Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Piracy The Internet Your Rights Online

Senate Panel Approves Website Shut-Down Bill 390

Posted by timothy
from the best-interests-at-heart dept.
itwbennett writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted 19-0 in favor of a bill that would allow the Department of Justice to seek court orders to shut down websites offering materials believed to infringe copyright. 'Rogue websites are essentially digital stores selling illegal and sometimes dangerous products,' Senator Patrick Leahy, the main sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. 'If they existed in the physical world, the store would be shuttered immediately and the proprietors would be arrested. We cannot excuse the behavior because it happens online and the owners operate overseas. The Internet needs to be free — not lawless.' However, the internet will likely remain 'lawless' for a while longer, as there are only a few working days left in the congressional session and the bill is unlikely to pass through the House of Representatives in that short amount of time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Panel Approves Website Shut-Down Bill

Comments Filter:
  • 19-0? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mistiry (1845474) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:22PM (#34275080)

    The majority of the population does NOT want to see this pass, yet it made it through the Senate with NO opposition?

    I thought the government was for the people by the people. What a fucking joke.

    • Re:19-0? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fluffeh (1273756) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:23PM (#34275110)

      I thought the government was for the people by the people. What a fucking joke.

      Don't be silly. Where there is "big money" there is a way.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:48PM (#34275578)

        It is amazing how often people rail against the lack of democracy in the modern world, and how few are willing to do anything about it.

        "What can we, mere peons, do?" you might ask. Well, you can start by working on the one and only hope you have: open sourcing [metagovernment.org] governance.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sortadan (786274)
        Not to mention that all classified documents will now have a copyright clause in the footer, so they can justify pulling the plug on wiki-leaks and others that speak out of turn.
        • Re:19-0? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @08:30PM (#34276858)

          Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly do they propose to "pull the plug" on WikiLeaks, or any foreign-hosted website? Unless they put in a government-operated Great Firewall (a la China) on all links coming into the USA, it's technically impossible to block foreign websites.

          • Re:19-0? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @09:23PM (#34277338)

            Do you really think Senators and Representatives have any problem creating things like the Great American Firewall? Remember, these are the people who brought you TSA and the 1-quart freedom pouch.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by rwa2 (4391) *

            Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly do they propose to "pull the plug" on WikiLeaks, or any foreign-hosted website? Unless they put in a government-operated Great Firewall (a la China) on all links coming into the USA, it's technically impossible to block foreign websites.

            Well, the wording from TFA indicates that they would put a court order for all US ISPs to "redirect" traffic away from the affected sites. That's a lot of ISPs. Though after most ISPs get closed down for contempt of court for not filtering the internet, it won't be so many ISPs :-P

            This is just the first step. I don't think the technology is that important to the lawmakers. They're simply making it legal for them to attempt to shut down websites, via any technological means necessary. Hence, no one is r

    • the majority of the population doesn't want court orders to be required before websites are shutdown?
      • Re:19-0? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mistiry (1845474) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:25PM (#34275152)

        No, the majority do not want to give the government the power to censor or restrict our freedoms without due process of law.

        • Re:19-0? (Score:4, Informative)

          by mistiry (1845474) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:27PM (#34275182)

          To further clarify that...

          Getting a court order is not due process.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by master0ne (655374)

            im in opposition of the bill as well, but im just curious as to your logic here.... if "Getting a court order is not due process." , than what constitutes "due process"? If this gets signed into law, i say there should be a proceedure that requires due diligance to prove the offence before the court order is issued, however i prefer that this bill not pass at all. Just wondering what your logic is, because if you are correlating this to the real world, all they need to raid your house, or shut down your bu

            • Re:19-0? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Amouth (879122) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:48PM (#34275600)

              if this is the burden of proof "materials believed to infringe copyright" then it isn't proof.

              you can believe anything you want .. doesn't mean its right..

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                All we need is to get it litigated. It is unlikely to survive. Somebody has to put up the money to do it, though.
            • Re:19-0? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by mistiry (1845474) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:49PM (#34275602)

              In order to obtain a warrant to perform a raid on my house, law enforcement is required to show evidence that justifies their action.

              All that is required in this instance is someone saying "hey, whatever.com could potentially infringe my copyright!" and the court can order it shut down.

              There is no evidence required. There is no panel to vote whether or not whatever.com is actually performing infringing activities or just offering a service that SOME people have abused for the purposes of infringement.

              If some kid posts a clip of a TV show on You Tube, under this 'law', the courts could block access for every single citizen, even though YouTube is not directly responsible for that kids' actions.

              • by eepok (545733)

                Luckily, there is hope in judicial review and that's that EXACT kind of wording that the courts love to smack down. The prosecution will show great potential for loss of revenue (requiring only a "rational basis" for skirting due process), but since a website is very easily argued to be a free speech, strict scrutiny of the legislation will be required and the prosecution will have to show:

                1) a compelling gov't interest (nat'l security, many lives, etc.)
                2) the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a stated go

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by westlake (615356)

                  The prosecution will show great potential for loss of revenue (requiring only a "rational basis" for skirting due process...

                  The "prosecution" doesn't have to show "loss of revenue." It doesn't have to show that the infringer has a profit motive. NET [No Electronic Theft] Act [wikipedia.org]

                  It only has to show that is acting to protect a federally granted property right.

            • by cmburns69 (169686)

              Technically speaking, getting a court order would be due process because the law would explicitly stipulate a court order as a legal way to require the website to be taken down.

              However, many laypeople interpret "due process" as to allow the defendant the opportunity to provide a defense before the punishment is meted out.

        • Re:19-0? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by catbutt (469582) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:38PM (#34275370)
          Depending on how you ask the question, I'm sure you could get "the majority" to say pretty much whatever you want. There are many freedoms that can be restricted without due process, assuming you define "freedom" to include "ability to do whatever you please, legal or not".
    • by mlts (1038732) *

      It made it through a committee.

      Now, will it get scheduled to be heard on the House Floor? Probably not. Will it get voted on? Likely not.

      Will it fly through the House? There is a lot of bad blood, and the guys who wrote the bill have (D) tags, and the House has flipped control -- it will be a hard sell there.

      I wouldn't be 100% sure that it wouldn't pass, but I'm confident it will end up like the Son-of-DMCA act, INDUCE act, or the the many other bills that wind up on the committee table, and don't make

      • Re:19-0? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mistiry (1845474) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:31PM (#34275242)

        My beef is that it made it through a government committee with no opposition, when the majority of citizens do not or would not wish to give these powers to the government, who is supposed to act in the best interests of the majority.

        I don't know that it will make it through the H.O.R. (haha "whore") but it's shocking to see not a single 'nay' vote on something in such dispute in the real world.

        • by MarcQuadra (129430) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @07:03PM (#34275842)

          There probably were folks who thought it was a bad bill, but voted for it anyway because it bought them leverage on (what they felt were) more important issues.

          I'm a bit of a state house watcher, and I've heard politicians stand up and speak against bills five minutes before voting for them. Basically, if the chairman of the committee favors something and you don't, but it's going to pass anyway, you curry favor with the chairman by letting him submit the bill to the floor with 'unanimous approval', thereby increasing the chances of getting your own issue heard by the now appeased chairman in the future. In the end, you get the same result you would have if you opposed the thing, but the next time you need something, you're more likely to get it.

          That or the HVAC might have been out. Our state legislature seems to decide completely on-the-fly that 'today is going to be the last day of session'. They typically suspend public hearings and pass 300 pieces of legislation that night. Why would you suspend public hearings and do 80% of your work on one coffee-fueled all-nighter? Well, the committee rooms don't have air conditioning, suits are really hot, and most of the legislature is a bit portly. Once the summer heat starts penetrating the marble walls, there's no stopping it until late October, so they 'go Nike' on democracy's ass and Just Do It.

      • Re:19-0? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MozeeToby (1163751) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:40PM (#34275398)

        Yeah, but it made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee; you know, the committee that is charged with upholding the constitution. The idea that something that should be a very contentious topic makes it through a committee who's primary responsibility is supposed to be safeguarding our constitutional rights without a single vote against it is, at the very least, concerning.

        • Re:19-0? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by melikamp (631205) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @09:01PM (#34277152) Homepage Journal

          I know nothing about the actual work or purpose of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but I do know the fundamentals. You Yanks have separated your government into 3 major branches with the intention for them to work against each other and check each other's power. It would seem to me entirely reasonable that the Senate Judiciary Committee exists for the sole purpose of subverting the work done by the Supreme Court: these are the people who, akin to John Yoo, work hard to establish just how much trash they can drive through the Constitutional checkpoint. I don't even believe that it is necessarily a bad thing (the law must evolve), I just would not expect them to be the guardians of the Constitution, since it is clearly not their job.

      • Will it fly through the House? There is a lot of bad blood, and the guys who wrote the bill have (D) tags, and the House has flipped control -- it will be a hard sell there.

        This is the lame duck session. All those Republicans won't be seated until next year...

      • It won't get voted on this session, probably, due to a lack of time. But I anticipate little opposition. The Rs and Ds have things of higher profile to bicker over.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by catbutt (469582)
      I may not agree with this decision, but I think there is a reason we don't directly vote on every issue. We instead delegate that to people who have the time to understand the issues and then vote on them appropriately. Also our system accounts for the fact that while the majority may favor this or that, it also matters how MUCH each person cares about each issue....that is how they prioritize such things in electing a representative. Maybe the majority favors something, but the minority that doesn't, ca
      • it also matters how MUCH each person cares about each issue....that is how they prioritize such things in electing a representative.

        But in practice, it also matters that the television news organizations have a conflict of interest. On the one hand, they should present all issues and all candidates to the public, but on the other hand, they all share a corporate parent with a movie studio in the MPAA.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mistiry (1845474)

        I have to disagree here.

        The majority are the working class, who's time is taken up by things like work, school, and children and who's thoughts tend to focus on things like what bills are due, if their kids are healthy, etc.

        The minority, in this case politicians, don't "care" more about the issue. They just don't have the day-to-day issues that the majority has to worry about. Why should what they, being in the minority, want hold more weight than what we, the majority, want? They must forget, we may be in

        • by youngone (975102)
          You're right about everything except who pays the politicians. The corporates in whose interest laws like these are passed are the ones paying the politicians, not the working class. (or any other class).
        • by catbutt (469582)
          Wait....what? The minority is the politicians? Our voices should be heard louder than the people who represent us?

          I don't even know where to start with that. Seriously bizarre way of looking at representative democracy.

          Anyway, if they did the opposite, they'd be accused of pandering to the voters.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gmuslera (3436)
      The majority of the population does NOT have a clue, if a politician (or a hired actor, or whatever) tells them that this is right, they will believe so. Don't worry, happens the same in the election of presidents, most vote what media tells them.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Peristaltic (650487) *

      I thought the government was for the people by the people. What a fucking joke.

      No offense, but that's taking naivety awfully far.

      The fourth branch of government, corporations and banks, swing as much power as any two of the other branches. Our government has faded from a bright, hopeful experiment to one bunch of people lording it over another bunch of people- Pretty much how most "governments" have always worked throughout history. The primary difference nowadays is that the dominant group has a historically unheard of technological advantage with which to distract the peons fro

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sumdumass (711423)

      This didn't pass the senate, it came out of a senate comity. It now needs to find itself a floor vote before it passes the senate. There are 5 times as many senators then those that voted for it.

      Also, everyone you know does not really mean the majority of the population. The vast majority of the population probably don't even know about it, or don't know the ramifications that could be associated with it. I'm betting that like most other things, the majority of the population is either ignorant of the subje

    • The majority of the population does NOT want to see this pass, yet it made it through the Senate with NO opposition?

      It's post like these that make me wonder if people are really Americans posting. Because the Senate has a lot more than 19 people., this is just a committee. Now you can still wonder why there is no opposition in that small group, but I'm pretty sure not every Senator would vote for this when or if it comes up.

      As the article summary states it will not even make it that fat thanks to the Hous

  • Who PAYS for pirated material?

    And what procedures are in place to make sure this isn't abused? Can /b/tards get google, whitehouse.gov, or some other random website taken down with this? Sure sounds like it.
    • by Fluffeh (1273756)

      Can /b/tards get google, whitehouse.gov, or some other random website taken down with this? Sure sounds like it.

      Actually, lets hope so. It will prove just how stupid these laws are and how open to abuse they are.

      Lets do better, lets get the RIAA websites taken down. Now THAT would be sweet irony - their own stuff taken down by a law they pushed through.

    • Who PAYS for pirated material?

      mp3fiesta.com, movieberry.com, etc...all pay sites for pirated material.

      And what procedures are in place to make sure this isn't abused? Can /b/tards get google, whitehouse.gov, or some other random website taken down with this? Sure sounds like it.

      did you miss the part about "court order"? that's a pretty large check and or balance.

      • by tmosley (996283)
        I never heard of either of them, nor have I heard of this "etc" you refer to.

        "Court orders" could always shut down websites, or do anything else in compliance with the law. If these websites are really doing something illegal, then why this law? Something stinks. Smells like totalitarianism.
    • Can /b/tards get google, whitehouse.gov, or some other random website taken down with this?

      I'd be more concerned if /b/tards and anonymous got 4Chan taken down with this - after all, wouldn't it only take 1 shot from a copyrighted movie? (And if you've ever been to /gif/ you should know how many of those there are. You probably didn't notice it because its hidden amongst the porn though)

      • by kyrio (1091003)
        4chan hosts pirated movies?

        Think before you type.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        after all, wouldn't it only take 1 shot from a copyrighted movie?

        No [gpo.gov]. It only applies to a site already subject to civil forfeiture (which means a bunch of things have been proven about it already) or that is "primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer—" either copyrighted works "in complete or substantially complete form" "without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law [which includes fair

    • by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @07:08PM (#34275890) Homepage Journal

      Who PAYS for pirated material?

      Anyone who has bought a copy of the film Song of the South on DVD-R at the flea market, sold by someone ignorant of copyright term extension acts who thinks U.S. copyright on works published under the Copyright Act of 1909 still lasts 56 years as it did when they were published.

      Or anyone who bought a copy of the album All Things Must Pass by George Harrison. A court ruled that the song "My Sweet Lord", which appears on this album and accounted for the supermajority of this album's airplay, was an infringing copy of "He's So Fine" by Ronald Mack, which the Chiffons had popularized.

  • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:22PM (#34275086)
    I, for one, welcome all my proud RFC-abiding fellow netizens.
  • um...whut? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RapmasterT (787426) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:22PM (#34275090)

    The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted 19-0 in favor of a bill that would allow the Department of Justice to seek court orders to shut down websites offering materials believed to infringe copyright.

    The DOJ needed a senate bill to allow them to "seek court orders"? Getting a court order is usually where the process for this sort of thing STARTS.

  • I can see the good intentions of the legislators, but I'm also worried about the execution and application that this may bring. Waiting for comments about the lawmakers being bought out and the end of the Internet as we know it.
    • by Amouth (879122)

      this might pass - and within a few years of abuse i'm betting the USA won't have a single root DNS server left..

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:27PM (#34275170) Journal

    We cannot excuse the behavior because it happens online and the owners operate overseas.

    Why not? You can excuse the behavior if it happens offline and the owners operate overseas.

    Or are there American law enforcement officials going and raiding shops in China that are selling pirated copies of Windows?

    And I don't think letting the DoJ decide who gets shut down or not is entirely fair. You know that Google/Youtube ends up hosting copyrighted material every now and then - and then they get notified and they end up taking it down (or taking out the audio track). So if I host a little site for me and a few role players - and one of them posts a bit of a DnD Manual - am I at risk of my website being cut off from Americans without notice? Or worse - taken down entirely somehow?

    • Appears I missed the part about a "Court Order" - ha! Overreaction at its finest.

      • by Stregano (1285764)
        If this made it through the senate at 19-0 with no opposition, do you honestly think it will be that hard to get a court order?
      • by Caerdwyn (829058)

        So here's a question. Does the takedown happen before, or after, a trial before a jury of my peers?

        Court order, my millimeter-wave-imaged ass.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by theskipper (461997)

      Not to mention the potential of Joe jobs. Could be a brand new market segment for the cracker crowd, catering to a company's competitors. All with the blessing of our laws.

  • ..shut down websites offering materials believed to infringe copyright.

    This won't be abused .. no way ..

  • by VGPowerlord (621254) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:31PM (#34275246)

    Dear U.S. Government,
    Remember when the shit hit the fan over the U.S. Government's control over the root DNS servers a few years back?

    Welcome to part 2.

    Sincerely,
    The Rest of the World

    • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @07:00PM (#34275786) Homepage Journal
      Which brings up an interesting point: How would a government org go about shutting down a rogue server? Lets pretend it is hosted in some remote country, so sending a CnD letter is probably ineffective. Blocking the DNS entries will just result in people putting up non-us filtered DNS servers, and you are playing whack a mole to try to find them and block them. You could put ip-filters on all the trunks going in and out of the country, but that's another game of whack a mole, since any proxy server outside the country can redirect.

      I am not a networking expert, but even if you had the political will to do this, it seems to me it would be no more than an inconvenience for anyone determined enough.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SuricouRaven (1897204)
        That's easy: By making it 'blocked enough.' The block doesn't have to be perfect - it just has to take long enough to get around that most people wouldn't bother. Or, even more effectively, make it look like some sort of technical problem. That way people will just assume the server is down, and not even try to find a way around blocks. There just isn't a need for a perfect block.
        • I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TiggertheMad (556308) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @08:41PM (#34276940) Homepage Journal
          There just isn't a need for a perfect block.

          yes there is if you want it to work.

          Because information on the Internet is fast and free, if 1 person finds a way around your block 5 minutes after it is in place, 10 million people can know about it in under a day, and your little information embargo is a futile exercise. If you made the same comment about how 'security through obscurity works' in the context of OS security, you would be laughed off Slashdot. Why would general blocking of sites be any different?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by SuricouRaven (1897204)
            Hypothetically, if accessing Facebook required users spend an hour googling and fiddling with proxy servers, so you think it would be commercially viable?
  • by Tangential (266113) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:33PM (#34275276) Homepage
    Its very difficult to come up with an example of the legislative branch (or the judicial or the executive for that matter) doing a thorough, cogent job of dealing with technology and the law.

    For the most part, their investors..er...campaign donors tell them what to believe and how to vote and that is as deep as it goes.

    The sad thing is that over time, we'll end up with some legislators who get it, but by then, the current level of corruption will have been instiitutionalized and they will be so unacquainted with the Constitution and ethics and so beholden to the donations of their masters that it won't make much difference.
    • Digital Law is bogus.

      Let me explain. Things that should be "legal" are made clear with the digital age. Information is not a crime. Knowing how to build a Nuclear Reactor is not a crime. Knowing how to slim jim a car, is not a crime. Having a gun, is NOT a crime.

      You see, crime is crime. You cannot STOP a crime by preventing access to tools to commit a crime. You only make it more difficult.

      This line of thinking ALSO applies to the security theater done by the TSA and other agencies. However we have a popula

  • Just like a digital store, except that nothing is being sold.
    So like a digital free box, or giving away a used DVD, or
    letting your neighbor come over and watch the ballgame on you TV.

  • when they get to the SneakerNet Shut-Down Bill? Thanks! Why aren't the New Tea Partiers stopping the insanity... wait, nevermind. Smells like more government, this MUST be those dang Demo-crats again, tarnations!!(!

  • So, does this mean that I can now accuse politicians that I don't like of hosting infringing materials on their website to get them shut down? I would have killed for that ability three weeks ago.....

    Are the politicians currently in power sure they want to give us plebs that ability? =)
  • "or dangerous" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Caerdwyn (829058) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:41PM (#34275428) Journal

    So what's this "or dangerous" bit? Ammunition [midwayusa.com]? Websites promoting cults [scientology.org]? Websites attacking [clambake.org] cults? Websites selling material that promotes anything [amazon.com] that senators don't like, like free thought [paladinpress.com], opposing political positions [lp.org], naked bodies that they can't grope for themselves [tsa.gov]?

    This ain't about piracy, people.

  • Couldn't they at least have come up with a decent car metaphor, if they're going to mistake the map for the terrain anyway?
  • "believed to" . . . whatever happened to "proved, beyond a reasonable doubt?" All "in Soviet Russia" jokes aside, this sounds like being able to "denounce" someone, and get them shipped off to the Gulag. If you can prove that a site it infringing on copyrights, fine shut them down. However, if the charge is, "I think that it might be possible that this could be potentially infringing on copyrights that might be possibly owned by someone" . . . no, thanks.

    Is there something in US law about "due process?"

  • by Target Practice (79470) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:51PM (#34275650)

    Love this part under Non-Domestic Domains, Required Actions...
    (i) a service provider ... or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address;

    So, we'll just refuse to resolve any domains that are outside the jurisdiction of the US, but that are deemed to offend the standards listed here? This, to me, sounds a bit like that whole filtering of information thing that Secretary Clinton said was a Bad Thing in China.

  • What's Leahy's deal? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Trepidity (597) <.delirium-slashdot. .at. .hackish.org.> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:55PM (#34275712)

    Leahy seems to always be at the forefront of these draconian pro-IP laws. On non-copyright/patent/etc. related issues, he's actually fairly civil-libertarian, so it doesn't seem like he's one of those authoritarians for whom more government police power for its own sake, and copyright infringement is just a convenient excuse for introducing them (the way many Republicans are on "terrorism"). It seems he actually does want strong enforcement of copyright laws, and that that's his motivator, not an excuse. But he's Senator for Vermont, a place not exactly known for its large media industry. It would make more sense to me if he were from CA or FL or something.

    Now that he's become one of the media industry's bet friends in Washington, he gets a bunch of media donations, which could explain his continued advocacy on the subject. But how did a Senator from VT end up in that position in the first place? Personal conviction? Opportunism?

  • Just web sites? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by booyabazooka (833351) <ch.martin@gmail.com> on Thursday November 18, 2010 @06:56PM (#34275734)

    So other Internet stuff like FTP is still safe?

  • Aren't the majority of these types of websites outside of the US anyways? A lot of good this'll do to shut those down....idiots.
    • I don't think you read the article.

      a provision in the bill was a requirement for ISP's to REDIRECT traffic if the offenders are offshore. Now we all know there are ways around that, but it's not exactly a "we're offshore so you can't touch us" deal.
  • yeah you. the one who is reading this post. how much exactly did you pay in lobbying for your interests last year ? $100 mil ? $1 mil ? $50,000 ? $50 ? none ?

    probably either none, or, something in between $50 and none. definitely not $100 mil.

    those who want that, however, spent in between at least $100 mil and $1 mil. so, they are getting it.

    such is the way with democracy in a capitalist country - you get what you want, as much as you pay for. if you dont have enough money to pay for what you want
  • by Paracelcus (151056) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @07:34PM (#34276254) Journal

    The talking pieces of shit in Washington seem to think they control the Internet.

  • by NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @08:09PM (#34276664)
    Of course, the law will not apply to them, just like the labor laws, civil rights laws . . .
  • by apenzott (821513) on Thursday November 18, 2010 @08:50PM (#34277020)

    I doubt that these senators have considered the possibly that being able to shut down an offending site (say Bing, Google, Hotmail, Yahoo, Youtube, ) wouldn't have significant collateral damage.

    This is equivalent to shutting down an entire mall (which happens to include an office for the County Tax Assessor, small FBI field office, post office and police substation) on the account of one bad employee grossly (mis)representing the interests of the merchant renting space in said mall.

    Bottom line:
    Merely having such a kill switch is not a license use it indiscriminately and not face the consequences of its misuse.
    (Notice that engineers are required to retain errors and omissions insurance for bad engineering decisions, but no legislator is required to retain insurance for passing of bad laws.)

RADIO SHACK LEVEL II BASIC READY >_

Working...