×

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!

Congress's Techno-Ignorance No Longer Funny

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the like-a-series-of-irritating-tubes dept.

The Internet 477

pigrabbitbear writes "Since its introduction, the Stop Online Piracy Act (and its Senate twin PROTECT-IP) has been staunchly condemned by countless engineers, technologists and lawyers intimately familiar with the inner functioning of the internet. Completely beside the fact that these bills, as they currently stand, would stifle free speech and potentially cripple legitimate businesses by giving corporations extrajudicial censorial powers, there's an even more insidious threat: the method of DNS filtering proposed to block supposed infringing sites opens up enormous security holes that threaten the stability of the internet itself. The problem: key members of the House Judiciary Committee still don't understand how the internet works, and worse yet, it's not clear whether they even want to."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

477 comments

They don't want to (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402074)

Ignorance is bliss. And when shit hits the fan, they can claim plausible deniability.

Re:They don't want to (5, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402420)

To be more specific, their supposed ignorance allows them to allow the (paying) lobbyists to write the bills in the manner that most benefits our purported representatives true constituency - the corporations and their owners who aren't satisfied with the majority of the pie, but who want the whole damn thing.

Re:They don't want to (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402448)

And when shit hits the fan, they'll either be retired, promoted or have a nice position on the board of some nice corporation.

FTFY

Re:They don't want to (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402492)

No No No.
There are donations to be extorted fixing the problems created with this bill. That's how congress works. Never, ever, do anything that can't later be used for fund raising. Make the bill with known problems. Solicit donations form companies affected by the problems that congress has created, promising that they will fix it. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. So, when the economy is in the toilet there are fewer donation sources available. Who has money? The Internets! Hey, I have a plan!

Re:They don't want to (2, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402518)

Congress is not a technical organization, they are a political one. They have no need to know 'how the internet works'. Most members of Congress also don't know all of the technical details of engines either, but that doesn't mean they can't create laws specifying average fuel economy. It is up to the experts in those fields to make the laws reality.

Do you have any idea how many different subjects Congress has to deal with? Do you really expect the members of Congress, elected from the general public, to be experts in all of those areas? If YOU were elected to Congress, how many areas are YOU an expert in?

Re:They don't want to (5, Insightful)

alexborges (313924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402590)

Change:
"...it's not clear whether they even want to" [understand how the internet works]

To:
"....its clear they dont even want to"

I saw ALL the discussion yesterday. This is ridiculous, the people advocating this act are entirely ignorant of any and all issues regarding WTF they are doing and they dont even realize it will ALL backfire. I ended yesterday thinking this could even be good for "us" (freedom loving people all over the world): its clear that if SOPA passes, bitcoins, tor proxies and ways to monetize darknet access will be a good way to make money.

They want their broken internet: let them have it.

Re:They don't want to (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402614)

How can ignorance ever be plausible deniability?
Surely any sane person who needs to make decissions on something of which he is ignorant (and we've all been there) either tries to learn or ask more knowledgable people for help (and we've all done so).

Fuck them (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402082)

Seriously.

Re:Fuck them (5, Informative)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402146)

Usually I look form more onsight in commentary. But this time AC has really said all that needs to be said.

Re:Fuck them (1, Redundant)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402606)

Seriously.

I'm sorry .. there isn't enough beer in the world for me to want to fuck them.

Re:Fuck them (5, Insightful)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402608)

End the two-party system. That is the only way we're going to get ANY kind of accountability or responsibility from the American government. We need the alternative vote NOW, and we need to end the electoral college.

The United States aren't a democracy, and we're not even a republic anymore. We don't have the right to vote on matters of policy, nor do we have the right to vote for the president and his cabinet. We participate in a shell game they set up through gerrymandering and the threat that your vote will be meaningless if you don't vote for one of the two approved party candidates.

There is NO legitimate excuse why we shouldn't have the alternative vote in America, except that the Democrats and Republicans don't want it. There is NO legitimate excuse as to why we need the electoral college in America, we don't even have ballots anymore, it is all done electronically.

a hypothetical (5, Interesting)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402104)

if one is receiving insane amounts of money and political clout to deliberately ignore severe problems in a proposed bill, is it still ignorance?

Re:a hypothetical (2, Interesting)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402454)

I might call it a form of treason, except for the fact that the Robert's court endowed corporations with personhood for all intents and purposes, and the representatives to which you refer are simply serving their true constituents....

foreign corporations are foreign people? (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402502)

IIRC when foreign agents give money to us politicnas, there is a big shit storm

Confusing positions (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402108)

Slashdot on net neutrality: "Why, of course! I'd love for the government to regulate internet traffic. What could possibly go wrong?"
Slashdot on SOPA: "Regulate internet traffic?! Ignorant scum! Viva la revolución!"

Re:Confusing positions (4, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402158)

They're perfectly consistent positions. The position is:
"Don't allow people to fuck with the internet"

Re:Confusing positions (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402480)

I would phrase it more like this:

"Don't let the Internet turn into a fancy cable TV system"

When I was a kid, people spoke of "illegal cable" -- modified set-top boxes that allowed them to receive cable TV without paying, or to receive premium channels without paying. Some of the earliest DRM systems were designed to prevent people from accessing cable TV channels and satellite broadcasts without paying. The entire cable TV system is the antithesis of the PC and Internet revolutions: centralized control over users and their actions, permission required to do anything, and extra fees left and right.

Now the mainstream media wants to turn the Internet into the same sort of system: centralized control, DRM, fees, and users being pigeonholed as passive consumers of everything. At issue with net neutrality is whether or not websites should be treated like "channels," and forced to negotiate with ISPs for the right to transmit over the ISPs' networks. At issue with SOPA is whether or not there should be a central authority that is allowed to disconnect systems from the network when those systems do not follow the rules imposed by the central authority.

Re:Confusing positions (5, Insightful)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402162)

those aren't mutually exclusive at all.

the whole point of net neutrality is to say, "hey! you conglomerate of ultra powerful ISPs and media outlets can't just unilaterally control the internet!"

the whole point of SOPA opposition is to say, "hey! you conglomerate of ultra powerful media and content producers can't just unilaterally control the internet!"

Re:Confusing positions (1)

gregthebunny (1502041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402168)

Net neutrality would be the regulation that no one be allowed to regulate the Internet, i.e. "Rule #1: There are no rules."

Re:Confusing positions (3, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402222)

No, that's not Net Neutrality at all. Net Neutrality is a whole bunch of rules that boils down to "Don't mess with internet traffic"

Re:Confusing positions (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402198)

Net Neutrality isn't the government regulating internet traffic. Net Neutrality is the government forbidding corporations from doing so.

Re:Confusing positions (4, Informative)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402236)

Can't tell if you're trolling or just dim.

It's very simple. Net neutrality isn't regulating the Internet, it's regulating providers. Furthermore, it doesn't change what's on the internet, just how it gets to you. Fiddling with the DNS servers is 100% different. The analogy (not even an analogy...) is requiring the telephone company to let you call their competitors without an additional charge, vs blocking you from saying particular things.

The only thing the two have in common is the word 'internet'. Even a cursory glance shows that "don't throttle for profit" and "turn off this site" are completely different.

Re:Confusing positions (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402500)

The analogy ... is requiring the telephone company to let you call their competitors without an additional charge, vs blocking you from saying particular things.

More like vs changing your phone number to a government response number in all published phone directories and making it illegal to list your real number, but essentially, yes.

Re:Confusing positions (0)

nharmon (97591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402250)

I've noticed this also. As well as the backlash against usage-based billing as a consequence of network neutrality.

Re:Confusing positions (3, Interesting)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402528)

the backlash against usage-based billing as a consequence of network neutrality

The only acklash against usage-based billing I've ever seen is from proponents of network neutrality who point out that usage-based billing without neutrality is asking for the system to be gamed (eg your provider drops every other packet and bills you for twice the data).

Single Slashdot position?! (0)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402282)

What? Slashdot users agree on something?!

* betterunixthanunix has entered his bunker

Re:Single Slashdot position?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402442)

Excuse me, I have a.... pizza... Yes, a pizza! Just a harmless pizza for you. So, come on out of there and take this, perfectly safe, non exploding pizza.

Re:Confusing positions (3, Informative)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402292)

Well there is a diversity of opinion on Slashdot, so you're inherently building a strawman, here.

Nevertheless, it's perfectly consistent to be pro-net-neutrality and anti-SOPA. The underlying principle here is to maintain equal access to communication technology, in particular to not allow consolidate power bases (in particular, corporations) to control the flow of information. The purpose of net neutrality is to force companies to not discriminate between information seekers and providers; this maximizes the amount of information everyone can easily access. The purpose of striking down SOPA is to prevent companies from having yet more legal power to issue takedowns, censor material, and discriminate between information seekers and provides; preventing SOPA from being passed also maximizes the amount of information everyone can easily access.

Your strawman was implicitly painting this as a debate about whether regulation is good or bad. But that's incorrect. The question is not whether we should have laws. The question is what laws.

Re:Confusing positions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402308)

SOPA is the antithesis of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality stands for: The freedom of internet traffic, regardless of content or protocol; Oversight of enforcement, by a government organization (such as the FCC), who would ensure that carriers and content providers do not unfairly throttle or disrupt traffic in favor of their services.
SOPA is where content creators and providers get the keys to the kingdom. They are able to: Throttle, disconnect, and pretty much punish internet users without ANY government oversight; as well as provide a list of "bad guys" for government organizations to seize domains/servers from.

So, yeah, "Viva la revolución!"

PS: Rather fitting that the captcha text was "protests".

Re:Confusing positions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402352)

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but in my opinion, the internet should be
-> A level playing field
-> Uncensored
-> Anonymous
Anything that supports these objectives (while not having potentially disastrous side-effects) has my support. Whether it's regulation, or lack thereof that helps achieves these ends, I couldn't care less.
As Deng Xiaoping famously said: "I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. As long as it catches mice, it's a good cat"

Re:Confusing positions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402550)

Slashdot on net neutrality: "Why, of course! I'd love for the government to regulate internet traffic. What could possibly go wrong?"

Once again, bonch willingly and knowingly pretends that net neutrality means something other than what it does.

He has been been corrected repeatedly, and has never even once refuted said correction, thus proving that he knows the version of net neutrality he presents is false. From this, the only possible conclusion is that he sets it up as a strawman because he knows he is not mentally competent to construct any kind of intelligent argument against the actual position of net neutrality.

A matter of who pays for the campaign (5, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402110)

Congress just rubber-stamps bills that are written up by lobbyists. That has been fairly well proven.

You Americans need more parties. (5, Insightful)

Kristian T. (3958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402232)

It's just to cheap for coorporate america to hedge it's bets when they only have to bribe.... errh I mean make campaign contributions, to 2 parties. Try to elect some representatives from the pirate party, like sweden has.

Re:You Americans need more parties. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402382)

No, all politics needs people, not parties. As soon as you add parties to the mix, you end up with pissing contests and toeing the party line over issues.

Politics should be one or two term only, none of this crap of a job for life until enough lobbyist pay for retirement or a cushion non-executive board position.

Re:You Americans need more parties. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402388)

We tried that and have tons of parties, but few Americans want to vote for the loser, so it's one big popularity contest. For those voting that way, they want only one party. And their vote counts as much as mine

Re:You Americans need more parties. (2)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402402)

It's just to cheap for coorporate america to hedge it's bets

It's way worse than that. When you compare donations to legislation, earmarks and kickbacks, the ROI for corprorations is just insane.

Shorter: Your representatives are selling you out for $14 worth of shiny trinkets!

Read it. (0)

Avarist (2453728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402112)

My quote explains the why quite well in my opinion.

Re:Read it. (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402182)

It doesn't explain why at all; it just makes a claim. Its implication doesn't even really make sense since there are plenty of less capitalist nations in the world whose governments are more authoritarian.

Re:Read it. (1)

Avarist (2453728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402260)

The point I'm make is the same as most here, the legalization of corruption through lobbying is obviously behind this. There's no doubt whoever is FOR this is in Hollywood's pockets.

Re:Read it. (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402266)

That's because that isn't the implication. You appear to have a broken logic processing centre.

Commerce wants more money, overt Authoritarianism is bad for profit.

Fucks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402118)

All of them!

CONgress is NOT Ignorant: +5, Helpful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402120)

about MONEY !

and Putin is correct: McCain IS nuts !

Yours In Ashgabat [youtube.com],
K. Trout, PatRIOT

In case anyone has not yet heard it.. (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402124)

The opposite of Progress is Congress.

I don't think they are as willfully stupid as people make them out to be, but tend to let lobbyists and industry representatives do a lot of their thinking for them - in all areas, we're just focused on SOPA and Protect-IP because they are closer to our hearts.

Re:In case anyone has not yet heard it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402422)

Mel watt is not willfully stupid, after watching the hearing he's actually just stupid.

Re:In case anyone has not yet heard it.. (2)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402470)

Well when it was even mentioned that proponents of SOPA might be payed to be in favor of it, Watt went on a long spiel about how that was a subject they shouldn't go into, and they should move on to passing the bill.

Splainittothem (-1, Troll)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402126)

Get Al Gore to explain it to them. after all he invented it.

he could make a move and call it. SOPA, An inconvenient untruth

Re:Splainittothem (3, Informative)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402326)

Stupid.
I don't know why I'm typing this since it's been typed countless times before: He never said he invented the Internet.
If there were more politicians with Al Gore's level of understanding stuff we would't have all these problems.

Re:Splainittothem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402450)

We wouldn't have these problems because everyone would be as bankrupt as California is from trying to become the first carbon neutral country.

That's because (5, Insightful)

Bogue (652570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402140)

all of Congress is made up of lawyers. Where are the engineers and scientists? There are none.

Re:That's because (5, Funny)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402200)

Well, there was President Carter- sorry, my bad. Nevermind. Please forget I said anything. I'm really sorry.

Re:That's because (5, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402368)

Engineers and scientists don't promise pink unicorns to everybody and are generally not very interested in money and power.

Re:That's because (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402538)

Engineers and scientists don't promise pink unicorns to everybody and are generally not very interested in money and power.

This is precisely why I fervently believe we should only elect people to office who don't want the job.

Re:That's because (2, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402392)

President Carter, IIRC, wasn't really a bad president the way Bush II and Obama have been; he was just an ineffectual president for the most part, and didn't handle the Beirut problem that well, leading to Reagan winning the 1980 election.

However, there's a problem with your comparison: Carter was President, head of the Executive branch. The previous poster was talking about the lack of engineers and scientists in Congress, the lawmaking Legislative branch. The two branches have very different functions, and different skills are needed in them. Someone that makes a great lawmaker (e.g. because of their great understanding of the issues due to their background in the field, for instance, as opposed to some stupid lawyer who doesn't know squat about the things he's writing and passing laws to govern), might not necessarily make a great President, who needs to have leadership qualities different from someone who spends all their time sitting on committees and poring through pages and pages of bills. An engineer in Congress, for instance, might be great for writing or pushing through bills that deal with technology (or helping kill bad bills dealing with technology), but he might not be that great at acting as the Commander-in-Chief and dealing with other world leaders on a 1-1 basis.

Re:That's because (2)

Quanticfx (2443904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402314)

Which is, IMO, one of the many big issues congress currently has. We have no one, or very few, legislators that have the capability to critically think the bills and proposals through. This in combination with all the lobbying going on leads to insanity like SOPA or PROTECT-IP. The people with half a brain notice that these bills aren't a good idea, though they probably have no idea as to how bad they are, but the rest of them are completely happy to remain, as a previous poster put it, willfully ignorant. When you're tasked with making decisions that may affect the entire country, and in some cases the entire world, you better have every single looked at every single aspect of whatever is in front of you, to remain ignorant in this situation should be considered criminal and a dereliction of duty.

Re:That's because (3, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402396)

It's not that they're incapable, it's that they have little incentive to do so. They spend all their time fundraising, and SOPA brings in funds. So for them to not support it, it would have to be something that they would actually lose a decisive number of votes for. Guess what? Everyone intelligent has now heard of it and knows it's bad, but even most of them won't stop voting for the incumbent in their own district.

Re:That's because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402340)

Its a general problem: politics is full of politicians!

Re:That's because (4, Interesting)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402468)

My congressman, Rush Holt, is a former rocket scientist and beat IBM's Watson supercomputer on Jeopardy. I did my part and voted for someone intelligent. You get the government you deserve, not the one you need.

Cheers TV show illuminati/Hermetical Whilst Vinous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402154)

Cheers TV show illuminati = Hermetical Whilst Vinous

coincidence? I think not!

Cheers TV Show = Another Illuminati Program?

The show opens with a lady holding a glass of what appears to be red wine but is it instead, blood? Other people are holding glasses with red liquid too, the strange man holding up the newspaper which boldly reads, "WE WON!" (or "WE WIN" I don't remember the exact statement) I always wondered about the purpose of that guy holding up the paper, then it became clear.. AND.. notice the only individual, in green, hidden from the waist up, what message does this convey?

- First lady in title screen: The Scarlet Woman - In her right she holds aloft the cup
- Other people holding glasses with red liquid: blood and their elevated social status, secret club like ending to the opening of each show with the two gentlemen and their glasses raised
- The lady wearing green but it never shows her from the waist up? Probably a reference to not being human, green/reptile/obscurity/hidden/ssh!
- The man holding up the paper with the winning message could be translated as, "The illuminati has won/wins."

I'm confident more meaning can be extracted from the opening.

Furthermore, the show centers around a guy who everyone looks up to whose life revolves around getting the community drunk and banging as many women as he can. The intellectual psychologist is dominated by Lilith, and we know the spiritual meaning behind that name.

I'm confident more meaning can be extracted from each character and the episodes.

Let's examine the theme song:

"Making your way in the world today takes everything youâ(TM)ve got."

It's sure rough out there.

"Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot."

You need a change in program/direction!

"Wouldnâ(TM)t you like to get away?"

We have your golden ticket, humans!

"Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows your name,"

Pride and the fall

"and theyâ(TM)re always glad you came."

False acceptance by illuminati towards newcomers

"You wanna be where you can see,
our troubles are all the same"

The club shares the same woes, apart from those outside
the "big club"

"You wanna be where everybody knows
Your name."

More pride, more entitlement, apart from the herd

"You wanna go where people know,
people are all the same,"

They're all in the illuminati or bound somehow to them.

"You wanna go where everybody knows
your name."

Drilled into your head a final time to settle in your
mind. The song seems like a lullaby and bearing
brainwashing hypnosis targeted to the subconscious.

Cheers TV show illuminati (anagram) = Hermetical Whilst Vinous

It's no secret what Hermetical means, google it, and Whilst Vinous?
It couldn't be ANY clearer.
_________
It is the classic Masonic rhetoric in here, as their cult has completely brainwashed them.

Cheers

Seen on the back wall of the bar as Shelley Long walks past is a sign: "This is a square house. Report any un-fairness to the proprietor." demonstrating a non-masonic use of the concept of squareness representing fairness. Replacing a poster for a 27 February 1929 Jack Dempsey exhibition fight, used for the pilot episode, this sign was a permanent addition to the set for season one.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/cheers.html [freemasonry.bcy.ca]

So masons interprets this as a demonstrating of a non-masonic use of the concept of squareness representing fairness- LOL

It's a series of tubes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402176)

...not a giant truck you can just dump stuff on!

The Federation of American Scientists/Illuminati? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402184)

The Federation of American Scientists:

The EYE discovered four times within one .gif at:
on pages:
https://www.fas.org/eprint.htm [fas.org]
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/index.html [fas.org]

They could've used any image in the world but the EYE was chosen, hmmmm why?

As you browse through the site, picking random .htm pages in whichever subject area you choose, many, if not all of the titles include the eye, this time it's just one, not four, example:

at:
https://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/billman.htm [fas.org]

Wedjat, eye of Horus:

Strange image:
at:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/ [fas.org]

Select one of the topics from the link above

Who are they?
"About FAS

The Federation of American Scientists, an independent, nonpartisan think tank and registered 501(c)(3) non-profit membership organization, is dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based analysis and practical policy recommendations on national and international security issues connected to applied science and technology. Moreover, FAS is committed to educating policymakers, the public, the news media, and the next generation of scientists, engineers, and global leaders about the urgent need for creating a more secure and better world." - https://fas.org/about/index.html [fas.org]

The eye is found over and over and over and over on many pages on their site. This isn't any old blog site, mind you.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402188)

Time to find new ways to promote freedom of information and leave the internet become obsolete.

You reap what you sow (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402194)

SOPA and other intrusive legislation like it is merely the next logical step after you ask the government to take control of the internet with things like Network Neutrality efforts.

You all encouraged the government to intervene in the internet. Now they continue to do so and you are mad?

I would laugh expect I have to live on the same screwed-up internet you are helping to create.

I just hope you have all learned a lesson here. But sadly I am pretty sure the response to my post will indicate that is not the case and some people still really believe that you can actually separate mythical good government intervention from bad government intervention.

Sigh.

Re:You reap what you sow (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402394)

No it's not the next logical step and you would know that if you understood the issue and had bother to read other comments. NET Neutrality is about preventing ISPs from controlling your access to content. In essence it prevents ISPs from regulating the internet.

I hope you learned a lesson on how you need to do some research as opposed to spot off like some idiot.

You misunderstand the basic concept (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402572)

NET Neutrality is about preventing ISPs from controlling your access to content.

And how does it do that - the government dictates what the ISP's can do with network traffic, how companies can interact with the internet.

Well now SOPA comes along and - dictates what must be done with some network traffic, how companies can interact with the internet (like requiring blocking of web sites the government finds to be bothersome).

Fundamentally it's all the same thing. You are just willfully blind in thinking there is a difference. You have sadly fulfilled my prophecy that some are so blind they will not see. Enjoy the internet that YOU are creating.

Re:You reap what you sow (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402418)

It seems to work just fine in other countries where the government isn't so corrupted by corporate interests.

What exactly is your proposed solution to the problem of corporations controlling what you can and can't do on the internet? Trusting in the benevolent, all-seeing Invisible Hand?

Same thing with evolution/global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402196)

Congress represents the lowest common denominator of intelligence and has too much power.

Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402234)

Require that anyone who can even rule on such matters actually have a basic understanding of said matters.

If people can't understand the very basic concepts of how the internet works, they don't deserve to even use it in my opinion, never mind create rules and regulations for it.

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402370)

Require that anyone who can even rule on such matters actually have a basic understanding of said matters.

If people can't understand the very basic concepts of how the internet works, they don't deserve to even use it in my opinion, never mind create rules and regulations for it.

...that's already the standard, as the lobbyists provide a solid education.

Surprised? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402248)

The problem: key members of the House Judiciary Committee still don't understand how the internet works, and worse yet, it's not clear whether they even want to."

And does anyone find this to be surprising? I'm not sure more than a handful of congressmen know how to do anything but accept donations and campaign for re-election

None of this has . . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402268)

slowed down my recent ammunition purchases.

Simple Solution, and the only one that will work. (3, Funny)

Jibekn (1975348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402286)

Vote with lead, if you see an elected official, shoot them.

Re:Simple Solution, and the only one that will wor (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402378)

Don't use lead, it's bad for the environment. Use this instead. [google.com]

Re:Simple Solution, and the only one that will wor (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402390)

That was odd. Slashdot ate the parameter from my anchor URL... Search for "lead free ammunition".

Damn Google, spoiling my joke.

Get another party into congress (2)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402300)

We had the samw try here. The result was a new party in the parliamental race.

If you don't break the grip of the two party system, you will have a ruling aristocracy in less than a generation.

Re:Get another party into congress (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402600)

If you don't break the grip of the two party system, you will have a ruling aristocracy in less than a generation.

Proof needed please. I'll take it in the form of pointing to other countries which have more than two parties and do not suffer from special interests having undue influence in government, OR in the form of an explanation as to how special interests can buy two parties but can't possibly buy three or more.

Every country that I've heard of with more than two parties has problems with corporations and the wealthy buying the government, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that three is a magic number that you cannot buy off.

After providing said proof, please tell me how we can get a more-than-two-party system without changing the first-past-the-post voting system which makes two parties inevitable. Alternatively, tell me how we can get either one of the parties in power to agree to change the first-past-the-post voting system which benefits both of the major parties.

Two things piss me off about people suggesting something is a problem caused by the two party system: 1) It's never caused by the two-party system and 2) The two-party system is here to stay.

Have you seen the full title? Honestly... (3, Insightful)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402304)

To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.

"Combating the theft of U.S. property"...honestly? The words "theft" and "property" are HUGE red flags that these people have no clue what they are talking about.

Old People Talking About Computers (2)

mwfischer (1919758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402336)

What else do you expect?

They aren't the computer generation.

Re:Old People Talking About Computers (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402604)

I expect them to call in experts when it comes to matters they are unfamiliar with. From TFA:

...Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina seemed particularly comfortable about his own lack of understanding. Grinningly admitting âoeIâ(TM)m not a nerdâ before the committee, he nevertheless went on to dismiss without facts or justification the very evidence he didnâ(TM)t understand and then downplay the need for a panel of experts.

Freedom? Fairness? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402350)

What matters to most of them is just higest bidder. With enough money and few enough parties they can win another period there anyway.

And maybe more worrysome than congress, there is not enough people with a clue on the topic to have a chance to make hear their voices in big enough numbers.

Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402354)

They may not understand the internet but I think they understand money.

Bill will backfire and create political awareness (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402356)

As a non American I hope this bill backfires and makes the younger and smarter more concerned and aware of politics. Yesterday tons of 4channers had streams of the amendment hearings and saw how ignorant politicians really are. Pissing off the internet is never a good idea.

Obama isn't going to pass it and if he did I see it causing major sites to simply change from American ownership to somewhere else. Of course really big sites like google would just be heavily censored like youtube.

Wouldn't be a bad time to go ahead and create some foreign sites now though.

I wouldn't mind going back to IRC personally.

If it gets them short-term profit (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402364)

then that is all that matters to them. Let the next Government worry about the fallout, because they'll be nekkid in Tahiti.

It was never funny. (4, Insightful)

sstamps (39313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402404)

The ignorance of our elected officials was never funny. It was sad and grossly pathetic, and still remains so.

Given the democractic system, it is a direct reflection on who we are as a people. As much as people piss and moan about the retards we end up electing, vanishingly few of said people either vote for non-retards, or run against the retards. As such, we get the government we deserve; the government that WE THE PEOPLE voted for.

Just like the corporatocracy/plutocracy/Fascist state that we're fast becoming (which is an obvious symptomatic effect of the problem), people don't get how they are empowering the very evil they rail against. Corporations would have NO power if people stopped feeding them.

People that don't know how to do basic IT stuff (2)

triceice (1046486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402414)

Like post to Facebook ;-) should not be crafting any laws that affect the internet in anyway. Period.

Why is politics a profession? (4, Interesting)

Xanny (2500844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402424)

I mean, I would much rather having accomplished scientists, engineers, and other professions representing me than someone who majored in law in college with the sole intention of being a politician. There is a breakdown in the system, and it was completely intended - when individual senators represent and are elected by up to 60 million people (Cali) they have no connection to their constituents at all.

I mean, the process to fix it is an arduous process. We need to take money out of politics, take it out of campaigning, and we can easily use technology to develop a mutually agreed upon open platform on the internet to market representatives. Like, say, each county could host a site called elections.XXXX.gov and it would allow people to apply and run for the office. Probably have a tiny $10 running fee to keep people from flooding the sites, but besides that make it open to all constituents and all it takes is the ability to type in ones positions and appear at public debate. And then outlaw the spending of money on political advertising, because once we have an easy to access platform for knowing all the candidates where they can respectively give their standings on different political topics, we can move away from the grossly unintended 2 party system and more towards electing people and not parties that don't work in the publics interest.

Problem is, the entrenched powers have absolutely no desire to move towards a system where anyone but the in crowd of each party could ever get nominated and handed to the public. They want 2 partys because they are easier to control and mutually benefit from the status quo.

Re:Why is politics a profession? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38402494)

I have found myself wondering about the long-term effects of removing Congress (and Congressional staffers) from the federal payroll. They are supposed to represent regions of populace (Representatives) or statewide interests (Senators), so make them negotiate pay with those who they represent.

Also, get the Judicial branch to reject any laws which universally excempt Congress from the terms of the law. Some laws need excemptions for individuals acting as agents of the government, but insider trading laws are not in that list.

/. view is shortsighted (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402446)

/. view of the issue is shortsighted, believing that the government system is actually there for any purpose different from enriching the politicians and everybody with access to the politicians.

This is not an aberration, is what I am saying, this is the DESIGN, this is the purpose of what government does. Think about a little issue of taxes - does any sane person understand the entire tax structure that is now on the books in USA? Is it even humanly possible for a single person to understand it at all in one life time?

The issue is not this small (and this is a small issue compared say to your right to life and liberty), the issue is that the system is now completely subverted, the government operates outside of the law boundaries imposed upon it by the Constitution and the people bought into the idea that this is acceptable and not challenging the status-quo.

Level of knowledge applied elsewhere (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402522)

Imagine if they applied their level of tech knowledge to other areas. Like the economy:

"Congressman, how do you counter the charge that the 150% tax rate on the middle class and 0% tax rate on anyone making more than a million dollars in the Save Our Poor Affluent bill will result in millions going bankrupt?"

"Well, I've been assured by the good folks in the Rich Individuals Association of America that this tax rate change will result in people buying more summer homes, yachts, and expensive cars. So obviously, it will highly boost the economy!"

"But won't it...."

"Look, I just pass the laws written for me by powerful lobbying organizations. I'm not an economics nerd!"

And that Ladies and Gentlemen... (1)

Atomus (2500840) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402548)

....is why we need a political system overhaul. The current system we have now is starting to show it's age in keeping up with the Information Age. As a start, we should loosen up the age restrictions on some of these political seats. Another one would be requiring some type of education in a professional field in order to get a higher seat. What about a rating system for our Representatives or Senators based on official public voting. Fall below a certain percentage, and see ya! Heck I'd vote alot more if I knew I could affect a Congressman's position to stay or go... I mean I'm not asking for a over night extreme makeover, but small changes like this could go a long way to implementing better laws to keep up with this age.

There. Fixed that for ya. (2)

Sir Realist (1391555) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402568)

The problem: key members of [strike]the House Judiciary Committee[/strike] Congress still don't understand [strike]how the internet works,[/strike] anything at all, with the possible exception of money, and worse yet, it's not clear whether they even want to.

There. Fixed that for ya.

It's your democratic government (1)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38402586)

Isn't it? You voted for this. I mean it's not likely anyone would buy politician's favours or anything isn't it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...