Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks ago, Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the 'Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' (COICA) bill, which was discussed here on Slashdot. The main part of the bill would allow the Justice Department to shut down websites that it deems are 'dedicated to infringing activities,' without a trial (due process is so old fashioned). Of course, in reviewing the bill, it's important to note that pretty much every new technology in the entertainment industry over the last century was deemed 'dedicated to infringing activities,' so here's a list of all of the technologies COICA would have banned in the past, including Hollywood itself, radio, cable television, the photocopier, the iPod and more."

Engaging self-destruct in 5...

[Drakkenmensch]

In case anybody might have forgotten, Senator Hatch was a strong supporter of computer built-in self-destruct mechanisms that the music industry could have activated remotely on a whim: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930731/posts [freerepublic.com]

Re:you can't legislate against technological progr

[Stargoat]

Let's not forget that Orrin Hatch makes a habit of trying to legislate against technology. This is the same douchebag that a few years ago proposed blowing up all computers that illegally downloaded music.

Re:An amendment would fix this

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Tell that to the people manslaughtered by the Ford Corporation when their Pinto cars blew-up. And yes accidents happen but the Corporation knew the fuel tanks were flawed and decided (as a whole), it was cheaper to just pay the dead people's families. That's practically premeditation. But what can you do?

Point out that in the case in question [wfu.edu], the pinto had a missing gas cap and was hit at 55 mph by a van with a plank for a front bumper. It's unreasonable to expect a pijnto to survive that. The fact that they estimate a $11/unit design change would save 180 lives is offensive, but probably not relevant to the specific case.

You can argue both sides of this - cheaping out on something that makes a car safer causes an emotional response, but requiring a company to implement whatever it can to improve safety makes it impossible to produce cheap cars in the grey zone between dangerous and Volvo. Never mind that there's a very real potential for people to be more careless when more safety equipment is added, leading to the same level of risk.