H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act

To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. view all titles (6)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: Stop Online Piracy Act as introduced.
  • Short: Stop Online Piracy Act as introduced.
  • Official: To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act as introduced.
  • Popular: E-PARASITE Act as introduced.
  • Popular: SOPA.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 361-390 of 495 total comments.

  • WasMiddleClass 01/05/2012 11:44pm

    @Well I do not want to spend money on high enough quality host to reject by IPs

    Huh?

    So you changed yours…and…

    Geeze!

  • WasMiddleClass 01/05/2012 11:59pm

    This one aint bad for free…

    69.197.160.67

    How did we get on the topic of switching IP’s now?

    This bill would make that illegal if you live in the US.

    After all how could the FCC block a foreign IP from a foreign site without starting a war?

    And how could they regulate foreign DNS registry’s?

  • WasMiddleClass 01/06/2012 12:18am

    Here is the problem:

    This bill says it will make all software that can bypass the “blockade” illegal.

    Most all software that allows you to change your IP also allows you to use a IP from another country.

    The FCC/.gov can’t regulate you if you run a VPN to a foreign server, and then surf from there!

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/06/2012 1:52am

    Yes; The FCC can easily regulate “the Internet” because ALL ISPs in the United States will either cooperate, be fined out of existence, or be criminals. All wire requests for data will be monitored by the FCC. Requests are already stored by all ISPs for months. Regulation by the FCC will change internet wire communications forever regardless of where you live because sites prohibited from display by the FCC will quickly wither away whether a single new bill passes or doesn’t.

    PROOF? Watch Wikileaks.ch or dot-whatever now disappear without a single bill.

    Your VPN or privacy software is utterly useless because they are all connected physically somewhere to the wire called the Internet.
    Software can’t change an IP but only helps select proxy servers. The energy is still transmitted by regulated wires.

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:27pm

    You grossly underestimate the People Mr Neeley!

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:47pm

    @Requests are already stored by all ISPs for months

    IF you use their DNS servers!

    @Your VPN or privacy software is utterly useless because they are all connected physically somewhere to the wire called the Internet.

    Well that all depends on the encryption strength between your PC and the server of your choice, and if they can break it in the middle somewhere…

    I am reminded of a time when I has a ISP tech at my house because my bandwith seemed less that I paid for. I watched his screen as he tried to pull up my surfing history. He gave me a rather perplexed look that day…

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:28pm

    I decided that I should spend some more time on this bill since there has been little talk of the true implications of it on this site, and it gets many views here.

    For those viewers that may not be aware, privacy online and thus your offline life as well is basically non existent now unless you take many precautions to protect it, many including software this bill would make illegal in the US.

    The real threat of this bill is that it would give the government the authority to basically erect a great firewall like China has, and make all software that is capable of bypassing it illegal.

    Some may argue that the wording of the bill only allows this or that, but we have already seen secret interpretations used with existing laws that have little to do with the clear intent in the actual wording of the law.

    I will post some articles that explain more.

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:28pm

    Stopping SOPA’s Anti-Circumvention

    Here, I analyze just one of the problematic provisions of SOPA: a new”anticircumvention” provision (different from the still-problematic anti-circumvention of section1201). SOPA’s anticircumvention authorizes injunctions against the provision of tools to bypass the court-ordered blocking of domains. Although it is apparently aimed at MAFIAAfire, the Firefox add-on that offered redirection for seized domains in the wake of ICE seizures,1 the provision as drafted sweeps much more broadly. Ordinary security and connectivity tools could fall within its scope. If enacted, it would weaken Internet security and reduce the robustness and resilience of Internet connections.

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:29pm

    (ii)against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed by such entity or by another in concert with such entity for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) [blocking DNS responses, search query results, payments, or ads] and taken in response to a court order issued under this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service. § 102©(3)(A)(ii)

    http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/12/15/stopping-sopas-anti-circumvention.html

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:29pm

    The Internet is probably the most important technological advancement of my lifetime. Its strength lies in its open architecture and its ability to allow a framework where all voices can be heard. Like the printing press before it (which states also tried to regulate, for centuries), it democratizes information, and thus it democratizes power. If we allow Congress to pass these draconian laws, we’ll be joining nations like China and Iran in filtering what we allow people to see, do, and say on the Web…

    “I worry that it is vague enough, and the intention to prevent tunneling around court-ordered restrictions clear enough, that courts will bend over backwards to find a violation,” says Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in intellectual property law.

    http://thehackernews.com/2011/12/tor-anonymity-will-become-illegal-with.html

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:31pm

    The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power

    This isn’t about the spying, although that’s a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search…
    In defending this secret spying on Americans, Bush said that he relied on his constitutional powers (Article 2) and the joint resolution passed by Congress after 9/11 that led to the war in Iraq. This rationale was spelled out in a memo written by John Yoo, a White House attorney, less than two weeks after the attacks of 9/11. It’s a dense read and a terrifying piece of legal contortionism, but it basically says that the president has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country … merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And according to the memo, this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th_1.html

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:32pm

    EPIC Urges Court to Order Disclosure of CyberSecurity Authority: EPIC filed papers urging a federal court to order the National Security Agency to disclose National Security Presidential Directive 54, a key document governing national cybersecurity policy. The directive grants the NSA broad authority over the security of American computer networks. But the agency has refused to make the document public in response to an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request. EPIC noted that "The NSA’s position amounts to a claim that the President may enact secret laws, direct federal agencies to implement those laws, and shield the content of those laws from public scrutiny.

    http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/epic_v_nsa.html

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:33pm

    EPIC Demands Release of Classified Answers on Privacy and Internet Standards from Cyber Command Nominee : EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the National Security Agency (NSA) seeking the “classified supplement” that Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander filed with his answers to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding his nomination to be the Commander of the newly formed United States Cyber Command. Several of Lt. Gen. Alexander’s classified responses were to questions regarding the privacy of Americans’

    http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/epic_v_nsa.html

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:33pm

    Federal Court Revives Suit Over NSA Dragnet Surveillance
    A federal appeals recently revived a lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, challenging the NSA’s use of the nation’s largest telecommunication providers to conduct suspicionless surveillance of Americans. The three-judge panel reversed a lower court decision that rejected claims based on lack of standing. The case will now return to the district court for a decision on the merits. The same three-judge panel also rejected a related suit against the telecommunications providers, Hepting v. AT&T, based on the “retroactive immunity” provided by Congress in 2008.

    http://epic.org/2012/01/federal-court-revives-suit-ove.html

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:34pm

    US Lobbying Against New European Privacy Law

    A document obtained by a European civil liberties organization indicates that the US Department of Commerce is actively opposing efforts by the European Union to update and strengthen its privacy law. The “Informal Note on Draft EU General Data Protection Regulation” argues that the proposed updates to the EU Data Protection Directive could adversely impact the “global interoperability of national and international privacy regimes.” The US assessment follows a multi-year effort by the Europeans and others to establish a comprehensive framework for privacy protection, which the US has opposed, opting instead for "self-regulation.

    http://epic.org/2011/12/us-lobbying-against-new-europe.html

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:36pm

    Personally I don’t give a damn about downloading free music or porn. I DO care about being forced to surf naked with a camera on my head recording everything I do for eternity, and a sign on my back with my all my personal information on it for anyone in the world with the capability to see at will!

    Maybe some don’t care if they have to give their name, address, date of birth, social security number, drivers license number, credit card numbers, and life history, to any stranger that walks up tho them on the street and wants it, but MANY do!

    This bill makes many tools we have to protect our privacy illegal!

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:37pm

    A stranger snaps a picture of you with his iPhone camera while you’re walking down the street on your way to work in the morning. You don’t see him. He uses a mobile app to analyze the photo he just took of you. The app scans your face and searches the web for matches. In less than a minute, the stranger knows your name and contact info, is scrolling through your Facebook albums, and is reading your Twitter timeline. Predicting your social security number—and thus stealing your identity–is one small step away.

    Sounds like science fiction? It’s science fact.

    http://www.abine.com/wordpress/2011/the-top-6-facial-recognition-faqs/

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 3:38pm

    Feds at DefCon Alarmed After RFIDs Scanned

    The reader, connected to a web camera, sniffed data from RFID-enabled ID cards and other documents carried by attendees in pockets and backpacks as they passed a table where the equipment was stationed in full view.
    It was part of a security-awareness project set up by a group of security researchers and consultants to highlight privacy issues around RFID. When the reader caught an RFID chip in its sights — embedded in a company or government agency access card, for example — it grabbed data from the card, and the camera snapped the card holder’s picture.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/fed-rfid/

  • WasMiddleClass 01/07/2012 4:04pm

    SOPA Solution: Block Congress

    Today, I was wondering how easy that would be, and spent about 10 seconds in google to find that Congressional staffer IPs have been outed by Wikipedia for editing their boss’s pages:

    Wikinews contributors have discovered that members of the United States Congress or members of their staff have recently been making questionable edits to Wikipedia… To confirm, I put the first IP in an IP Locator tool and got this:

    From here you can figure out an IP range to target, and then it’s trivial to serve them different content (perhaps giving them a taste of what SOPA IP blocking would be like). I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

    To be effective it needs to be done by sites that Congressional staffers actually depend on or on enough smaller sites to get media attention.

    http://loufranco.com/blog/files/sopa-block-congress-ip.html

  • walker7 01/08/2012 11:51am

    Here is an article with a funny Lamar Smith anti-election poster:

    http://boingboing.net/2012/01/08/lamar-smith-cant-hear-you.html

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/08/2012 12:34pm

    Lol!

    Good stuff on boingboing…

    SOPA bans Tor, the US Navy’s censorship-busting technology

    Tor, the censorship-busting technology developed by the US Navy and promoted by the State Department as part of the solution to allowing for free communications in repressive regimes, is likely illegal technology under the Stop Online Piracy Act. SOPA makes provision for punishing Americans who contribute expertise to projects that can be used to defeat its censorship regime, and Tor fits the bill.

    http://boingboing.net/2011/12/22/sopa-bans-tor-the-us-navys.html

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/08/2012 12:36pm

    I voted for myself too :)

  • WasMiddleClass 01/08/2012 1:50pm

    I hope everyone here read this blog post from Open Congress. If not please DO!

    PIPA first on Senate agenda on Jan. 24th, 2012

    http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2458-PIPA-first-on-Senate-agenda-on-Jan-24th-2012

    The battle is about to heat up again SOON!

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/08/2012 3:53pm

    The Copy[rite] Act has been unconstitutional since the day Mr. Washington signed it in 1790.

    The United States was closer to democracy in 1790 but is not the least democratic today as can be seen graphically at the next link. Re-use this idea or graphic freely. This idea is released to the public domain.
    Compare democracy from 1790 to 2010.html

    The United States has never been terribly democratic and has always been ruled by the privileged. The graphic from 1790 is not been done yet.

    There is no right to internet wire communications; -Just as there is no right to radio or television. The constitution alleged to recognize the rights of authors and creator for limited times.

    The FCC has in its mission or duty " to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination […], a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service".

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/08/2012 8:34pm

    I read this that someone posted way back there today: “Although I don’t support the bill I’d like to point out that having the internet isn’t a right. It’s a convenience.”

    Now you claim : “There is no right to internet wire communications”

    That reminds me of government claims that driving is not a right, but a privilege. The difference is though that the government owns most roads….

    But your complaint Mr. Neeley seems to be about someone steeling your nude pictures, and as you claim, making them available to children.

    Is your site password protected, or is what you post available for ALL to view by YOUR OWN choice?

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/08/2012 8:35pm

    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has also been the subject of several court challenges. Title V of the Telecommunications Act, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, sought to protect minors from exposure to indecent materials transmitted over the Internet. The Supreme Court, in a highly debated case, struck down most of those provisions on First Amendment grounds in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997). The Telecommunications Act also included so-called “signal bleed” provisions, requiring cable operators either to scramble channels containing sexually explicit materials or to limit programming on these channels to certain hours. The Supreme Court likewise struck down these requirements as impermissible content-based restrictions in violation of the First Amendment in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2000).

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 01/09/2012 1:04am

    1. "In the… [pro-porn gibberish] …children!"

    2. "It… [para-legal gibberish] …MOOT."

    3. "The Telecommunications Act… [para-legal gibberish] …(2000)"

    1. Well actually, it is Initially the duty of parents to protect children from even government supported inappropriate free speech. In the end, the government must take responsibility for government supported inappropriate free speech and has for nearly a century. Internet wire communications exist today because of the Communications Act of 1934.

    2. Free Speech does not include “porn” that is “obscene”. MOOT is a cute legal term but does not begin to describe the “qualified right” you mistakenly find absolute and violated from the First Amendment.

    3. The Supreme Court was CLUELESS about internet wire communications in 1996-2000 but is changing. The Supreme Court is not yet composed of internet wire communications era justices and will not be till around 2050. I will be 82 or be dead.

  • WasMiddleClass 01/08/2012 8:41pm

    It seems all your “porn” arguments have already been determined to be in violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution Mr Neeley, and thus MOOT.

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 01/08/2012 9:03pm

    In the end it is parents that are responsible to protect children, and regulate what they are exposed to.

    It is not the governments job to make everything in the world suitable to be viewed by children!

  • Comm_reply
    Liberty1 01/08/2012 10:11pm

    Maybe you should get involved on the other one too my old friend? Everyone is still at battle stations and ready to rumble again. We will make sure support is gone from anyone that wants to make money off of respect on the web. I’m not sure that will be enough in these times though. If this passes I can only imagine the backlash from what I am reading.

    See you out there ;=)


Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

32 in favor / 3126 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments