Reject the PROTECT IP Act
secure.eff.org
secure.eff.org
I find it odd that, while I'm uniformly turned off by Stallman's "iBad/iGroan/Swindle" characterizations, I can fully get behind this repurposing of the PROTECT IP acronym. Perhaps because it doesn't reek of Stallman's immaturity, or maybe because it is actually descriptive; I nonetheless find myself supporting it.
This article from the EFF is too brief and poorly annotated to really lead me to any conclusions on its own. I would like to read a fully fleshed out position paper/article on the deficiencies of the PROTECT IP act. Anyone know of one?
edit: Found this from the EFF themselves:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/plus-ca-change-protect...
They link to the bill itself which is only 30 pages. It is pretty poorly thought out.
RMS calls it like he sees it.
Politicians sticking their noses in technology is like a pshychopathic criminal with a machine gun. They don't have a clue what they are doing and what consequences thereof will be.
A flood of letters will be much more effective than any single petition.
But what really needs to be done is ongoing education and active participation in the political process -- long term. And that means more than just voting once every 4 years, or signing the occasional petition.
Yeah, we're slightly more enlightened than the politicians, but that's not really saying much.
All we know is that it'd be better to just leave the internet alone for now, until we have a better idea of its potential (which, I acknowledge, may never happen).
Of course, as other commenters have said, the idea that the US can basically say "follow our law, or you have no internet" is disgusting. Unfortunately, this threat will hold until some country decides to call the US's bluff.
[1] If you don't feel like an expert, don't worry about it. The bar in Washington for who's considered an expert is fairly low :-)
Edit: I just submitted this here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2630141
Although I'm not entirely convinced, part of my wonders whether governmental support for these lobbyists might be partly swayed by the simple proposition that these methods to control the internet could eventually be used for more varied forms of censorship.
1) God I am so fucking sick of dialing for dollars.
2) This guy has a bag of money.
3) I spend all my time dialing and none of it on policy so I can't tell the difference anyways.
Hey, I'll just do what he's telling me.
It's not quite that cut and dried but that's what it comes down to in the end, with a little dancing in between so the congressman can convince himself he isn't being bought.
Maybe it's just cynicism?
The (then) Minister of Family Affairs (,Senior Citizens, Women and Youth) sold it as "fighting against child pornography" and despite every serious expert stating that it is completely useless, it got passed, was taken out of effect later on, then put on hold by the president, it turned out to possibly being unconstitutional and now seems to be scheduled for being lifted again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen#Blocking_i...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz
For the life of me, I will never understand politics.
PROTECT THE REPUBLICS Lobbyists ACT
Simply, disgusting.
But what organizational body can take control? The UN? I don't think the Internet would be any safer in anyone else's hands.
Ok. These politicians get "elected" because they, quite simply, can buy their elections. When you can tell your constituents "look! I got you <latest bill of pork>! I'm doing good for you! Re-elect me!", they will re-elect you.
The only thing we're guilty of is being incredibly short-sighted.
This has shorter name- Being an idiot, so he is exactly RIGHT. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_(Athenian_democracy)
And speak rather for Yourself(or Your group, im not in).
Simply, disgusting.
With a lot of discussion on HN about Eternal September, let me take this opportunity to say comments like these are incredibly group-think, very reddit-hivemind-like, and add very little to the discussion, if not none at all.
I think discussions on HN should focus less on hyperbole and vacuous statements and I wish to read more comments on HN which are serious in intent and more grounded in reality. As other posters mentioned, not only is the suggestion to ban the US to preserve an open internet ironic but it is simply a knee-jerk comment (however awful and disgusting one personally feels about the issue) that I feel HN could do without.