Internet Blacklist

So, after President Obama made a statement to leaders of oppressive regimes to lax up on the internet censorship, Congressmen decide to try passing an Internet Blacklist that is more than vaguely worded.

Thoughts?

Wat

This does not make me happy. At all.

Someone send snail mail of kiddy porn to the US legislature quickly!

EDIT: Also, in before that shit gets posted on wikileaks. As the danish & australian government blocklists got posted on that site REALLLY fucking quickly. But most of the blacklist sites weren't even working when you tried accessing them. So much for quick government suppression

edited 1st Oct '10 11:30:00 PM by BalloonFleet

I'm a little cynical about the source, considering that a quick check of Alternet's front page looks like the mirror-universe version of Fox News. Not that the left-leaning is bad or anything but there's a great deal of EVERYBODY PANIC and focus on dramatic headlines going on with that site, which makes me a little suspicious.

Here's the text of the bill as linked in the article. Someone more versed in legalese, please tell me whether I should start packing my bags for Sealand or not.

Edited for a bit of clarity. I initially stated doubt over whether the bill is really that damaging but the gist of it, adjusting for EVERYBODY PANIC, is that it's effectively a license to block torrent sites, which would probably be bad for a lot of us and doesn't really sit well with me. And it's exactly the sort of thing that would get bipartisan approval...

Edit edit: The question is if it really will be interpreted as a license to censor certain You Tube videos and other specific information, and if that's even possible without blocking major sites entirely (and hell hath no fury like a pissed-off Google).

edited 1st Oct '10 11:52:57 PM by Eriksson

Alternet is an indie site that has a left-wing bias I admit, but do not compare it to Fox News PLEASEEEEEE. Of course that is my bias speaking so treat that as you wish.

edited 2nd Oct '10 1:19:11 PM by BalloonFleet

Well, I had to admit I really didn't want to be That Guy, but the parallels are there. Strong political bias, much riling-up of the base and preaching to the choir, and stuff like that. It's not nearly as bad as Fox News, though I won't go into why not because On-Topic Conversations.

The reason I'm being That Guy who is all like "LIBERAL BIAS WHARRRBLGARRBL" is the possibility they're exaggerating how the bill will likely be implemented in order to fuel activism against the bill.

Yeah, I'm pretty much trying to argue from the most reassuring point of view possible here for the sake of my own peace of mind.

Even if it's used for benevolent purposes now, only an insanely naive and trusting person would assume it's always going to be.

All the massive technical issues with such a plan aside (and they are legion, just ask Australian ISPs) this is just a level of power it's simply not appropriate for a government to have. It's far too easily exploitable and the temptation to use it inappropriately is going to be too hard for people to resist.

There's almost nothing worth saying that isn't going to offend someone out there to the extent where they think it ought be banned speech. Yes, that includes "your side" of politics, whatever it is.

Does anyone have a second source on this?

Eriksson, I believe you're right about this site. Just skimming here, but I'm going to single out the first example Alternet gave us: Youtube. Within the first screen's worth of the bill's full text we have a definition of "sites dedicated to infringing activities." In essensc, it states that to be considered "dedicated to infringing activities," the site must have no other clear purpose than to offer illegal goods or services. So, the pirate bay would definitely get hit by this blacklist, but I think youtube could be clearly demonstrated to be primarily for legitimate commercial purposes.

However...honestly, even without skimming through a few bits and pieces (it's five in the morning, why the fuck am I even up doing this at this hour), it doesn't take a lawyer to know that this would be a nightmare to enact and enforce, not to mention the fierce resistance it would face on first amendment grounds. It just would not stand up to judiciary scrutiny.

Anyway, to get back to the first point I was trying to make, yes, they are definitely exaggerating. Nothing to see here, folks. Congressmen do this shit all the time. It's more of a political tactic than a serious attempt at passing legislation, or doing anything productive at all.

Related Article from Wired.com's Threat Level Blog

But it’s also become a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property.

I don't think this guy knows how internet piracy works.

Oh, I thought this was about Senator Cowboy's stupidity

edited 2nd Oct '10 5:18:58 AM by Starscream

I agree with everything Korg said.

I don't think this guy knows how internet piracy works.

Neither do most politicians.

I can certainly see this passing, but I can't see it holding up in court.

edited 2nd Oct '10 11:32:27 AM by FeoTakahari

But it’s also become a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property

For some reason I believe he meant people who sell HK bootlegs online or use the web to organize shipments of those cheap-o knockoffs of american clothing/accessories/etc, the stuff you see in flea markets.....