the DMCA, let's do it with a negotiation between the interested parties, not with a bill written by the content industry's lobbyists and jammed through Congress on a fast track," wrote venture capitalist and Business Insider columnist Fred Wilson in an October 29 editorial on the changes that the House and Senate versions of the proposed legislation would make to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. "Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and startups like Dropbox, Kickstarter, and Twilio are the leading exporters and job creators of this time. They are the golden goose of the economy and we cannot kill the golden goose to protect industries in decline," he said.
A group of Law professors, quoting Crocker's whitepaper, say that the PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy acts could have the opposite of the intended impact, driving users to unregulated alternative DNS systems, and hindering the government from conducting legitimate Internet regulation.[39] They question the constitutionality of both bills, believing they could have potentially disastrous technical consequences and would make US Internet law more like those of repressive regimes.[39] They go on to state that both bills provide "nothing more than ex parte proceedings—proceedings at which only one side (the prosecutor or even a private plaintiff) need present evidence and the operator of the allegedly infringing site need not be present nor even made aware that the action was pending against his or her 'property.' This not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
I can't stress enough how important this really is, regardless of what your stance on it is, as it really is the start of drastically changing the internet.
Last edited: