• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

SOPA internet censorship bill

No one here so far has mentioned the news aggregator sites. And presumably even RSS feeds. I'd venture a wager Arianna is quaking in her Manolos(read: AOL once again grabs the wrong end of the tiger).

Or even the "for a fee" Market apps that push news articles.

Correctly or incorrectly so, the SOPA bill, worded loosely(guaranteed to be) will introduce myriad of legal opportunities, and challenges too, for those wishing to pursue.
 
Hackers reportedly plan to fight back against Internet censorship by putting their own communications satellites into orbit and developing a grid of ground stations to track and communicate with them.

The news comes as the tech world is up in arms about proposed legislation that many feel would threaten online freedom.

According to BBC News, the satellite plan was recently outlined at the Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin. It's being called the "Hackerspace Global Grid."

If you don't like the idea of hackers being able to communicate better, hacker activist Nick Farr said knowledge is the only motive of the project, which also includes the development of new electronics that can survive in space, and launch vehicles that can get them there.

Farr and his cohorts are working on the project along with Constellation, a German aerospace research initiative that involves interlinked student projects.

You might think it would be hard for just anybody to put a satellite into space, but hobbyists and amateurs have been able in recent years to use balloons to get them up there. However, without the deep pockets of national agencies or large companies they have a hard time tracking the devices.

To better locate their satellites, the German hacker group came up with the idea of a sort of reverse GPS that uses a distributed network of low-cost ground stations that can be bought or built by individuals.

Supposedly, these stations would be able to pinpoint satellites at any given time while improving the transmission of data from the satellites to Earth.

The plan isn't without limitations.

For one thing, low orbit satellites don't stay in a single place. And any country could go to the trouble of disabling them. At the same time, outer space isn
 
quest7 said:
You might think it would be hard for just anybody to put a satellite into space, but hobbyists and amateurs have been able in recent years to use balloons to get them up there. However, without the deep pockets of national agencies or large companies they have a hard time tracking the devices.


Hackers Said to be Planning to Launch Own Satellites to Combat Censorship | PCWorld
Click to expand...

I would like to introduce you to Oscar 1. In 1961, OSCAR 1 (Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio), was added to a payload launched from Vandenberg. Since then, there have been quite a few AMSATs because they serve a public need.

AMSAT - The Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation

If you are interested in learning just how "easy" is for small groups to get a satellite into earth orbit, visit the site above.

AMSATS are used by vast numbers of hams. OSCAR started a long tradition that is very much alive. Anyone can listen to these satellites and if you are licensed, you can communicate using them as well. We also talk to the astronauts and bounce signals off of the moon. We also have ARISS to provide ISS to earth contacts between the crew of the space station and amateurs.

I do not pretend to know space law or the rules or conditions that a private group needs before they can put a satellite into orbit. I am only basically familiar with AMSAT and the various versions of OSCAR and how they were deployed. But it seems to be there must be a compelling reason to put the satellite into orbit or NASA will not allow it.

So these people that want their own satellite in orbit must deal with NASA or pay for a private launch either here or in another country.

If you are interested in current status, satellites/beacons and so forth, go here:

AMSAT - Satellite Frequencies
 
SharkLaser writes "In a leaked letter sent to Spain's outgoing President, the US ambassador warned that if Spain didn't pass SOPA-like file-sharing site blocking law, Spain would risk being put into United States trade blocklist. United States government interference in Spain's intellectual property laws have been suspected for a long time, and now the recent leaks of diplomatic cables confirm this. Apart from the cables leaked earlier, now another cable dated December 12th says U.S. expresses "deep concern" over the failure to implement SOPA-style censorship law in the country. 'The government has unfortunately failed to finish the job for political reasons, to the detriment of the reputation and economy of Spain,' read the letter. Racing against the clock in the final days of the government, Solomont had one last push. 'I encourage the Government of Spain to implement the Sinde Law immediately to safeguard the reputation of Spain as an innovative country that does what it says it will, and as a country that breeds confidence,' he wrote."

View Item (59) - Tech News Tube Mobile

I don't understand this.
 
So, here it is.

Every company that supports SOPA, if it passes, I will do this:

I will visit their site.

I will post copy-written material in a comments section.

Under another name, I will report them to whatever agency does the takedowns.

Their website will be taken down.


Happy, SOPA supporters?
 
BiggestManEver said:
So, here it is.

Every company that supports SOPA, if it passes, I will do this:
I will visit their site.
I will post copy-written material in a comments section.
Under another name, I will report them to whatever agency does the takedowns.
Their website will be taken down.
Happy, SOPA supporters?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and perhaps not at all. You do not know your comments will be seen and before the DMCA can take a site down, you must prove your case. If SOPA becomes the law of the land, you loose. If you post the info, it is not the site's fault and any investigator worth a damn can discover you are a fraud and your reason for posting material is not to fight the good fight, but to cause trouble. Perhaps you could end up being sued.

The fact that you will use fake names speaks volumes. If you care about the issue, use your real name and do not break the law to protest others.

Chances are, few cases will find their way into court. Certainly not a case based on the tactics you say you will use.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Perhaps, and perhaps not at all. You do not know your comments will be seen and before the DMCA can take a site down, you must prove your case. If SOPA becomes the law of the land, you loose. If you post the info, it is not the site's fault and any investigator worth a damn can discover you are a fraud and your reason for posting material is not to fight the good fight, but to cause trouble. Perhaps you could end up being sued.

The fact that you will use fake names speaks volumes. If you care about the issue, use your real name and do not break the law to protest others.

Chances are, few cases will find their way into court. Certainly not a case based on the tactics you say you will use.
Click to expand...

You don't understand SOPA if that's how you think it works.

It's aimed squarely at PirateBay type sites. Where a user posts some content that another entity deems to be infringing their "copywright." Instead of directly asking the site to remove the content (big studios do this daily on YouTube), they could just have the enforcing agency turn off the site completely.

Please, go get educated on SOPA. What I detailed above would be possible (and probably very frequent if it passed).
 
Ron Paul is starting to sound like a winner to me. :)
SOPA really kinda scares me. Of course, a lot of laws and governments scare me.

Bob Maxey said:
And here you thought you would escape being wrong today.
Click to expand...
(hope you don't mind me making that my new sig ;))
 
Our elected officials in Congress (your representatives) are not thinking (once again). There are bills floating around that propose to give the government a "big red kill switch". They are called PIPA and SOPA. I typically don't take political stands nor do I push political views, but this will kill the internet if this passes.

Here's the just...
The bill is to stop online piracy. The congressman that brought this to the floor wants to give the government the ability to block any site that has copy righted material on it, not the content but the entire site. So for instance; If you upload a video to megaupload that has a copy righted song in it and Universal music finds it, they will have the ability to take down the entire site, not just your content. Don't let the line in the bill of foreign sites throw you all that means is that .com, .org, and .net sites would potentially be exempt from this law. Which is great for one of the biggest pirating sites out there, which is a .org.

All I'm asking is that you go to the following sites and educate your self. If you agree that this need to be blocked e-mail your representative. There are canned e-mails on these sites and your representatives e-mail addresses as well. Don't just take what I said read about it. Leo Laporte talks about it in his weekly radio show, The Tech Guy episode 832.

americancensorship.org
eff.org

(didn't realize I can't post links yet)


Please go and learn about this and help out.



Thank you all.

Please pass this along.
 
Yeah - I read that but didn't know how to interpret it. They're against DNS blocking, so that gets compromised out, and from the article, they're against hurting:

"Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent," the statement says.
Click to expand...

The cynical side of me reads that as the mechanisms supporting campaign funding and search engines because then every American on the net would be after their jobs in office.

So - DNS blocking out, spam advertising in, and don't really expose it all, and present it as a good thing?

Sounds to me like the oldest game in Washington - screw the taxpayers and citizens over to benefit special interests with deep pockets while the two sides come together to protect their jobs by making a good show of how they're all working in our interest by getting all bi-partisan about it while looking tough.

Yeah, I tend to be very cynical about this. And how now, also from the article -

The administration is also opposed to "overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing."
Click to expand...

Translation - one or more of the big money interests has a new business in the wings. I have yet to see anything stopping startup businesses and innovative firms from growing now. My other translation is - Crap! We almost got caught!

The administration also wants legislation that is "narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity."
Click to expand...

That sounds fantastic.

But what does that statement say - not what does it imply - but what does it say?

What sites are beyond the reach of US law? I want their URLs.

And the second clause doesn't say sites, it implies them. All it really says is, "cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws..."

What does it mean to cover an activity already prohibited by US law with a new law?

Has there ever once been a good law that covered existing laws, sold to the voters as a good thing, that was actually a good thing?

I cannot think of a single one.

Both sides are selling us out, that's how I read that.
 
Perhaps this represents a real business opportunity. Will large web concerns like YouTube hire people to snitch and tell for dollars aplenty?

Personally, I think we need to delete the Internet and start over. Punish the infringers with huge fines and jail. While the net is being deleted, we can all take a month off for some much needed rest.
 
9to5cynic said:
Obama administration joins the ranks of SOPA skeptics

Ars also has an article about some Republicans who are now switching sides due to public outcry.

(also, looks like ars is getting trolled by the mpaa ;))
Click to expand...

I am also a Cynic, 9to5cynic. I think the current administration and many republicans are looking to support the most vocal in hopes of garnering votes and support, regardless of their POV or ideas.

All I know is I would dearly miss the Cute Kitten Videos on YouTube, so I hope they leave those alone.
 
OK my learned associates . . . how should the Internet be controlled or governed or changed?

Should it stay as it is? Should people be punished for infringement; if so, how? Do we give some agency a way to pull down a site? Yes, no, why, why not? Give any government agency such power and it will be abused. Take away all government power to redress issues, and nothing gets done.

I recently worked with a client to have a site "changed" using provisions of the DMCA. For us, it worked well. And now, a bunch of people hate my client.

There are millions upon millions of web sites . . . how can we begin to get a grasp on the problem.
 
Well, I think that blocking DNS isn't going to help. If someone wants to get to the illegal site, they could just use the IP address... And from a whitepaper I read, SOPA and PIPA would really mess up DNSSEC.

I really think this is all just stemming from MPAA and RIAA, which are two organizations that I truly have no respect for and kind of fear. I'm kinda under the impressions that these two organizations have enough capital to buy pretty much anyone in Congress and get these types of legislation passed.

How should the Internet be protected from piracy? I don't know. But, if DVDs and audio disks were available at better prices, I'm sure that would help. There was one comment that I read, where a man had bought a DVD for his kid, and had to sit through 10 minutes of unskipable trailers. He claims that pirates don't have to deal with that non-sense and he claimed that it was the last dvd he'll ever buy.... Now, that was a comment so it could have been anyone just talking.

And EarlyMon pointed out something very important - wording. I totally overlook this almost anytime I read something posted by a government body. Every word needs to be analyzed. What they say is just as important as what they don't say. I really don't think the government should have this kind of power over the Internet.

I think the way we handle things inside of the US cyberspace is not that bad, it seems most piracy stems from outside of the region (though it is still conducted inside...). Shutting down external sites seems completely out of our jurisdiction.

Aside: I'm reading a book about cyber warfare, and they mention a lot of governments that have state-sanctioned hacker groups, and non-state hacker groups. These groups (state) could easily be used to try to get these sites down. The non-state groups too. Now, would this be better? I haven't a clue. I know these laws make me question what is really going on in the government.

bob, you mentioned punishment. I think if person A pirates a cd, they should be liable up to only what a person convicted of physically stealing the same cd would get, but that's my thought. I don't really see a difference. Now, if person A was distributing that file, that's a different story.

-- Sorry for rambling, hope it at least made some sense as to what I was trying to convey. And that it was as concise in typing as it was in my head.
 
I can't go along with price or convenience as a justification for piracy. That's merely acting entitled. Blockade, ok, don't buy products you disapprove of - but don't turn around and steal them.

All that behavior has done is feed SOPA-like thinking. It's the pirating, something for nothing, jerks that put us on this path in the first place.
 
^ Good point. Without those pirate bozos we wouldn't have to worry about the day that rick rolling someone could get a site taken down. Not sure if that could happen with SOPA, but from what I've read it could. Not sure about 'fair-use' and how that applies to music videos which are meant to be used as a prank. ;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom