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!

The Best and Worst US Internet Laws

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the rhymes-with-shoeless dept.

The Courts 67

An anonymous reader writes "When a US legislator describes the Internet as a 'series of tubes' you just know that you're going to end up with some wacky laws on the books. Law professor Eric Goldman takes a look at the best and worst Internet laws in the U.S. Goldman offers an analysis of the biggies such as the DMCA, but also shines light on lesser-known laws like the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002. And he actually finds four Internet laws that aren't all bad."

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

attn slashdot, I have a penis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18838805)

and I'm not afraid to use it

Re:attn slashdot, I have a penis (4, Funny)

Calydor (739835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839091)

I see your penis has been rated redundant. How does that make you feel?

Re:attn slashdot, I have a penis (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839393)

I see your penis has been rated redundant. How does that make you feel?


Well, seeing as how so many wives have redundant systems, it probably depends on whether or not that AC is the husband or the milkman, but we can be fairly sure he isn't The Fireman. [lyricsfreak.com]

Re:attn slashdot, I have a penis (0, Offtopic)

Mr. Shotgun (832121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839989)

RAIP:Redundant Array of Independant Penises?- wait, that didn't sound right.
JBOD:Just a Bunch Of Dicks?

Re:attn slashdot, I have a penis (1)

Pfhorrest (545131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18844943)

Is it because of your mother that you see your penis has been rated redundant? -Eliza

Only on Slashdot... (-1, Offtopic)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839193)

... could someone mod this insightful.

Mostly because most other sites don't have the moderation system to cope.

Re:attn slashdot, I have a penis (1, Funny)

Gryle (933382) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839317)

and because you're posting on slashdot, odds are you never will.

Better link to article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18838817)

An easier to read, all on one page version of the FA is here [informit.com] .

Re:Better link to article (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18838823)

How did you log in and post from my account?

Re:Better link to article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839527)

I like to call those, the *nix versions, uncluttered, no fancy visuals, text based... Yep, just like *nix.

Best and worst? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18838843)

Aritcle headline incorrect.

Should read:

The Worst and Least Worst of US Internet laws

Re:Best and worst? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18838873)

Although they covered the .kids issue, I was surprised to see .xxx not discussed, despite it never making it to law. Maybe I just read to fast. I think the comment about the 'hat trick' by Utah should earn them a 'badlawnobuscuit' award or something....

Re:Best and worst? (1)

Talgrath (1061686) | more than 7 years ago | (#18844455)

Ummm....ICANN isn't a law-making group; .xxx was a proposed ICANN change. Furthermore, the ICANN change was never enacted, and this article only looks at US laws that were actually enacted. Perhaps you do need to slow down when you read, your reading comprehension seems to be poor.

Re:Best and worst? (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18838967)

Agreed. The NET Act is horrible public policy. Not only that, the guy himself says that "criminal sanctions do not deter warez traders", linking to this paper on warez trading and the law [ssrn.com] , which "...discusses the motivations for warez trading, how criminalizing the behavior may counterproductively encourage it, and why legislators and prosecutors continue to target warez trading despite the counterproductive effects," in order to state his case, but then turns around and says that "[r]emoving warez traders from the Net, one by one, is a crude but ultimately effective method for curtailing warez trading" becuase "a couple of hundred warez traders have been busted by the law." (Whoop-de-doo!) So, uh, which is it? The law doesn't deter warez traders, or is the law effecting in curtailing them? You can't have it both ways.

Offtopic announcement (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839615)

Boris Yeltsin [msn.com] is dead. Someone find a decent article on it to toss at Taco. If he had any power still left, he don't now and likely some changes coming.

Posted under Warez comment cause of some memorable Russian Warez providers.

Re:Best and worst? (2, Interesting)

Nf1nk (443791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18840401)

The laws don't do anything, Law enforcement does.

As with most laws, there was an old law that did the job and would have continued doing the job just fine if it had just been enforced. The fun part is that the new law will likely be enforced with all the vigor of the old law and the problem will continue unsolved.

Re:Best and worst? (1)

moxley (895517) | more than 7 years ago | (#18841227)

Good - they can keep their laws off my internets

  - lest I have to install a giant hamster exercise wheel at the main hub between the two largest connecting tubes to keep Johnny law chasing useless recycled information - or I could just reroute the tubes to Digg, where he'll find a level of discourse that isn't over his head.

Re:Best and worst? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18850735)

Ironically that paper requires a subscription to read (paid?)
Could you AC's go do your thing and warez a copy here? (seems only fitting given the content of the paper and all).
thx,
-nB

Re:Best and worst? (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839047)

You're RIGHT! Those US-asians, always thinking that the world revolves around the US whill all of the time the world revolves around my ego!

Damm it

Re:Best and worst? (1)

Nqdiddles (805995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18841223)

/agree 'nough said. When comparing opposing viewpoints, it isn't always "best" and worst. Mark the parent "insightful". They remarked on something most of us wouldn't have thought of.

ATTN: SLASHDOTTEURS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18838883)

http://trollscore.y7.yi.org/ [yi.org]

No censorship, no fascism, no Zonk!

While we're discussing terrible internet laws... (4, Interesting)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 7 years ago | (#18838907)

I strongly urge any European slashdot denizens to contact their MEP(s) and advise them to vote for amendments to IPRED2 on the twenty-fifth of April. There's a BoingBoing post about it *here* [boingboing.net] , please don't let Cory's well-intentioned hyperbole sway you away from action.

The ammendments would-

* LIMIT the scope of IPRED2 to true criminal enterprises, involving copyright piracy and trademark violations done on a commercial scale, with malice and the intention of earning a profit from the enterprise, rather than criminalizing all intellectual property infringement as the current directive does; * AVOID creating an unprecedented scope of secondary liability for Internet intermediaries, ICTs, software vendors and a range of legitimate business activity, by removing the words "aiding or abetting and inciting" from Article 3. * PROVIDE LEGAL CERTAINTY by adopting precise and appropriate definitions of "on a commercial scale" and "intentional infringement" in Article 2 as commercial activity done with the intent to earn a profit directly attributable to the infringing activity.


There's some more info *here* [copycrime.eu] .

Re:While we're discussing terrible internet laws.. (2, Informative)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839039)

Welcome to the Internet! Click here [w3.org] !

-Peter

Re:While we're discussing terrible internet laws.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839271)

Screw that. A clear, obvious explicit link is preferable to an easily-missed "stylishly inline" hyperlink from a usability perspective. The w3c has been invaded by ex-AI-weenies sore about the AI Winter (that was largely their own fault!) and are a phalanx of asshats making counterproductive recommendations.

Re:While we're discussing terrible internet laws.. (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18841435)

If links aren't clear to you that is a problem with your browser, not with the content. Check your browser settings to see if you can customize its UI to work for you. If not, report it as an accessibility bug.

-Peter

Re:While we're discussing terrible internet laws.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839207)

Cory's well-intentioned hyperbole sway you away from action

Too late! Anything that numpty belches forth triggers my brain's "pontificating twat alert" and it automatically switches to having the opposite opinion. Sorry.

Re:While we're discussing terrible internet laws.. (1)

davotoula (938199) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839869)

Yes already did that and hoping more will follow suit. IPRED2 is some scary stuff.

US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (5, Insightful)

scsirob (246572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18838923)

I did read TFA, and it's just amazing how US lawmakers think they can govern the way Internet is being used and how it evolves, all from behind their desks. 10 out of 10 laws, good and bad, fail to take into account that these laws have no juristriction in other countries.

How does a US legislator come up with a law that tries to regulate information that may be property of an Australian entity, that sits on a German server and links to a French database hosted by a Lithouanian ISP? These laws are totally useless. Defective-by-design. And contrary to what that guy in the White House may think, America does not rule the world.

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (5, Insightful)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18838953)

Its not about actually getting anything done.

Its all about being sure you can say "Look, look what I did!" when re-election comes. Even if what you did, is completly idiotic, if it 'protects consumers/children/women/whatever' you get more votes, because people dont bother to research..anything, when it comes to things like this.

Most, if not all, of the people in office realize this, realize these laws are utterly pointless, unenforceable, and overall useless. Thats why they're writing them. Easier then actually making something that WORKS.

Mod GP up (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839107)

GP has ignited the fires of insight in parent. GP asks a valid question we have discussed here before and is much on topic. All political statements can and often will be viewed as "Flamebait" by the opposition and for that matter have their place in open debate.

Moderators, GP was only stating the obvious and presidents and congressmen were guilty of this kind of activity before the current "that guy in the White House" was the current president and thus could be interpreted generically to any "guy in the White House" whether he intended it that way or not.

Use of moderation in this manner is flamebait. Mod GP up.

To those modding GP as flamebait, feel free to waste your mod points on my post, burn me with your flames, it will keep a good post from getting hurt if you waste them on this lowly AC.

Re:Mod GP up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18842359)

Yeah right. If I flamed you in this thread it would undo my moderation...

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (1)

TranscendentalAnarch (1005937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18842661)

While that may be the reason for their initial creation, the continued existence of these laws provides many overzealous individuals a legal base by which to perpetuate their myriad witch hunts.

Too many politicians not only lack the knowledge to responsibly legislate on issues regarding the technical world, they lack the foresight to notice that these laws could be applied far beyond their originally intended scope. On a more sinister note, perhaps they just don't care and are far more concerned with the votes than with the laws' potential impact, as the parent poster said.

No matter which is true, it's a sad picture of American politics.

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (2, Interesting)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839099)

While your rant is on target for a limited subset of the laws listed, it doesn't actually cover them all substantively.

In particular, there are laws on the books regulating US Government behavior regarding the Internet, amongst other things, which is certainly within Congress's purview.

I suppose knowing that wouldn't have stopped you from making your anti-US post, since in most circumstances that's worth an easy +2 to karma, but I hope you apply a little more understanding and a little less kneejerk reactionism in the future.

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839171)

There is a huge difference between "anti-US" and anti-current US lawmakers/enforcers consensus of opinion and action. That could just as easily be a US citizen making those statements as many are often in disagreement with the current state of US governmental activities and legislation. Are you sure your not the one having a knee-jerk response?

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (3, Insightful)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839835)

I don't get it. What's so "anti-US" about the suggestion politicians do stupid things and waste time? "Kneejerk reactionism" describes almost every use I've seen of the term "anti-US."

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18842339)

Oooh, oooh. An anti-anti-US post. Instant karma ftw.

Whenever anyone posts anything that could remotely be considered a dig at the US whether rightfully so or not, always bring the US-bashing card into play for bonus points.

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (2, Informative)

ubuwalker31 (1009137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18840073)

"....fail to take into account that these laws have no juristriction <sic> in other countries"

Well, that is because most of the lawmakers are also lawyers, and are familiar with a legal concept called "Long Arm Jurisdiction" which allows a Federal Court to use the most relevant state's long arm statute to pursue foreign states. For example:
"LOCAL INJURY; FOREIGN ACT. In any action claiming injury to person or property within this state arising out of an act or omission outside this state by the defendant, provided in addition that at the time of the injury, either:
(a) Solicitation or service activities were carried on within this state by or on behalf of the defendant; or
(b) Products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed within this
state in the ordinary course of trade."

The use of a long arm statute is usually constitutional where the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state and there has been reasonable notice of the action against him or her. Courts look at 3 factors: purposeful availment of an individual or entity to another jurisdiction, whether an act was done in another jurisdiction, and whether the jurisdiction is reasonable for the defendant to expect to defend himself there.

So, if a judgment is obtained in a US Court, there is a process, by treaty or letters rogatory, to execute and enforce the judgment in the foreign country.

This is how our global village works. Basically.

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18840131)

10 out of 10 laws, good and bad, fail to take into account that these laws have no jurisdiction in other countries.
I know this isn't news to anyone on slashdot, but as an European it never ceases to amaze me how American lawyers and politicians are misguided in over-thinking their importance.

Pass dumb law in the US, and for the most part those of us outside your borders just point and laugh. The DMCA (as one example) is of no interest nor value to 90% of the World, and why it should be so absorbing to the other 10% is difficult to understand.

There's not really any such thing as a sensible Internet law. Since for a law to be sensible it needs to be internationally enforceable - there are no laws whatsoever that currently meet that criteria.

The only thing that going to work is adoption of something similar to International Marine Law.

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#18841521)

There are sensible internet laws, and they don't have to be internationally enforceable to be that way. The problems are that you have to prosecute the receiver, not the supplier of information. In most cases this makes laws unenforceable because we're not willing to devote the effort necessary to prosecute individual internet gamblers (for example), or we're not comfortable with sentences harsh enough to be an adequate deterrent e.g. p2p and warez.

An example where we are willing to invest the man power and are comfortable with deterrent penalties is child porn laws. Note, that you don't really need a specific "on the internet" type law here, but you certainly can regulate online behavior in such a manner.

Re:US lawmakers dont understand global Internet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18841853)

The problems are that you have to prosecute the receiver, not the supplier of information.


The trouble with prosecuting the receiver of information is you don't know what your getting until you load a page and even then you don't know everything you got unless your an expert and scan and identify every bit that comes in over your internet connection. Virtually anyone that uses default Windows setup for browsing and email and particularly those that open every email are going to have at some point child pornography on their computer. P2P you could very well have a similar problem on, even though the computer owner never intended to transfer anything illegal or in violation of copyright laws with it.

America and "free trade" (1)

Meph_the_Balrog (796101) | more than 7 years ago | (#18848267)

The problem is, every country approached by the US for free trade agreements is asked to agree to certain things. These things include prosecution for things that are only a crime in America, and also to honour the American copyright and patent systems. This is why so much of the world has to pay attention to laws like the DMCA, since everyone seems to actually want free trade with the good ole US of A.

He couldn't have made a worse description (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18838957)

Tubes! The naive old fool!

Every geek on this site knows that the Internet is actually a series of pipes.

In the case of the main backbones, great big fat pipes!

Re:He couldn't have made a worse description (1)

enjerth (892959) | more than 7 years ago | (#18842733)

There's nothing wrong with using the term "tubes". It's a fine word to use for describing the function of the internet if you don't know any better.

We're just scared when such uneducated people try to write laws about these "tubes".

Where's CAN-SPAM ? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839003)

I'm apalled that the author excluded CAN-SPAM from tfa. Easily #1 worst internet law in my books, for the fact that it is almost entirely unenforcable. (amongst many other enormous problems)

Re:Where's CAN-SPAM ? (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839357)

I've always wondered ... when they said 'CAN' in 'CAN-SPAM', which definition of 'can [reference.com] ' are they trying for?

can1
1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to
2. to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.
3. to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.
4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.
5. may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?
6. to have the possibility: A coin can land on either side.
can2
10. to preserve by sealing in a can, jar, etc.
11. Slang. to dismiss; fire.
12. Slang. to throw (something) away.
13. Slang. to put a stop to: Can that noise!
14. to record, as on film or tape.

Re:Where's CAN-SPAM ? (1)

Sherloqq (577391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18842379)

And here I was, thinking that CAN-SPAM was referring to a law prohibiting elderly Americans from going to Canadian websites to purchase SPAM, which is much cheaper than American SPAM and can be obtained from ever seeing a Canadian dietician or a Canadian food recipe... because we all know that American food industry must protect its market from the influx of cheaper, foreign-made SPAM which isn't made to the same standards as the US stuff... despite the fact that SPAMedi^H^H^Hcare and SPAMedic^H^H^Haid are only cover so much of the bill and those poor seniors just can't afford the domestic stuff....

Re:Where's CAN-SPAM ? (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 7 years ago | (#18844611)

I have also wondered why this is missing. This regulation was only able to increase unsolicted email and create more problems.

Biased toward copyright/anticompetive behavior (5, Interesting)

Aoreias (721149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839129)

How could there be no mention in this article of Title 18 1029, 1030, 2510, and 2701, which, among other things, makes most of the following illegal in most circumstances
  • Possession of counterfeit credentials involving interstate commerce, such as credit card numbers
  • Accessing a computer in an unauthorized manner
  • Gaining privileges in excess of those otherwise granted
  • Unauthorized wiretaps
While our ability to exercise certain rights is important, let us not forget that we also need the ability to restrict others from trespass and fraud.

Yeah, what kind of idiot would you.. (5, Funny)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839163)

.. have to be to use "series of tubes" as an analogy for the Internet? What's next? Buffering? Routing? Flow control? HAH! Ignorant politicians.

Re:Yeah, what kind of idiot would you.. (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839425)

Flow control?

You too? I notice at the end of the month my connection starts getting all testy and ornery. Then on the first, it's fine again. 30 days. Like clockwork.

Re:Yeah, what kind of idiot would you.. (2)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18842347)

Well, don't this sounds ignorant? At least funny it does :D

Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Butthead noticed that... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18839263)

From TFA:

"The CDA (Communications Decency Act) tried to keep kids away from Internet porn, a reaction to a sensational 1995 article (the "Rimm Report") published in the Georgetown Law Journal that proclaimed that the Internet was awash in porn."

Uhhhh, he said "Rimm". Huhuhuhuhuhuh.

Laws which assume that small children (4, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839347)

...have the right to play in the middle of the 'Information Superhighway' are almost always rotten.

Handing over the keys to the car is something you do when your kid turns 15. There ought to be a similar ethic WRT Internet access.

Re:Laws which assume that small children (1)

tshak (173364) | more than 7 years ago | (#18842069)

Handing over the keys to the car is something you do when your kid turns 15. There ought to be a similar ethic WRT Internet access.

I agree that there should be a similar *ethic* in which parents enforce. I do not agree that a *law* is needed or that the analogy is valid. We have drivers licenses primarily to ensure that people are properly trained to use a device that is very powerful and can easily cause serious damange to others if used improperly. We don't require licenses because we're afraid of what children will learn by driving around and seeing the world. The internet does not require governance over who uses it. It requires guidance and supervision from a parent or guardian just like any form of information (TV, books, videos, etc).

How about law by sponsor, support, opposition? (4, Insightful)

mnemotronic (586021) | more than 7 years ago | (#18839505)

What would help me is a chart of the laws, who sponsored them, who voted for them and who voted against them. Granted, the "voted for" and "voted against" columns are rendered useless by porcine pork politics and the absurd nature of the American legislative process. All legislation receives the benefit of "earmarking" [heritage.org] . A truely bad bill may become law, not for it's primary purpose, but because of the attendant special interest amendments and good-ol-boy reach-arounds. How strange that HRBF George feels that the line item veto is a vital tool [whitehouse.gov] to combat ineffective laws, yet no-one believes that the Congress should be endowed with complementary powers, as in a line item vote. Legislators have the time to meet with the money (campaign contributors, special interests), construct loopholes, graft them onto other laws, and schmooze their compatriots, but do they actually have the time, as a body, to research and vote on each and every issue? Not likely.

Still, knowing who sponsored the bills would be useful (yea, I could look it up myself, but I'm a complainer, not a doer).

18 USC 2257 (3, Interesting)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18840013)

They missed one of the worst, 18 USC 2257, which makes a large chunk of internet sites impossible to run legally, like any site where people are uploading content or streaming video. This includes anonymous rateme sites like ratemyboobies, flashyourrack, and arguably even things like tinypic, flickr, and photobucket.

Of course nobody will admit to hating it as it protects the children and if you dont like it you're a creepy pedophile.

Impossible to hate the law because it makes distributors have to keep a copy of everything they distribute (technologically impossible for a cam site, not enough storage exists), makes pornstars give up a lot more personal info that all needs kept on file, even though they're usually the type that would want to stay anonymous or at least not have random guys able to come find and rape them, and makes it impossible for a girl to randomly post a tit picutre on a forum, imageboard, or whatever.

Nope. None of those are valid complaints. Don't like the law = want to dick an 8 year old. Must be why it was left out from the article.

Re:18 USC 2257 (2, Funny)

armando_wall (714879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18848453)

ratemyboobies, flashyourrack? I've been missing out. Thank you!

Other ignorant people and bizarre analogies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18840225)


Here's an another crackpot idea I read about the other day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer [wikipedia.org]

Tubes all around.

2 + 2 + 10? Some how I think it's a bit biased. (3, Insightful)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18840315)

Ok, we can all agree that the government has not been able to understand the internet, and I think that's pretty sad, but I have a feeling that there has been more than 14 laws put into place about the internet. He even admits there's been 100s of laws passed. My problem is that we can only find 2 good laws, 2 questionable laws and 10 bad laws? This sounds like the article's writer has a bit of an axe to grind and decided to take it out on laws while pretending to maintain impartiality. He admits he's biased, but I could admit I'm biased and repeat some of the stuff that Venezuelan president Chavez says about out country and Bush. Doesn't make what I say news, or even worthy of a title "The good and bad of Bush".

Personally I find this article to be subpar for our standards. Slashdot isn't a soap box, something we seem to have forgotten.

plus 5, T8oll) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18840497)

Missing: CAN-SPAM ACT (3, Interesting)

merc (115854) | more than 7 years ago | (#18840851)

The CAN-SPAM act is terrible legislation, not because of what it attempted to accomplish, but because of what it actually accomplished: Nothing. Even worse, it failed to criminalize spam, effectively legitimizing it.

Aside from that the law has no real teeth. You can't seek redress from spammers unless you're an Attorney General or an ISP.

Best Law. (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18842689)

YCTAT

Godwin's Law is a close second.

So how does this compare to other laws? (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18843001)

The internet is something we know about, so we can interpret the laws. How many laws are out that that we do NOT know how it works, or is there a reason to believe Internet laws are different?

It's all political. CP 80 (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18847249)

--Msg: 28501 of 28505 4/23/2007 6:17:36 PM Recs: 8 Sentiment: Strong Sell
By: atul666 Send PM Profile Ignore Recommend Add To Favorites
The REAL reason Ralphie hates open wireless

Here's a curious thing. During the recent CP80 hearings in Utah, Ralphie proposed cracking down on local Utah ISPs, and anyone who offers open wireless access. The one witness in opposition quoted in the media was one Pete Ashdown, CEO of XMission, a local Utah ISP that would disproportionately bear the brunt of Ralphie's proposal, since it's a local ISP, and offers open wireless access in the Salt Lake metro area. It seemed odd at the time that Ralphie and the legislators would be so hot on the proposal, since ISPs based out of state would be unaffected by the proposed law, so the law would have no effect whatsoever on the pr0n "crisis".

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660213162,00 .html [deseretnews.com]

Pete Ashdown's name sounded vaguely familiar, but I didn't connect the dots until today. In addition to being the founder & owner of XMission, Mr. Ashdown was also the Democratic challenger to Sen. Orrin Hatch in last year's general election.

http://formaline.blogspot.com/2006/05/im-with-pete .html [blogspot.com]

Recall that Ralphie donated quite heavily to Sen. Hatch's reelection campaign, with donations arriving in his name and the names of his kids as well. Which isn't technically legal, but hey. Oh, and Hatch's son is one of SCO's top lawyers, of course.

So maybe this is all one big incredible coincidence. Or maybe it's political payback time, with Ralphie trying to buy a few more favors in the process.

Msg: 28505 of 28505 4/23/2007 7:06:32 PM Recs: 0 Sentiment: Not Disclosed
By: monsieur_bobo Send PM Profile Ignore Recommend Add To Favorites
Posted as a reply to msg 28501 by atul666

Re: The REAL reason Ralphie hates open wireless

[Or maybe it's political payback time, with Ralphie trying to buy a few more favors in the process. ]

I'll pick door number two - payback time. If Mr. Ashdown had any other political ambitions, they are history now. From here on out, Mr Ashdown is going to labeled as, at best 'soft on child pornography' and, at worst, a purveyor of child porn. Child porn is everybody's favorite campaign issue because nobody is for it and, once you get elected, you don't actually have to *do* anything about it as it is already against the law and vigorously prosecuted. From here on out, thanks to Ralph 'Spoilsport' Yarro, Mr. Ashdown is on the wrong side on an issue that creates a very powerful gut level reaction. Mr. Ashdown could cure cancer, bring world peace, stop gloabl warming, and eliminate poverty world wide and he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected dog catcher.

Bad laws he forgot to discuss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18848017)

Two bad laws he forgot to discuss: all of UCITA and the provisions of UETA that state that email is considered received once it enters the ISP even if nobody ever sees it. (UCITA contains a provision similar to the bad ones in UETA. A legal notice or bill caught in a spam filter is still deemed delivered.)

UCITA is just bad all over. One example provision allows licenses or internet service agreements to be changed at will by the provider posting new terms on a web site.

Need some laws (1)

lrunger (1068920) | more than 7 years ago | (#18870079)

Just because there are some stupid laws doesn't mean we don't need some public policy to encourage build out, prohibit redlining of certain neighborhoods, promote rural broadband development, protect consumers to make sure they are getting the speed and quality they are paying for. There are some examples of good public policy at http://www.speedmatters.org./ [www.speedmatters.org]

Internet laws by US Congress abusive and illegal (1)

mscsrrr.com (1085739) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939581)

Internet laws by US Congress abusive and illegal

USA Congress should stop passing meddling nutty internet laws because the internet is an international network and also it resides in cyberspace which are beyond their jurisdiction.

Therefore all laws passed about internet are unconstitutional, illegal and flagrant abuse of power and abrogation of the first amendment rights of US citizens as well as international human rights as guaranteed by UN.

US Congress can't expect its citizens to obey the laws while it arrogantly and flippantly abuse its power, abrogates the rights of its citizens and breaks the law with impunity.

The members of the US congress represent the people of America and the will of the people of America which is supreme should guide them in all their legislative activities.

Anyone of them who continues to disrespect the American people by breaking the laws, ignoring their wills and abrogating their rights to free expression and association as guaranteed by the US constitution should be re-called and never voted into power again for the rest of his/her life, as well as prosecuted and put in the slammer for the betrayal of people's will and mandate.

Infact, only UN may have the jurisdictional powers to decide to pass any internet laws and if it does, it should be dissolved and scraped. Ikey Benney, http://maychic.com/sitemap.htm [maychic.com]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?