Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Senate Committee Passes PROTECT IP Act

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the kill-first-ask-questions-later dept.

Government 338

angry tapir writes "A US Senate committee has unanimously approved a controversial bill that would allow the US Department of Justice to seek court orders requiring search engines and Internet service providers to stop sending traffic to websites accused of infringing copyright."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Instead of complaints, we need answers (5, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261730)

1) How do we route around this damage?

2) How do we protect our natural rights from a majority that votes them away?

Let's stop focusing on the distractions of greed and corruption and the psychopaths in positions of power and get to finding real solutions to render all of that irrelevant.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (3, Interesting)

beringreenbear (949867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261792)

The Rules say that the only thing you can do is to ceaselessly lobby your Senator and get your friends, relatives, and that weird guy who asks you for change for a dollar every time you go into Dunkin' Donuts to do the same.

See my comment below, as the damage has been halted by the same person that halted a similar bill last year, a Senator from Oregon. The only way to stop this is the raise money to buy off enough Senators to keep the bill stopped.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (5, Interesting)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261822)

Bye bye Google, hello search engines based outside of the US.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261896)

I hear google's chinese arm is pretty anti-censorship.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (2)

kokojie (915449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262012)

you forgot the /s tag, the google Chinese arm had a message in the bottom of their page when you search censored material. "Some search results maybe censored due to local laws and regulations"

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262130)

Well, I hope you can find a way to economically connect to an off shore service service provider at the same time.. Otherwise you will simply be redirected back to Google.us

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262302)

Use a proxy server? Use Tor?

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (3, Interesting)

The Moof (859402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261826)

1) How do we route around this damage?

The same way we always have: proxies, tor, etc.

2) How do we protect our natural rights from a majority that votes them away?

That's the multimillion dollar question. Quite literally, since you need a huge amount of money to either lobby your representatives, or run against them. Otherwise, they just send you a nice boilerplate response letter to any of your inquiries, concerns, and so on.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261934)

2) How do we protect our natural rights from a majority that votes them away?

That's the multimillion dollar question. Quite literally, since you need a huge amount of money to either lobby your representatives, or run against them. Otherwise, they just send you a nice boilerplate response letter to any of your inquiries, concerns, and so on.

So why didn't Google "make it rain"? It's not like they don't have resources to start a massive lobbying campaign of their own?

Maybe they were just too late to the ball?

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1, Troll)

kokojie (915449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262020)

they are too busy paying their employees 6 figures and messing around with unprofitable projects to care

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262032)

Perhaps Google has some vested interest in this that we don't know about. Perhaps Google fears being investigated by the government if they started actively fighting a "piracy prevention" bill. Perhaps Google just doesn't care (they didn't with the whole "China" censorship thing a few years back).

Google is a company first and foremost, and their own interests will always be the first priority. If opposing this would've been damaging to their business, they'll keep quiet.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (2)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262132)

I wonder. Will it be illegal to start a group like Anonymous, near election time?

I mean declaring that we have had enough of this government and that come election, ALL of the group members vote for the specific list of guys(and against certain guys). The lobbyists have subverted the democracy anyways, so why not jump aboard? Get everyone, their grandma, cousins and who not to jump in. I mean mob flash events do work, don't they? So if we basically decided to collaborate over punishing certain guys at election time, it should automatically teach them a lesson. If you agreed to vote as per the dictates of the group(since you agreed with the principle behind it) it just might make a difference?

Or at the very least, a group that starts counter-propaganda during election to ensure that those who sold-out never get elected again. Would that actually work? Just wondering.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (2)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262218)

such a group would be a blip on the radar compared to the general mass of voters voting the same way they always do.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (4, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261838)

1) How do we route around this damage?

Although it's been some time since I last looked at the project, Freenet [freenetproject.org] still seems like a good bet.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261958)

That will do nothing to protect you from DPI and other offensive behavior by your service provider.. We have yet do devise a truly P2P internet, free of the corporate wire(less). To me, this would be the utmost priority. From there we can communicate our ideas about how to protect other essential freedoms, like the right to exist without having to declare ourselves any authority, to move about freely, etc. Even the right to produce our own food is coming under threat.. We are very close to being under a true Stalin like collectivism in order to protect commercial interests. And it will produce the same results... Maybe killing people off is the real intention.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262024)

That will do nothing to protect you from DPI and other offensive behavior by your service provider.

Forgive my potential ignorance, but I thought that was exactly what Freenet was designed to do?

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262182)

It won't.. It will get to the point that if the ISP can't decipher your packets, they will simply be dropped.

Official answer: thoughtcrime (5, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261972)

Under DMCA, freenet and tor are probably "circumvention devices". So you are guilty of wanting free speech.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (2)

ThePangolino (1756190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261844)

YaCy [yacy.net]

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261854)

Well, search engines would need a list of sites known for copyright violation. So if you really wanted to go to one of those sites, just check the list. It would have to be public for all search engines to be able to comply. If only the large search engines are allowed access to the list, you can use lesser known search engines that still include those sites.

I don't mind so much them trying to block sites that intentionally infringe copyright, but the "accused of copyright infringement" bit is what worries me. It's like being wrongly put onto a spam blacklist - act first, ask questions later.. or possibly never.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261876)

Guess I missed the "internet service providers" bit. For that, you use something like TOR or some other encrypted proxy.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262190)

> 1) How do we route around this damage?

Stop "consuming" the "content" that these media companies produce.

You can do it. Be strong. You don't actually need to watch the latest episode of House. Stop downloading it, stop consuming it. Try making something for a change, even if its just a blog of photos that you took.

You'll also then discover that 250GB monthly caps are incredibly large.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262286)

You'll also then discover that 250GB monthly caps are incredibly large.

Not if you use Netflix. And before you continue with "Stop consuming the content" in reference to Netflix. The point of supporting Netflix is supporting their model of freedom and all you can watch, legally. Services that the media companies should have provided long ago.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262374)

Depends on the user in fairness about the 250GB cap. The amount of legitimate HD sources on the internet now means that you can easily only consume legal downloads of non mega media structures and still go over your data cap. A few years ago I may have agreed with you. Not to mention the likes of digital distribution of software, I usually buy at least 3 or 4 big games on steam a month alone which push me over the 30 - 40 GB mark

Search engine over HTTPS without logs of any kind (5, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262258)

Search engine over HTTPS without logs of any kind (like Duckduckgo [duckduckgo.com] ). This way they can't prove the search engine sent the user to the "worst of the worst" site... You still need alternate DNS and/or proxy/VPN to get to the site, but at least sites can still be found with search engines.

What surprises me here is that they want to block the "worst of the worst" and they haven't even mentioned the tired old kiddie porn angle... that is certainly worse than anything! The only way they could surprise me more is by being so honest as naming the future targets: all sites opposing corporations in any way and all sites that spread generic 'anti-american' messages (a.k.a. terrorists). Wikileaks will be one of the first of the sites we know that will be blocked like this... all such sites after that will not even be known to anyone when they are blocked, not listed in searches and not mentioned in media.

Doubleplus goodmove Minitrue!!!

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262320)

2) How do we protect our natural rights from a majority that votes them away?

We do it economically. How many times yesterday did you give your money to the corporations that are behind this assault on our freedom? (Hint: it's a much bigger number than you think.)

We can absolutely "route around this damage" but it means changing our consumption habits, and reviewing the things which we consider "cool, must have, must see".

When you buy music at iTunes (or anywhere but directly from the musician), when you pay to see a movie made by a major studio (even streaming it on an ad-supported page or Netflix, or television), when you buy products from any company that "partners" with the content providers who are behind the industry groups that pressure lawmakers into making this type of law, you are basically paying for their efforts to take away the things that mean the most to you.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (1)

happy*nix (587057) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262336)

Only question 1 relevant, unless by "majority" you meant "most money".
Even the Pope has spoken out against this kind of thing, as on effort to oppress poorer people.

Than being said, the solution is to label this kind of actions for what it is, stand with the Pope ( I'm NOT Catholic ), get other religious leaders to understand and see is as an effort to oppress and control people. This discussion needs to be taken to religious groups, because that's where the majority of people begin to think about and discuss moral issues.

There no use trying to convince the intellectuals, they already understand the dangers and have been speaking out against them. They have also been largely ignored for decades.

I know this goes against the general slashdot-geek philosophy but this is class warfare and war makes strange bedfellows.

Re:Instead of complaints, we need answers (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262406)

Well, if it's just DNS then make another - when Denmark blocked it jesperbay.org and if they'd tried a game of whack-a-mole just use a URL redirection service to the IP. Want to take down bit.ly? Or perhaps starting to /dev/null traffic going to those IPs? This is like firing a pellet gun and declaring war on a fleet of battleships, good luck with that.

Hope and Change (0)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261744)

Yep passed unanimously and good ol' Barry woke up up nice and early in France to sign it. So much for change and I'm pretty much at the point of giving up on hope.

Re:Hope and Change (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261772)

Ah, wrong ACT, wrong article, going to get coffee, sorry to interrupt...

NOT the PATRIOT act (1)

gti_guy (875684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261774)

Reading helps.... the PROTECT IP act is *NOT* the PATRIOT act. Two different things entirely.

Re:NOT the PATRIOT act (3, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261834)

Not really.. Both are grievous offenses against our rights, just in different areas. Resistance to both, and all the others that are on the books are equally important. The idea is to fight infringement by the authorities and make them ineffective.

Re:NOT the PATRIOT act (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261988)

Reading helps.... the PROTECT IP act is *NOT* the PATRIOT act. Two different things entirely.

I beg to differ. From the standpoint of personal liberty and privacy, not so much.

Re:Hope and Change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261914)

Liar.

Fear Not, Citizens of The Free World! (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261752)

Unlike the Nefarious 'Great Firewall of China', a hated symbol of communist repression, the "PROTECT-IP" act will be entirely in English, and promises to be a tool of crony-capitalist repression!

Re:Fear Not, Citizens of The Free World! (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262110)

Apples and Oranges. In China the government decides who gets blocked. In the U.S., the government AND the corporations will decide.

So see, that's a lot better...right?

New name for the USA? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262160)

Commercial Crony-Capitalist Pact

Rubber stamp (2)

markdavis (642305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261764)

Well, at least it requires a COURT ORDER, instead of just letting some department do whatever the hell they want.

But it still sounds ripe for abuse, and confusion, and possibly being expensive to implement and maintain.

Re:Rubber stamp (5, Insightful)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261928)

It should require MORE than a court order. It should require a conviction in the traffic of copyrighted material in violation of the copyright act before a site can be black listed. Being accused of such should NOT be enough.

Re:Rubber stamp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262184)

It would be a court ordered injunction. Much like a restraining order, it prohibits a party or parties from engaging in certain acts, it is not a determination of criminality per se. No criminal act need have been committed in order to get an injunction, nor one even alleged - let alone proven. If the injunction is violated, the party or parties may then have criminal charges brought against them, even if the act in and of itself is not criminal in nature.

Re:Rubber stamp (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262310)

Doesn't matter, you can argue against a restraining order and contest it, there is notification. In this case the DOJ can just get their court order without the knowledge of the person running the site and they have, effectively, no recourse.

Re:Rubber stamp (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262004)

Well, at least it requires a COURT ORDER, instead of just letting some department do whatever the hell they want.

But it still sounds ripe for abuse, and confusion, and possibly being expensive to implement and maintain.

"Requires a court order" You're funny.

Re:Rubber stamp (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262094)

Well, at least it requires a COURT ORDER, instead of just letting some department do whatever the hell they want.

Care to guess what the ratio of requested to granted is on those "court orders"? 100%. Well, guess we can finally add the Judicial Branch to the Executive and Legislative to the "bought off" list...sad.

Re:Rubber stamp (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262122)

The corporations will just find a sympathetic (i.e. bribed) federal judge, and all their subsequent block requests will go to him--which he'll rubber stamp without even reading.

Re:Rubber stamp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262220)

Court Order == Mandate From Government. "Expensive to implement/maintain" == "We're going to be paying ourselves lots out of our huge budget for many years". Is anyone really uncomfortable with how the brotherhood is deciding these days? How can we get face-to-face with these people and tell them how to do their jobs correctly?

Re:Rubber stamp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262236)

Right now there are certain circumstances where they are not following due process per the Fourth Amendment... Do you think that they will be stopped by a paltry Court Order?

Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (5, Informative)

beringreenbear (949867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261766)

The damage has been halted for now. [arstechnica.com] Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon put a hold on the bill, meaning that the Senate leadership is on notice that he will filibusterer it if the bill moves to full debate and vote.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (4, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261892)

A politician who acts based on common sense???

I get the feeling this 2012 armageddon stuff isn't completely bogus after all.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261908)

He'll wait till he gets enough concessions from the opposition on other topics and then endorse a more broadly powered act.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261964)

I wouldn't bet on it. He is one of the only decent senator's we've got in the U.S.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262098)

A politician who acts based on common sense???

Hahahahaha. Good joke. Wyden supports something similar to what this bill does just in a more limited scope. If you thought he did this because he was against the whole idea you are sadly mistaken.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (4, Interesting)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261940)

Sadly, it'll probably just get paperclipped with a budget-related bill to bypass the filibuster like they did with the Patriot Act extensions.

It'd be nice if the rest of the Senate decides that it's actually a terrible bill and vote to kill it.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262326)

Which is why I would like to introduce a bill with no provisions, which would make it illegal to piggyback bills.
They are what they are, take it or leave it.
No?
Next subject.

If anyone needs me, I'll be hanging out in my own utopia.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262146)

Wow, a Congressman doing the right thing. Have a good look kids, you're seeing something rarer than Haley's Comet.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262154)

Where can I donate to this guy's... Whatever I can donate to to support this guy?

I'm not even American. I still want to give this man money and support.

Re:Bill Stuck In Senate Plumbing (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262250)

Strictly a PR move for the folks back home. He's fully aware that this is only a speed bump, not tire spikes.. It's the same game Kucinich played over the health care law. Someone will read him the riot act, and he will back down..

Goodbye thepiratebay.org (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261770)

I've said for a long time that a U.S. great firewall was coming. I'm frankly just surprised it took so long. Sadly, this will now begin a big chase game of "change our IP" "IP blocked, change it again" for all the torrent/controversial sites that the government doesn't like. No more typing "wikileaks.org" into our browsers' URL field. Now we have to find a (hopefully) updated IP address from some site that will probably itself be blocked shortly after it starts offering a list.

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (4, Informative)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261818)

There's a reason why we have addons like https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/ [mozilla.org] to automate that process.

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262042)

Considering the government has essentially turned over control of this to the corporations (they're the ones who get the right to petition for removal), it wouldn't surprise me if Sony runs to a judge and demands that they block mozilla.org.

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (1)

cob666 (656740) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261852)

Or, it's back to ftp and gopher. I also wonder how this would impact something like newsgroups.

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262060)

Shit, now I have to remember how to use all those damned Archie characters again for searching. Anyone remember which one was for searching gopher?

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261924)

The spammers have already solved this problem with something called "fast flux DNS".

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262066)

The government is already working on a "flux capacitor" to stop this.

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (5, Insightful)

johanw (1001493) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261998)

This may also explain why Google and Mozilla plan on removing the browser URL field. It prevents more people from being able to go anywhere where the mighty Google or it's countries junta doesn's point us to.

Re:Goodbye thepiratebay.org (3, Insightful)

forand (530402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262358)

Interesting? Really? The changes to Chrome's UI do remove the URL bar but do not remove the URL field. When the user highlights the tab they see the URL field, when they don't they get more screen real estate for content. By and large this is a great UI design change. I don't need to see the huge URL telling me Nth directory the site I am visiting stores their HTML in (look at Slashdot do you type in the link to this story?). But good on you for making it sound like some nefarious plan between Google and oppressive regimes to not let people browse to non approved sites, don't let reality stand in your way.

Guilty without trial (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261788)

The sites merely have to be ACCUSED of being copyright infringers. Remember when Homeland Security yanked thousands of websites off the net, including several that were merely personal blogs or news sites?

This is no good. We have courts for a reason - to protect the citizenry from overzealous leaders assuming guilt and enacting punishment against innocent persons.

the internet and the govt (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261816)

The internet was better off before the legal and judicial systems were even aware of it.

The boffins at DARPA came up with it, and for decades, all was well - from the 70's up until the mid 90's at least. It succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams *because* no one was in control of it. It was an anarchy. If you don't want to see something, don't look, and if you do, then do.

It will die in practice because of people who, for one reason or another, think they have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

Funny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261836)

...how fake law names can be "PATRIOT ACT" & "PROTECT IP".

Re:Funny (3, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261976)

Sponsored by the Ministry of Truth (tm).

Upgrade network infrastructure (4, Insightful)

Gannimo (919171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261842)

Well, this calls for decentralized DNS and some tor like network overlay...

Re:Upgrade network infrastructure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261996)

With DNSSEC authenticating the content of a DNS record, we can do reliable decentralized DNS since the server doesn't have to be necessary a "trusted" machine.

The Invisible Internet Project is running (4, Informative)

Burz (138833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262070)

http://www.geti2p.net/ [geti2p.net]

I've been using it for over a year and it works very well. It has email, web sites, bittorrent, and emule among other things (they are working on bitcoin too). Your public key is the same as your address, and routing is highly decentralized (everyone internally routes for the network by default) so even blocking people by IP or their key address is not really possible.

Re:Upgrade network infrastructure (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262080)

That is probably a good start, but how does it protect you from the actions of your service provider who will, in the name of 'god', be spying on your every move? We need real P2P and to prevent what we say and do from being used against us.. My question is, how do we achieve that? Preferably in a peaceful manner, but ultimately, any way we can, if that's what it takes.

I agree, but... (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262204)

Is decentralized DNS enough? Im pretty sure your ISP can block traffic to any IP address they want to, much like I can configure my router to not allow any outbound or inbound traffic to any specified IP address. I could be wrong about this, but it's something I always wondered about...

So where does this leave us? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261850)

This will sail past congress and the president, leaving the internet effectively censored at the whim of an increasingly corrupt -and scarily theocratic- government.

I think Prince was right -for the wrong reasons- the freedom and promise of the internet IS over, as is it's usefulness.

Good night, sweet prince
Internet: 1993-2011 R.I.P.

Re:So where does this leave us? (1, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261956)

>Internet: 1993-
Nope. The phrase you are looking for is "world wide web", and even that is actually a few years older than Mosaic

Re:So where does this leave us? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262046)

If you think they're going to stop with the world wide web, you're an idiot. This effects torrents, ftp, usenet [is that still around?], irc --EVERYTHING.

DNS and doman name snatches/blockages affect all protocols, don't you know that?

Prohibition (4, Insightful)

KillaGouge (973562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261856)

Does the government not remember how well prohibition went? Have they not learned that by making something illegal they are only going to push more people to to figure out ways around it.

Re:Prohibition (4, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262134)

It worked so well for drugs they decided to try it on personal freedom that you now get groped and you can't say shit.

This goes after online communications.

Soon they will be tapping every phone and steaming open every letter and parcel.

Re:Prohibition (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262198)

This isn't quite equatable to prohibition. Prohibition outlawed alcohol for consumption based on an ideological battle that left no legal alternatives for acquiring alcoholic drinks.

This is a move to censor and remove access to certain websites based on an ideological battle that attempts to crack down and censoring activities already perceived, or already are, by the law makers as being illegal.

This is not prohibition. Its increased enforcement of existing policy and law mixed with openings for potential abuse, a frightening precedent setting event thrown in a toboggan on a slippery slope.

Re:Prohibition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262264)

I don't think anyone in their right mind would expect this to actually work.

It is simply a way of saying to campaign contributors/lobbies "We are doing something about it".

This type of thing will go on until the large content cartels find a way to transition their business/distribution models while preserving their established stranglehold on the market and ultimately on consumers (and their wallets).

Possible missuse (3, Informative)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261868)

So if I hack the republicans website to host copyrighted material then the entire republican party gets banned from the internet?

Re:Possible missuse (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262272)

Oh the irony if a major political party's web servers were used to host a torrent tracker without their knowledge.

That'd be unlikely though, as someone would easily notice the sudden spike in traffic a tracker brings.

Welcome to United States of Iran, guys! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261878)

It is both depressing and ironic how the same things that happened 10-12 years ago in Iran, are happening in US right now! Now we all need a communication software which is not dependant on (state sponsored) telcos. You know, somthing like freenet, but it should also work!

Lolusa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261902)

You'd think your government would at least have the common courtesy to give you a reach-around when reaming the country in the ass so hard that your teeth chatter.

But nooo....

Which version? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261916)

Which version of IP does this protect? IPv4 or IPv6 ?

Only accused??? (4, Interesting)

Grand Facade (35180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261918)

What happened to innocent til proven guilty?

Who will be doing the accusing?

No I did not read the article, but this is a fair reaction to the OP

I hope anonymous steps up! (2)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36261946)

Hopefully anonymous will DDOS these senators re-election sites off the web!

^^^^^^^ This! (2)

imric (6240) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262040)

Indirect actions that do not materially affect these guys' quest for power will be ignored.

Re:^^^^^^^ This! (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262348)

As if DDoSing their websites would have any effect on their election. Put up a bunch of attack ads on TV and you have something. Buy some ads in meatspace, and people will notice. Make phone calls. Pass out signs and bumper stickers. These things will make people notice. The loss of a website would affect only a small percentage of voters, and even so, it certainly wouldn't make those affected switch their vote in any way. After all, there are so many other avenues of "information" out there about their favorite candidate.

Not that the opponent your attacks would be indirectly promoting would be any better. Unless you could provide a good alternative, even if you had the money to plaster the populace with campaign ads everywhere, you'd still be fucked in the end, just by the other candidate instead. But by that time, you'd have the money and resources to run your own campaign, which is probably what you should've done in the first place.

Ridiculous (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36261948)

I sense a Streisand effect in the making here...

How long will it be before we see bumper stickers and tshirts with open DNS ip addresses on them?

Not to mention the explosion in Eastern European based search engines?

Our elected officials are so freaking stupid...

fried flounder friday; if nothing changes... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262030)

disarm. read the teepeeleaks etchings. from slim to none is not very far. you call this 'weather' still? this is what we want our will to look like? carry on.

targets, long time, 'choice', jobs, all in the unspecified long term (decades) 'future'. all we want is a voice & a job, they say? (we want safe thriving babys & older folks all over the world) if everybody gets killed (by mistake, bad weather...), we'll still be ok? the chosen ones' lifeocidal weapons peddlers jobs are safe, as well as our last rights to remain silent. oppositions will be destroyed if they respond violently to being violently colonized & wind up like the genuine 'american' natives, who were subjected to inhuman treatment by the royals discovering colonizers, way back then, & even way before that.

disarm. please read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. no more even wetter wednesdays for us? thanks again. this is not a practice run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGb7Bs1OdtI
'Three wars, millions suffering, not enough yet?

Not a problem (3, Interesting)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262056)

The bill would create a list of blocked Internet sites, added Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a tech trade group.

. Users who want content will find a way around this. There's already a firefox add-on [mozilla.org] to circumvent Department of Homeland Security seized domains like torrent-finder.com [torrent-finder.com] . Thanks to Streisand effect of government domain seizures I found some great torrent sites I never before knew existed [chrome] .

like at work (1)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262210)

is this IP blocking (like at work but done by my ISP?) or is this the website not showing up in my "Bing" results?

Accused? (1)

Soluzar (1957050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262238)

I'm not surprised, although I am dismayed to see that the operative word here seems to be 'accused'. Not 'proven', or 'demonstrated', or anything like that, no sir. Even if I accept that copyright infringement is a terrible thing and must be stopped at all costs, this seems to potentially reach far beyond that goal while ignoring the fact that a lot of filesharing already takes place 'off the grid' as far as search engines are concerned. The Powers That Be will now now be able to shut down websites just by accusing them. I weep for our lost liberty. The internet is in danger of turning into an Orwellian nightmare if TPTB get their way.

The eternal Jew... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36262342)

I just can't imagine who is behind this.

Could it possibly be the people who tell your government what to do? You know, the people who never do manual labour? Who never pick crops, never dig roads, never build houses, never assemble cars. The eternal Jew...

What about pages that link to pages that link to.. (2)

01101010001010001010 (694010) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262388)

What if CNN had a single link to a page with some content alleged to be pirated IP, would Google block all access to CNN? If I spot someone has infringed my copyright by quoting more than the legally-allowed fair use amounts of something I wrote, can I just get them dumped off Google? Cool! Where's the site that lists the sites that Google isn't allowed to link to? Can Google link to that site? I wish the US Govt the best of luck with this whole 'legislate your way out of a changing market' thing. Interesting experiment (unless you happen to be in the US, of course). P

For once I'd like to see lobbyists... (2)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36262390)

This would definitely hurt the traffic of Google, Bing, and Yahoo to name a few.
Being based off of advertisements, I would think that Google would most definitely lobby against this, and quite heavily.

I'm not one for corporate lobbyists, but then again, 99/100 times it is something to screw over Joe Consumer. This may be the 1/100...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?