Lawmaker: US control across borders

[Drakim]

Sorry for the retarded title. So little room.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-200169 95-261.html

Basically, these senators wants the US to be able to make decisions and shut down websites that are outside of the US. If the countries don't agree, the according to the law, the US will boycott them in various ways, like not allowing the citizens of that country to use US based credit cards like Visa or MasterCard.

This is absolutely ridiculous. What happened to freaking the sovereignty of countries? Could the US do the same except start telling other countries what leaders then should elect and what laws they should pass, with the threat of economical sanctions that would hurt the country?

[Ganon-Dorf]

Proxies would render their blocking useless, but I agree, the united states is not a world police force.

[Musician]

At 9/21/10 11:05 AM, Drakim wrote: Could the US do the same except start telling other countries what leaders then should elect and what laws they should pass, with the threat of economical sanctions that would hurt the country?

You are aware that the US government already does this right? That's what the sanctions on Cuba are all about. They basically told the Cubans that if they didn't overthrow Castro's government that they'd continue to impose murderous sanctions against them (again, the goal was apparently regime change), resulting in starvation, death due to lack of medical supplies, etc. The same thing happened in Iraq, with the comprehensive sanctions that killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. Apparently this is acceptable because they were complicit in the reign of Saddam Hussein. And of course, there are many other cases, but I won't go into them for fear of derailing the topic.

These policies are minor compared to past policies, but they share a theme commonly expressed in American foreign policy: that we are the boss of the world, and that foreign sovereignty is only legitimate when it doesn't conflict with American interests. Again, check the historical record. This kind of thing is nothing new.

Though I might add another point that you might or might not have noticed. That this bill doesn't seem to be being pushed by one particular party over the other. It would seem that this legislation is very much a 'bi-partisan' effort. So we can add this to the catalog of evidence that shows that neither of the two large parties really represent the interests of the people.

[Camarohusky]

I don't see the deal here.

Someone commits a US Federal crime. Their punishment is multiple efforts to keep them off the US internet. If anything this law seems too inneffective, rather than ideologically wrong.

The foreign sovreignty argument is pointless here. The US is not hurting other countries' right to lose the intellectual property to cyber thieves. All the US is doing is attempting to remove the ability of these theives to practice their thievery in regards to the US.

Musician - As far as I have seen the stopping of theft is the will of the people.

[lapis]

At 9/21/10 11:05 AM, Drakim wrote: Basically, these senators wants the US to be able to make decisions and shut down websites that are outside of the US. If the countries don't agree, the according to the law, the US will boycott them in various ways, like not allowing the citizens of that country to use US based credit cards like Visa or MasterCard.

Hmm, I didn't read that in the article. The text is maybe a bit ambiguous, but I assume that the "Internet service providers, payment processors, and online ad network providers" that are mentioned in the article are US-based (correct me if I'm wrong, though). For example, Google is a US-based company and the Pirate Bay is a website that has provoked ire form the courts but whose servers aren't in the US, then the courts could force Google not to advertise on the Pirate Bay. More stringently, they could force American (I assume) ISPs to block the IP-address(es) of the Pirate Bay. Of course, the latter measure can be bypassed by using a proxy server as mentioned by another poster.

[Drakim]

At 9/21/10 11:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't see the deal here.

Someone commits a US Federal crime. Their punishment is multiple efforts to keep them off the US internet. If anything this law seems too inneffective, rather than ideologically wrong.

They wouldn't just keep them off the US internet, they would also use various economical boycotts against the citizens of the country to "starve" them in the metaphorical way so that they will elect politicians that obey US commands.

The foreign sovreignty argument is pointless here. The US is not hurting other countries' right to lose the intellectual property to cyber thieves. All the US is doing is attempting to remove the ability of these theives to practice their thievery in regards to the US.

But they are doing it outside of the US. Couldn't the same system apply for countries that allow you to smoke pot? People go to Amsterdam and smoke pot, shouldn't the US do these boycotts against Netherlands until they change? After all, that's what they are intending to do against a Finish person who downloads something from a Norwegian server. It's not connected to the US in any way.

Musician - As far as I have seen the stopping of theft is the will of the people.

I think it's more the push of lobbyist than the people. Many people oppose it but they wouldn't suggest a law like this.

At 9/21/10 11:48 AM, lapis wrote: Hmm, I didn't read that in the article. The text is maybe a bit ambiguous, but I assume that the "Internet service providers, payment processors, and online ad network providers" that are mentioned in the article are US-based (correct me if I'm wrong, though). For example, Google is a US-based company and the Pirate Bay is a website that has provoked ire form the courts but whose servers aren't in the US, then the courts could force Google not to advertise on the Pirate Bay.

If that were the case, I wouldn't really have my panties in a twist like this, but it's not. It's more like, the courts might order Visa to not allow Swedish people to use their credit cards and order online stores to not ship to Sweden. It's a full blown boycott, not merely stopping advertisement on sites deemed shady.

More stringently, they could force American (I assume) ISPs to block the IP-address(es) of the Pirate Bay. Of course, the latter measure can be bypassed by using a proxy server as mentioned by another poster.

Again, fine with me. All it would do is stop US citizens from accessing a site the US considerer illegal. But the article specifies that action will be taken against German people accessing a French site also, or the UK accessing a Swedish website.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/21/10 04:58 PM, Drakim wrote: They wouldn't just keep them off the US internet, they would also use various economical boycotts against the citizens of the country to "starve" them in the metaphorical way so that they will elect politicians that obey US commands.

No they are not blocking "citizens" from the internet. They will blocking ther US companies from selling ads, and other things, to known pirates.

But they are doing it outside of the US. Couldn't the same system apply for countries that allow you to smoke pot? People go to Amsterdam and smoke pot, shouldn't the US do these boycotts against Netherlands until they change? After all, that's what they are intending to do against a Finish person who downloads something from a Norwegian server. It's not connected to the US in any way.

That is not what's happening here. When people smoke pot in teh Netherlands it stays in thenetherlands. When it comes to internet piracy, US trademarks, Patents, Copyrights and so on have been stolen and are being funnelled into the US via these sites. All this seeks to do is to shut down the avenues through which stolen US goods are sent back to the US people.

I think it's more the push of lobbyist than the people. Many people oppose it but they wouldn't suggest a law like this.

This is no different than stopping the Somali pirates. People have been in strong support of that. At least this measure doesn't involve deadly force.

[gumOnShoe]

Basically the "Internet" is governed by a United States agency that handles all of the addresses (IP-Addresses) & domain names. So, technically the United States would be within its jurisdiction to revoke those addresses from sites it doesn't like.

However, this would be a bad move. It would be bad for diplomatic relations with other countries. It would be bad for a United States based internet. The first is obvious the second not so much. The second would encourage other countries to start their own address books and fragment the web. This would have very interesting ramifications and most of them would be bad for the U.S.

For these reasons the legislation has failed in the past and is likely to do so again.

[blue-ice-cube]

At 9/21/10 11:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

There is no such thing as US internet, the internet is the WORLD WIDE WEB. and further more you can't and shouldn't police the internet. it just makes you a target for DDOS attacks and proxies will bypass it anyways so trying is useless. look at china, look at how strict they are about internet yet china has the most hackers in the world.

[NeverHundred]

The internet is a modern day frontier. But with time, like any other frontier it will be tamed whether we want this to happen or not.

[Camarohusky]

At 9/21/10 07:08 PM, blue-ice-cube wrote:

At 9/21/10 11:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

There is no such thing as US internet, the internet is the WORLD WIDE WEB.

A world wide web broadcasted to the US through specific providers, servers, and bandwidths.

and further more you can't and shouldn't police the internet. it just makes you a target for DDOS attacks and proxies will bypass it anyways so trying is useless.

So? The goal here is to stop US intellectual property from being sold on a very accessible black market. Nobody cares about hackers and such. I am not saying the legislation woul;d be very effective. I am just saying that the legislation is not only within the right of the US government, it is a DUTY of the US government.

look at china, look at how strict they are about internet yet china has the most hackers in the world.

You assume that isn't on purpose...

[SadisticMonkey]

the US government should control everything

the US government should stop trying to control things

ugh make up your minds

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/22/10 05:46 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: the US government should control everything

the US government should stop trying to control things

ugh make up your minds

It's called context. Bind blowing, I know.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 9/21/10 11:05 AM, Drakim wrote: Sorry for the retarded title. So little room.

This is absolutely ridiculous. What happened to freaking the sovereignty of countries? Could the US do the same except start telling other countries what leaders then should elect and what laws they should pass, with the threat of economical sanctions that would hurt the country?

It's obviously authoritarian on a 'state to state' level. But you're acting like this sort of thing isn't common. As early as the Cold war and even before that the US was in the business of [very often at least] manipulating the political systems of third world nations. 'We' or rather, The United States federal government with which my legal fiction is a subject of, has never respected the sovereignty of other nations, particularly of the third world. The US has bullied Mexico throughout much of the 19th century in this particular case.

[Drakim]

At 9/22/10 08:48 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 9/21/10 11:05 AM, Drakim wrote: Sorry for the retarded title. So little room.

This is absolutely ridiculous. What happened to freaking the sovereignty of countries? Could the US do the same except start telling other countries what leaders then should elect and what laws they should pass, with the threat of economical sanctions that would hurt the country?

It's obviously authoritarian on a 'state to state' level. But you're acting like this sort of thing isn't common. As early as the Cold war and even before that the US was in the business of [very often at least] manipulating the political systems of third world nations. 'We' or rather, The United States federal government with which my legal fiction is a subject of, has never respected the sovereignty of other nations, particularly of the third world. The US has bullied Mexico throughout much of the 19th century in this particular case.

This is true, but at the same time, these actions are generally frowned upon. Nobody speaks proudly about how the US "manipulated the world" during and after the cold war. It's seen as something which was a necessary evil to maintain the security of the US.

I hardly think music industry lobbyist (like the politicians would just randomly champion this) pushing something like this falls under the same umbrella.

[lapis]

At 9/21/10 04:58 PM, Drakim wrote: If that were the case, I wouldn't really have my panties in a twist like this, but it's not. It's more like, the courts might order Visa to not allow Swedish people to use their credit cards and order online stores to not ship to Sweden. It's a full blown boycott, not merely stopping advertisement on sites deemed shady.

Could you quote the exact sentence in the article that you think talks about boycotting all inhabitants of certain countries (and perhaps underline the groups of words that are most relevant)? Because I read the article again and still don't see it. Otherwise, here is the text of the bill:

(e) SERVICE OF COURT ORDER.-
(1) DOMESTIC DOMAINS.-In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(1) applies, the Attorney
General shall serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on the domain name registrar or, if the domain name registrar is not located within the United States, upon the registry. Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name.

this is for domain names of servers hosted in the US-based

''(2) NONDOMESTIC DOMAINS.-

which is what we're talking about

(A) ENTITY TO BE SERVED.-In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(2) applies, the Attorney General may serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on any entity listed in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B).

(B) REQUIRED ACTIONS.-Upon receipt of a court order issued pursuant to this section-

(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name's Internet protocol address;

i.e. ISPs will be forced to block the IP-address associated with a transgressing domain name, I don't read anywhere that this is supposed the target the IP-addresses of ALL, say, Swedes.

(ii) a financial transaction provider, as that term is defined in section 5362(4) of title 31, United States Code, shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent-

(I) its service from processing transactions for customers located within the United States based on
purchases associated with the domain name; and
(II) its trademarks from being authorized for use on Internet sites associated with such domain name;

again, financial transaction providers are mandated not to allow US customers to transfer money to the (foreign) owners of the domain name. Again, only the transgressing domain name is mentioned and not all Swedes.

and
(iii) a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet sites shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to prevent its network from serving advertisements to an Internet site accessed through such domain name.

again, only the transgressing domain name is targeted - not all Swedes.

[Drakim]

Lapis, that's totally my bad. I read about this all over the net and the news article I ended up picking to show you guys didn't contain all the information and things I ment to talk about. I'll find the others ones and post them here once I get home.

[gumOnShoe]

I forgot the other reason that I saw that this bill was a problem. Actually in context of what the bill said, it apparently shifts the battle over piracy from a civil court level to criminal court where the Justice Department would have to hunt down & prosecute copy right violators like drug traffickers. If I remember correctly that was one of the other reasons it was shut down, under the presumption that if groups like the RIAA wanted to protect their IP they could do so on their own dime instead of the tax payers.

[Sajberhippien]

At 9/22/10 08:19 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I forgot the other reason that I saw that this bill was a problem. Actually in context of what the bill said, it apparently shifts the battle over piracy from a civil court level to criminal court where the Justice Department would have to hunt down & prosecute copy right violators like drug traffickers. If I remember correctly that was one of the other reasons it was shut down, under the presumption that if groups like the RIAA wanted to protect their IP they could do so on their own dime instead of the tax payers.

Interestingly, in Sweden the problem is the reverse. Before a law passed two years ago, the IPRED, it was a criminal matter which meant the accused had the right of a state-financed defender, and that the accused be proven guilty "beyond doubt". Now that it's a civil issue, they can sue the victims so hard and take such a time for the trial that they go bankrupt even before the trial is finished due to having to pay for ones defense. That way, they can threaten people over mere accusations, sending letters such as "we think you might have pirated. pay us $4000 or we will sue you.". Whether you're guilty or not, you might be forced to pay, because they can afford $50 000 for a defendant, even if they lose, while you can't. Also, instead of requiring "proof beyond doubt", in civil court it just requires the court to think that the person is more likely guilty than not.

[Drakim]

Gah, the only good sources I'm able to find is in Norwegian, and google translate is doing a horrible job. I'll wait a few days for some more news to come out on the subject.