# New US internet blacklist bill introduced (COICA)



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

News article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html

In a nutshell the bill wants to set up a list of websites which ISPs will be forced to block.  (I haven't read the bill yet so don't take my word for it.)

The only reason why I mention this is because it's a type of internet blacklist, which is a rather serious form of censorship.  Once we allow for a few sites to be blocked it will be much easier to add more sites.  I don't want my country to have the internet policies of China, Iran and (in two years or so) Australia .

Currently the bill is in review, so don't get all fire and brimstone just yet.  Feel free to write your senator regarding your support or opposition to the bill (especially) if they sponsored it.


----------



## Phxprovost (Sep 28, 2010)

our forefathers would be so proud


----------



## btarunr (Sep 28, 2010)

Oh, it's like China now. Indeed you should be proud of freedom/liberty/democracy. Next thing you know, all sites/blogs that show dissent against the government are going to be blocked, and users will never know what got blocked.


----------



## aCid888* (Sep 28, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Oh, it's like China now. Indeed you should be proud of freedom/liberty/democracy. Next thing you know, all sites/blogs that show dissent against the government are going to be blocked, and users will never know what got blocked.



+1.


This pretty much said it all to be honest.


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Sep 28, 2010)

*Oh Canada!!!!!!*



btarunr said:


> Oh, it's like China now. Indeed you should be proud of freedom/liberty/democracy. Next thing you know, all sites/blogs that show dissent against the government are going to be blocked, and users will never know what got blocked.



Here I come.....


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Oh, it's like China now. Indeed you should be proud of freedom/liberty/democracy. Next thing you know, all sites/blogs that show dissent against the government are going to be blocked, and users will never know what got blocked.





aCid888* said:


> This pretty much said it all to be honest.



Well I've always thought I wasn't that out of the loop but getting a bad rap from an Indian and a British/Canadian bloke about censorship just isn't going to rustle my feathers.  No offense is implied/insinuated.

Last I checked the tank man of Tianamen square happened in China.  More importantly, many Chinese people have never heard about it.  Additionally the famous photos were taken by a US reporter.

Australia can prosecute website owners for mentioning the sale/trade/purchase of illegal drugs (or so I hear).

We (the USA) have got a ways to go before we can claim China censorship status.


----------



## theonedub (Sep 28, 2010)

If piracy and whatnot weren't so rampant things like this wouldn't be necessary. I don't think its a stretch to say that this was brought upon ourselves. 

It would be unfortunate if this set precedence for future censorship, don't get me wrong, but I can def see the other side's perspective.


----------



## aCid888* (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> British/Canadian bloke about censorship just isn't going to rustle my feathers.  No offense is implied/insinuated.
> 
> 
> 
> We (the USA) have got a ways to go before we can claim China censorship status.




First, I'm 100% English...though I do mainly exist in NA these days.  


Second, England and the US are going about shit the exact same way these days. We have almost the same 'bill' in the pipe-line; it wont be long before they tell us we cant view online pr0n!   


But, in all honesty, this is pretty bad news for every country. Once America paves the way the rest shall follow suit - this is a certainty.


----------



## AltecV1 (Sep 28, 2010)

well seeing as America is run by big corporations this isnt surprising one bit


----------



## aCid888* (Sep 28, 2010)

theonedub said:


> If piracy and whatnot weren't so rampant things like this wouldn't be necessary. I don't think its a stretch to say that this was brought upon ourselves.



If prices are games, movies, music (as a whole) and other such related products where lower I'd consider buying them.


As things are at the minute I'd sooner go to "The Bay" and download said content than pay a hefty fee to line some CEO's pockets because hes forgot what work is and sits around behind his desk all day.


Maybe when more money goes to the artists/intellectual owner then more people will start buying again and not downloading.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 28, 2010)

AltecV1 said:


> well seeing as America is run by big corporations this isnt surprising one bit



it is pretty clear you dont live here.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

aCid888* said:


> But, in all honesty, this is pretty bad news for every country. Once America paves the way the rest shall follow suit - this is a certainty.



Amen.



aCid888* said:


> Maybe when more money goes to the artists/intellectual owner then more people will start buying again and not downloading.



Actually I think it's more about the business model than distribution of capital.  Copyright laws are not designed to protect business models, yet they are currently being used for that purpose.

What is needed, as many more scholastically inclined than myself have said, is that companies should increase access to works by selling them online (and cross-platform).  By making content more accessible they can lower production cost, increase profits and reduce absurd EULA.


----------



## theonedub (Sep 28, 2010)

aCid888* said:


> If prices are games, movies, music (as a whole) and other such related products where lower I'd consider buying them.
> 
> 
> As things are at the minute I'd sooner go to "The Bay" and download said content than pay a hefty fee to line some CEO's pockets because hes forgot what work is and sits around behind his desk all day.
> ...



Games, music, and movies are not necessities to life. I think people need to loose that sense of entitlement and realize if you can't afford it you don't get to go download it for free (steal). Manage your money better, make some tough cuts, or get a better paying job (who is forgetting about work now?). If you cant do that then don't buy. 

I mean do you think the artists are thinking 'yeah steal the stuff I made to stick it to the man' ?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Well I've always thought I wasn't that out of the loop but getting a bad rap from an Indian and a British/Canadian bloke about censorship just isn't going to rustle my feathers.



We don't even have to try (nor intend to). There's the US Government.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> We (the USA) have got a ways to go before we can claim China censorship status.



You can say that again, after the Patriot Act. 

India faces more terrorism than any other country in the free world, because it pretty much borders the epicentre of terror in the world. A previous government even passed what was known as POTA (prevention of terrorism act), Patriot is very similar to it. Yet it just wasn't allowed by the people to work out, the next government repealed it. So acts such as Patriot or POTA won't make a difference. Patriot act couldn't prevent Faizal "Fizzle" Shehzad from parking that explosive truck in NY, and we in India learned well before 9/11 that a free country can afford to retain its freedoms and prevent terrorism (we've prevented thousands since 2008, and without any freedom-infringing act in place).


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 28, 2010)

btarunr said:


> and we in India learned well before 9/11 that a free country can afford to retain its freedoms and prevent terrorism (we've prevented thousands since 2008, and without any freedom-infringing act in place).



we in the USA know that too. it is called the libertarian party


----------



## btarunr (Sep 28, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> we in the USA know that too. it is called the libertarian party



Yeah, but we were able to repeal POTA. Let Libertarians repeal Patriot, I'll send you a free case of Cobra beer.


----------



## Radical_Edward (Sep 28, 2010)

I hear Japan is nice this time of year, guess it's time to move. I'm really starting to dislike all the crap the government has been passing/letting stay in place of late.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

theonedub said:


> I mean do you think the artists are thinking 'yeah steal the stuff I made to stick it to the man' ?



No.  But the issue isn't all one way or the other.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/music/artists_quotes.cfm
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works

Somewhat scholarly links:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1656485
http://musicbusinessresearch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/paper-felix-oberholzer-gee.pdf
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
http://www.demos.co.uk/files/DemosMusicsurvey.ppt
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/trends-2010
http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/09/benjamin-franklin-founding-pirate.ars



> Unfortunately, the tremendous potential of peer-to-
> peer technology may never be realized if this Court were to
> impose an unduly restrictive requirement that the qualita-
> tively substantial non-infringing uses be at all times in a
> ...


 (source)


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

btarunr said:


> You can say that again, after the Patriot Act.
> . . .
> we in India learned well before 9/11 that a free country can afford to retain its freedoms and prevent terrorism (we've prevented thousands since 2008, and without any freedom-infringing act in place).



The patriot act is somewhat more neutered in its current incarnation then the one passed during the Dick and Bush administration.  That doesn't mean I like it though.  Gonna be tough to repeal at this stage. 

India doesn't need a freedom-infringing act in place.  Fear of unsanctioned excessive brutality is more than acceptable.  I'm not trying to turn this into a penis size debate, I'm just saying that it's really tit for tat in regards to freedom/liberty in most countries.

(Oh, and sorry for double post.)


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 28, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Yeah, but we were able to repeal POTA. Let Libertarians repeal Patriot, I'll send you a free case of Cobra beer.



consider it done! oh wait, people in the USA want the patriot act so they can spy on eachother. :shadedshu


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 28, 2010)

I signed the petition against the bill:
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

The internet is infrastructure--use is supposed to be indiscriminatory.


A shame the FCC's net neutrality failed too (probably why this bill happened):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/fcc-net-neutrality-effort_n_672472.html


Corporations usually oppose net neutrality though.  I can't see them getting behind this because it makes more work for them.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 28, 2010)

There is no excuse to censor anything, ever. 

If porns sites aren't getting censored (Which I doubt they are) what exactly do they want to censor? 

Pirating sites is a good guess but this is like chopping the hand off of every one in America to make sure they don't steal. I don't think this is right at all.

So China blocks Google what are we to be blocking?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> India doesn't need a freedom-infringing act in place.  Fear of unsanctioned excessive brutality is more than acceptable.



Police brutality is everywhere (including the US), and when found guilty, such police personnel are suspended and prosecuted (such stories, not surprisingly, are not covered as a follow up by the western media), that's too trivial to question on an entire country's freedom index. 

This is characteristic of a non-free country:







^mass executions in Tibet by the PLA.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 28, 2010)

They want to censor everything not suitable for children (>90% of the internet) and everything that potentially violates copyrights.  Huffington Post, and other news organizations, are going to put a fight over this because the 24 hour news cycle demands that most news be copied+linked; therefore, virtually every domain name owned by a news organization could be subject to censorship.

On the other hand, every company that makes music, movies, or software is going to get behind this because they are absolutely convinced pirates are eating in to their profits and will do everything they can to stop it (including suing individuals).

ISPs will hate the idea because that means they got to check these lists and remove the domain names from their DNSs and if any of those domain names appear, it has to be blocked (requires a lot of server load).


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Sep 28, 2010)

oh well this is your government get use to it there is no democracy when u vote for reps in the house or senate the president etc all you get is 2 choices in the end Douchebag #1 or Douchebag #2 and its up to you to figure out which one is the lesser of the 2 pricks. To be blunt your only as free as your government deems you to be. The fact the government can break all the laws in place and when caught and prosecuted for it can declare sovereign immunity *aka you cant touch this lol * to put it bluntly you dont determine anything. The people of this country are ignorant sheeple for the most part content to be led around like a dog on a leash. If i remember correctly a poll in russia had the majority of its ppl say freedoms didnt mean much to them stability in favor of personal freedom. the age old saying "Money talks bullshit walks* in this case the people are the shit and the companies with money make the decisions for you. If you want that to change you somehow have to educate every single american at the same time all at once. lol all i can say is get use to it or move to some other country that has laws that work for you


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 28, 2010)

Oddly enough, it is almost always Democrats pushing shackles on the Internet.  The #1 douchbag that does this is currently the Vice President (Biden of Delaware).  This bill (no surprise) is sponsored by another Democrat (Leahy of Vermont).  For this bill, there are 10 Senate Democrat sponsors and 5 Republicans.


Dear god, one of my Senators is a cosponsor.  I'm gonna write a little something, something to him imploring him to oppose the legislation.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Sep 28, 2010)

yup but then again u get Mcain who told the poor to marry a beer heiress if that was a joke it obviously didnt set well again douche #1 or douche #2 all i can say is ppl need to either find someplace to go if they dont like it or get use to eating sugar coated shit sandwiches


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 28, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Oddly enough, it is almost always Democrats pushing shackles on the Internet.  The #1 douchbag that does this is currently the Vice President (he was the author of the DMCA--another thorn in the ass of America).



net neutrality is all about who controls the internet. funny how the government REALLY wants to control the internet while telecomms are like WTF go away!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 28, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> oh well this is your government get use to it there is no democracy when u vote for reps in the house or senate the president etc all you get is 2 choices in the end Douchebag #1 or Douchebag #2 and its up to you to figure out which one is the lesser of the 2 pricks. To be blunt your only as free as your government deems you to be. The fact the government can break all the laws in place and when caught and prosecuted for it can declare sovereign immunity *aka you cant touch this lol * to put it bluntly you dont determine anything. The people of this country are ignorant sheeple for the most part content to be led around like a dog on a leash. If i remember correctly a poll in russia had the majority of its ppl say freedoms didnt mean much to them stability in favor of personal freedom. the age old saying "Money talks bullshit walks* in this case the people are the shit and the companies with money make the decisions for you. If you want that to change you somehow have to educate every single american at the same time all at once. lol all i can say is get use to it or move to some other country that has laws that work for you



I prefer the choice of change. Its happened before and if the people of America wake up and realize the reality of the situation maybe the revolution can start. Most people are happy with being puppets though, which is a sad truth. As long as you give them the the choice to choose small, medium or large thats all the freedom they really need/want.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Sep 28, 2010)

people are sheeple nuff said for every 1 person thats intelligent enough to see the issues theres probably a few thousand ignorant of everything past there nose


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 28, 2010)

Sent:


> Hello again, Mr. Grassley.  It has come to my attention that you are cosponsoring the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (S. 3804).  I implore you not to.  The internet, in its entirety, is infrastructure much in the same as telephone lines, power lines, highways, and rails are.  We don't censor people from any of the above unless they abuse their right to use it (like drive overweight on highways).  When they have proven they don't respect the infrastructure then we do something to that specific individual to stop them from doing it again (like revoking their license).  We don't wall off a city where a drunken driver lives so he can't hurt anyone.  No, we stop that one individaul from getting in the driver seat (the responsible thing to do).  As this translates to the Internet, instead of walling off domain names because they make someone unhappy, we (copyright holders after content; officers after child pornography sites) should go after the infringing content directly, like we already do.  It is the responsibility of the copyright holder to pursue copyright infringements.  That is not the responsibility of the government nor the infrastructure.  An open Internet is just as important, if not more so, than an open highway system.  Net neutrality must be preseved and censorship is never the answer.
> 
> Thank you for your time and I hope you reconsider your support for this bill.  It is bad for Americans, business, and America's image as the beacan of freedom to the world.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> oh well this is your government get use to it there is no democracy when u vote for reps in the house or senate the president etc all you get is 2 choices in the end Douchebag #1 or Douchebag #2 and its up to you to figure out which one is the lesser of the 2 pricks. To be blunt your only as free as your government deems you to be. The fact the government can break all the laws in place and when caught and prosecuted for it can declare sovereign immunity *aka you cant touch this lol * to put it bluntly you dont determine anything. The people of this country are ignorant sheeple for the most part content to be led around like a dog on a leash. If i remember correctly a poll in russia had the majority of its ppl say freedoms didnt mean much to them stability in favor of personal freedom. the age old saying "Money talks bullshit walks* in this case the people are the shit and the companies with money make the decisions for you. If you want that to change you somehow have to educate every single american at the same time all at once. lol all i can say is get use to it or move to some other country that has laws that work for you



My only problem with this is that you're saying it will never get better.  I'm like Spock living on Romulus, in it for the long haul.  Change doesn't happen over night.



Easy Rhino said:


> net neutrality is all about who controls the internet. funny how the government REALLY wants to control the internet while telecomms are like WTF go away!



I prefer the word "regulate" because it doesn't sound as totalitarian.  It's a simple fact that for some machines to work properly they need a governing system (FCC, SEC, FDA, NHTSA, to name a few).

FYI, regulate and control are synonyms.  I just thing it sounds better.  I think btarunr is being a bit pedantic.  No machine or control system is perfect.


----------



## jasper1605 (Sep 28, 2010)

Maybe they should just do a better job enforcing laws against those who do break them instead of overextending their reach into preventing potentially legal sites from existing.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 28, 2010)

Not only that but as domain name exhaustion expands, we're more likely to see bad subdomains appearing on otherwise good domain names.  Knowing the government, they would block the whole domain name meaning all of the approvable sites on that domain would be inaccessible.  It's just a bad idea all around.  We can't start down that path.


----------



## btarunr (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> It's a simple fact that for some machines to work properly they need a governing system (FCC, SEC, FDA to name a few).



FCC doesn't stop certain devices from emitting potentially-carcinogenic radiations. The FCC, like the FDA, is selective. Bigger companies' are let go with "Caution" labels to be printed on devices, while smaller companies are witch-hunted down.

The voluntary warranty and RMA provisions given to manufacturers and trade laws are the ones that really "make sure some machines work properly", not FCC (because if they won't, customers are entitled to replacements within applicable periods from the date of sale).

So regulation is just a "democratic" way saying "control", but it's just as autocratic.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Sep 28, 2010)

Knowing that this bill could potentially violate our 1st amendment right, I don't see this bill flying through the Supreme Court. It has the potential to infringe on the freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the ability to petition the government. There are three branches of government for a reason.


----------



## Radical_Edward (Sep 28, 2010)

f22a4bandit, that doesn't mean squat anymore, the Patriot Act is still in effect. Which also infringes on our rights.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> My only problem with this is that you're saying it will never get better.  I'm like Spock living on Romulus, in it for the long haul.  Change doesn't happen over night.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



we only have to look at the history of abuse by the federal government to see where net neutrality will lead us.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Sep 28, 2010)

Assuming that one bill will lead to another being passed is the wrong line of thinking. You'd get a massive uproar from the media and American public if something like this bill limited our use of the Internet. Unlike the Chinese, we have been spoiled with an open Internet for a long time, and limiting its use WILL draw immediate criticism that will find its way into the court system if it isn't reviewed carefully. This is bound to be one of the pieces of legislation that finally forces the Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the Internet is a medium that falls into protected speech (which I think it will).

I understand your negative attitude toward the government; its actions in the past haven't kept the interests of the American people in mind. Despite everything, we still have the power to change the way things are if we'd just utilize it. We also still have the right to debate government policy freely in a public forum.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 28, 2010)

f22a4bandit said:


> Assuming that one bill will lead to another being passed is the wrong line of thinking. You'd get a massive uproar from the media and American public if something like this bill limited our use of the Internet.



that is making the massive assumption that the truth is actually being diseminated rather than propoganda.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Sep 28, 2010)

You have to post legislation where it's easily accessible due to the Freedom of Information Act. 

Investigative journalism has had its impact before many times on government policy. The government has tried to deny certain documents to the media, or if information had been leaked tried to cover it up, but failed to do so because of the FoIA. The First Amendment is the First Amendment for a reason, it's one of the many reasons this country was founded in the first place.


----------



## Drone (Sep 28, 2010)

that sucks. 

I'm not American so who are these guys behind this?



> Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN)



I bet they did such things before


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

I mentioned it in my first post but I'll mention it again for anyone who missed it:  This bill is still in committee action and it may be a while, if ever, before it sees a vote in the senate.

If your senator is in the senate judiciary committee you have the opportunity to voice your opinion at this stage.  Otherwise you may have to wait till the bill is brought to vote in order to voice your opinion.



Easy Rhino said:


> we only have to look at the history of abuse by the federal government to see where net neutrality will lead us.



Made me think of this:
https://www.nytsyn.com/cartoons/cartoons/446065.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I mentioned it in my first post but I'll mention it again for anyone who missed it:  This bill is still in committee action and it may be a while, if ever, before it sees a vote in the senate.


If it hits the floor before the November elections, it will pass.  Most Democrats will support it which is about 55 votes and five Republicans are cosponsoring it which is another 5 votes.  That is a fillibuster proof majority (60/100) and it is doubtful Obama would veto it.




streetfighter 2 said:


> If your senator is in the senate judiciary committee you have the opportunity to voice your opinion at this stage.  Otherwise you may have to wait till the bill is brought to vote in order to voice your opinion.


Virtually everyone (except two) sponsoring the bill are also on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sponsors (X in behind if on the committee):
Bayh
Cardin X
Coburn X
Durbin X
Feinstein X
Graham X
Grassley X
Hatch X
Klobuchar X
Kohl X
Leahy X
Schumer X
Specter X
Voinovich
Whitehouse X

That leaves only 6 members (31.5%) of the judiciary committee that aren't sponsors.  Basically, all they have to do in the committee is vote and it is to the floor.


----------



## Nick89 (Sep 28, 2010)

This bill blatantly infringes the first amendment.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 28, 2010)

the internet is doomed!!! human kind is doomed!!!

if they need to censor things like sex so much, why dont they stop having sex first?


----------



## Kreij (Sep 28, 2010)

> if they need to censor things like sex so much, why dont they stop having sex first?



They need the next generation of taxpayers.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That leaves only 6 members (31.5%) of the judiciary committee that aren't sponsors.  Basically, all they have to do in the committee is vote and it is to the floor.



Wow, good catch.

Obama has proven to be quite the lackey for the RIAA so, as you mentioned, there's little hope of him vetoing it (assuming it gets that far).

I sent an email to Arlen Specter, but I guarantee it will fall on deaf ears.  I've met the guy a couple of times and to say he's a complete dick would be far too kind.  I'd need to invent words to describe what an ass he is.

(I'm not saying I disagree with everything Arlen Specter has done, but I am saying that he cannot be reasoned with.  Once he makes up his mind he will respond rudely if you question his "ironclad" judgments.)



Nick89 said:


> This bill blatantly infringes the first amendment.



True, but the first amendment isn't making as many campaign contributions as the RIAA.


----------



## Super Sarge (Sep 28, 2010)

What do the members think of this purposed law
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-cybersecurity-bill-gives-obama-power-to-shut-down-companies.html
_I find it a little scary, to some it may smack of Germany in the 30's. Ask your self would this enable who ever is President to shut down News papers and or News organizations that did not comply with government orders._
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 28, 2010

_An amalgamated cybersecurity bill that lawmakers hope to pass before the end of the year includes new powers which would allow President Obama to shut down not only entire areas of the Internet, but also businesses and industries that fail to comply with government orders following the declaration of a national emergency – increasing fears that the legislation will be abused as a political tool._

The draft bill is a combination of two pieces of legislation originally crafted by Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. One of the differences between the new bill and the original Lieberman version is that the Internet “kill switch” power has been limited to 90 days without congressional oversight, rather than the original period of four months contained in the Lieberman bill.

*In other words, President Obama can issue an emergency declaration that lasts 30 days and he can renew it for a further 60 days before congress can step in to oversee the powers.*

The new powers would give Obama a free hand to not only shut down entire areas of the Internet and block all Internet traffic from certain countries, but under *the amalgamated bill he would also have the power to completely shut down industries that don’t follow government orders, according to a Reuters summary of the new bill.*


----------



## ron732 (Sep 28, 2010)

Welcome to the *United Socialist States of America*







The new face of government.


----------



## Super Sarge (Sep 28, 2010)

ron732 said:


> Welcome to the *United Socialist States of America*
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100928/newfaceofgovSM.jpg
> 
> The new face of government.



You get no disagreement from me.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 28, 2010)

ron732 said:


> Welcome to the *United Socialist States of America*
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100928/newfaceofgovSM.jpg
> 
> The new face of government.



Where are the background pictures of the other presidents?


----------



## Steevo (Sep 28, 2010)

I like your poster, take your socialist security, take your socialist medicare, socialist streets, socialist utilities, and burn them, 

Then lets make a poster or a guy who was voted into office among bitter and bickering right and left wing idiots who care not for the public, but for themselves, and then who make bills like this and spin it to make it look like it is somehow the presidents fault on your favorite entertainment channel Faux News.


Where does Obama have his name on this? 
Republicans tried for social healthcare years ago, but due to the same bickering and fighting it never passed.
Amazingly enough Hawaii has a social healthcare system in place already, much to the surprise of the anti-government healthcare idiots who held a convention there. It works.
Other countries have it in place to control the exorbitant raping the insurance companies give the public. 


I'm neither for or against Obama, but your horseshit is getting old.


If you want the good old days, good old boys club. Good, stay in your trailer with your mullet, beer belly, and when your leg gets chopped off at the lumber mill where your will get a $30K settlement job you use to support your family at $9 a hour with no benefits while the owner snorts a line of coke off your daughters whore ass, fine. You will be as free as Fox news tells you you are as you watch only what the large corporate moguls want you to see on their politico agenda controlled channel that are invested heavily by the same people you love to hate.


----------



## f22a4bandit (Sep 28, 2010)

Considering that we in the U.S. already have social programs in place, it's a huge surprise that Obama is being labeled a socialist. Social Security, Medicaid, our huge welfare programs...if you think we didn't have anything that you can consider socialist before Obama came to power, think again. Before jumping to conclusions, you should really inform yourself on 1) what is socialism and 2) the policies already in place before the current president took office. Knowledge really is power in this case.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 28, 2010)

Socialist government is total control, much like Russia was. Due to corruption, and the influx of religions in government, power struggle, and the peoples want for freedoms it fell.


A government that is adept and fills the needs of the people, serving the people first under whatever name is best. I would rather be in a "socialist" country if the standards of living with freedoms were better. 


Can we all not agree that what is best for the people should come first? No this MPAA, RIAA, PR spin bullshit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 28, 2010)

Steevo said:


> Amazingly enough Hawaii has a social healthcare system in place already, much to the surprise of the anti-government healthcare idiots who held a convention there. It works.


As does Mass.  That doesn't mean the federal government should because no states in the Midwest/West (less California) want it.




f22a4bandit said:


> Considering that we in the U.S. already have social programs in place, it's a huge surprise that Obama is being labeled a socialist. Social Security, Medicaid, our huge welfare programs...if you think we didn't have anything that you can consider socialist before Obama came to power, think again. Before jumping to conclusions, you should really inform yourself on 1) what is socialism and 2) the policies already in place before the current president took office. Knowledge really is power in this case.


He oversaw the government takeover several banks and automotive corporations for the sole purpose of making sure they don't fail.

Government employment is the foundation of socialism: the more people that get a paycheck from the government, the more socialist the country is.


Obama expanded Medicare (Medicaid is a part of Medicare) for his Obamacare law.  Medicare is expected to be insolvant (more money out than in) withn 10 years.

FDR, another Democrat, was responsible for the biggest move towards socialism in USA history by creating the Social Security Administration which is now thee largest expenditure in the federal budget ($677 billion/year and climbing).




Steevo said:


> Socialist government is total control, much like Russia was.


Russia was communist.  Communism takes it one step further than socialism (government employed) by not allowing people to buy anything.  The government provides for you needs (basic food, shelter, and entertainment) and you take what is given.  Socialism could be said that it is welfare for the few while communism could be said to be welfare for the many.  Because Social Security is a mandatory welfare program, it could be said that is communistic in nature.


----------



## v12dock (Sep 28, 2010)

Get the democrats out of office....


----------



## jasper1605 (Sep 28, 2010)

interesting how politics even have a way to pervade into a tech website to pull it so far off topic where comments are solely political ideals.  I hate politics personally; it's pure corruption.  And now they are going to step into markets that they don't belong in.  Sad day


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Sep 28, 2010)

We can argue about libtards (jerks) and republitards (pricks) after S. 3804 (the topic of this thread) is shot and buried.  Buried deep, deep in the ground, never to be seen again.

Augmenting copyright law is one of those things you can expect both groups of sheep to support with little recognition of the ramifications.  The DMCA passed the senate with a unanimous vote.

I know I shouldn't say this but I'm really pleased Christine O'Donnell won in Delaware.  Hopefully she can sock it to those socialists that still think evolution is real. 



jasper1605 said:


> interesting how politics even have a way to pervade into a tech website to pull it so far off topic where comments are solely political ideals. . .  Sad day



Quite right.  Well said.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 28, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> I mentioned it in my first post but I'll mention it again for anyone who missed it:  This bill is still in committee action and it may be a while, if ever, before it sees a vote in the senate.
> 
> If your senator is in the senate judiciary committee you have the opportunity to voice your opinion at this stage.  Otherwise you may have to wait till the bill is brought to vote in order to voice your opinion.
> 
> ...



made me think of this:
http://mises.org/books/TRTS/


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Sep 28, 2010)

*Except For The United Part*



ron732 said:


> Welcome to the *United Socialist States of America*
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100928/newfaceofgovSM.jpg
> 
> The new face of government.



Pretty accurate assessment.


----------



## ron732 (Sep 28, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> Where are the background pictures of the other presidents?



Like these? 






@Steevo  Seriously I can't stand the Dems, the Republicans or the Tea Baggers. I am what is called a disenfranchised voter.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 30, 2010)

The Judiciary Committee is supposed to review it today at 10 AM EST.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 30, 2010)

ron732 said:


> Like these?
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100928/whysoseriousSM.jpg
> 
> @Steevo  Seriously I can't stand the Dems, the Republicans or the Tea Baggers. I am what is called a disenfranchised voter.


Yes, thank you  



FordGT90Concept said:


> The Judiciary Committee is supposed to review it today at 10 AM EST.



Fingers crossed...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 30, 2010)

I think it could be on the Senate floor as early as later today (like I said, I can't see it being in the committee for long since most are sponsoring it).  I don't know when the House would take it up--depends on their schedule.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 30, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think it could be on the Senate floor as early as later today (like I said, I can't see it being in the committee for long since most are sponsoring it).  I don't know when the House would take it up--depends on their schedule.



considering the democrats are delaying a vote on extending the tax cuts...


----------



## Super Sarge (Sep 30, 2010)

And they're out! Congress flees DC to campaign
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_campaigning_congress
They are out of session for quite awhile, they come back as lame ducks and many will be defeated


----------



## [Ion] (Sep 30, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The Judiciary Committee is supposed to review it today at 10 AM EST.



Well, let's hope they throw it out


----------



## ron732 (Sep 30, 2010)

*This is scary stuff*

The purpose of this legislation from the text of the bill is "To combat online infringement, and for other purposes."

Read the bill here
Text of S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

The other purposes part is so ambiguous that it leaves the door wide open for abuse. We need to let our legislators know that we are not willing to grant this amount of unchecked power to the government. Contact your Representatives and Senators and let them know how you feel.

Don't know who represents your district? Go here to find out who speaks for you in Washington.
Contact Government


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Sep 30, 2010)

i already contacted both my states reps and offered my views but i seriously doubt it does anything to change there minds


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 30, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i already contacted both my states reps and offered my views but i seriously doubt it does anything to change there minds



i hope you did that just after you finished playing BC2! that way you will scare them into voting our way


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Sep 30, 2010)

lol um if by scare them you mean tell them i think its asinine to ignore the principles of which are nation is founded that by censoring the internet you might as well start closing entire store chains when there robbed and let the guy who did the deed go free. That you might as well revoke my rights to free speech and do away with my right to bear arms and that if my country was to follow through with more laws like this bending over ever more for the RIAA and MPAA to have there way they can expect me to move to a different nation, I was raised to believe that America is the land of the free and home of the brave and that by passing bills like these into law does nothing more then destroy what little remains of once strong image America had and would make the fore fathers of are nations turn over in there graves then yes i hope i scared them.


----------



## jasper1605 (Sep 30, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> make the fore fathers of are nations turn over in there graves



They've been turning over in their graves for a long while now.  Don't you worry about this bill overworking their postmortem exercise.


----------

