Don't Be Fooled: Leahy Is NOT Removing DNS Blocking Provisions, Merely Delaying Them
from the bad-reporting dept
We've already written about Senator Leahy's decision to delay the implementation of DNS blocking in PIPA. Unfortunately, despite the clear words in the announcement, it appears that Leahy's staff is going around suggesting to the press that this means he's dropping DNS. Thus you get reports in Wired and in ReadWriteWeb saying that Leahy is offering to remove the DNS blocking provisions. That's exactly what Leahy's staff would like people to believe, in the hopes that this makes the bill palatable. First, it wouldn't actually make the bill palatable, but it's important to read what Leahy actually said:As I prepare a managers' amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented...That is NOT removing the DNS blocking provisions. It is merely delaying them.
Furthermore, since the DNS blocking was such a key component of the bill and, at the very last minute, Leahy is suddenly claiming that we can all ignore that section for the time being, isn't that reason enough to stop and wait, rather than rushing this bill forward? Leahy is admitting that he did not and still does not understand a key provision in his bill. Do we really think that's the only provision he did not understand? Shouldn't this, alone, be evidence that this bill needs to be rethought entirely? This isn't a reason to move forward. It's the opposite. It's a reason to put this bill aside and spend some time actually understanding the issues at play.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyoneβs attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dns, dns blocking, dnssec, pat leahy, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice theory. But only zealots are single issue voters. Most logically look at each candidate as a basket of positions and philosophies and vote for the one most closely aligned with their beliefs. There's a reason you have heard none of the Republicans make much of this in the campaign so far. They know it's the economy, stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or some lackey will sneak the provisions back in the middle of the night in exchange for a cushy job in the entertainment sector.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here is is:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38129
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Sopa & Pipa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
Quick, without looking, what was the worst legislation of 2008, and who was behind it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity by Greg Sargent, Oct 24, 2007:
Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left by Paul Kane, June 20, 2008:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to pass it to see what is in it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
What we need is jail time for anyone involved in passing unconstitutional laws. If it is illegal to violate a law, then how much more illegal should it be to violate the constitution? Talk about putting a chill on legislation. Nothing will get passed until they are sure it is legal. Which is as it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
1. One subject at a time: any/all proposed legislation MUST be related to a single topic and that any bill that includes "additional purposes" be filed in the round, green cabinet until/unless any non related content is removed and placed within its own, unique bill,
2. Read the bills: Each and every Senator and Representative must read and fully understand a bill before they can vote for or against it. This means they MUST read and digest the entirety of the bill with an appropriate level of personal research if it is a subject they have no experience with, and
3. No corporate money allowed in politics: No company, corporation, or enterprise should be allowed to contribute to any political campaign, candidate, or political PAC/foundation/what-have-you.
Anything less than these changes will perpetuate the current, broken system...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
Take away their right to participate in any way in politics like they were citizens. In return, stop taxing them like were citizens.
Granted that would require major tweaking to the tax code but it would also make the US a very attractive place to do business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
Please add
All contribution monies must come from within your State.
"Hollywood" can not contribute to a Vermont Senator.
Only Ben and Jerry can contribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
So you're content to allowing wealthy individuals to be the only ones in the game? If that was the case right now, these bills would have passed. No Google? No Public Knowledge?
How do you get around the Constutional provision and court rulings that allow redress of grievances by individuals and corporations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
I fail to see how eliminating corporate personhood would eliminate organizations such as PK or Google. Just because they couldn't contribute to a politician financially, there is no reason why they cannot still work to organize citizens who WOULD contribute individually or express their opinions publicly which would be free speech. Money is not free speech, it is a tool and tools are inanimate... I don't see the rulings as valid and contend that such will be overturned in time. The real question here is whether a corporation has the ability to seek redress without being declared a "person". I say they do as they have been doing this in the past without needing "person-hood".
Don't confuse the ability of a corporation to petition the government and courts with contributions to a politician's campaign chest. The former I have no issue with, the latter leads to unbridled corruption. There is a fundamental and important difference here that you are brushing over...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
This is already the law, and Congress gets to decide whether a bill satisfies it or not.
2. Read the bills: Each and every Senator and Representative must read and fully understand a bill before they can vote for or against it.
And who would decide whether a Congressman understands a bill? His fellow Congressmen (substitute women where appropriate).
3. No corporate money allowed in politics:
I agree. I would public funding of campaigns would be great, no private contributions from either corporations or individuals. And who would have to establish that? Congress! So that's not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
You mean like the bill that raises the debt ceiling that allows the country to keep running? Or emergency relief bills? Or are you just talking about legislation that you think is important or don't like?
Plus the ability the challenge the constitutionality right after the bill is passed.
You do already. It's called the Federal Courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Car Salesman tactics
Fire all congressional car salesman types!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Car Salesman tactics
Some people can be fooled all of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These arses who want to take away our Rights should have to answer for their Crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just legislators in the United States that play this game. We've had it in Canada for decades in that something is passed, then controversial stuff is delayed for further study. Most often by a group of MPs and Senators belonging to the party supporting the bill in the overwhelming majority who tour the country to hear opinions and then suddenly find the need to go overseas to study how other countries do it. Say Australian or New Zealand in the middle of the Canadian winter.
Now if you REALLY want to delay something, create a Royal Commission on (FIT SUBJECT HERE). They can go on for years, sometimes decades! Along with more need to visit countries in winter who are in summer so that they can study something, just about anything, there.
While all this is going on bit by sneaky bit stuff like blocking one or two then more and more sites would take place, all for study, don't you know, to see just what the actual affect would be on the internet under real conditions. You know, just one or two sites here and there to see if the redirects and that kinda stuff does seem to DNSSEC like a "man in the middle" attack. After all, real data is needed, don't you know.
And before you know it..........
.............well, you know it don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA and TZ database
'Tis a scary thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So you've studied it, then?"
"Yes, and-"
"IMPLEMENTED!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content? No, that is not the right word as every individual citizen has a right to support whomever they choose; regardless of personal income or wealth."
I fail to see how eliminating corporate personhood would eliminate organizations such as PK or Google. Just because they couldn't contribute to a politician financially, there is no reason why they cannot still work to organize citizens who WOULD contribute individually or express their opinions publicly which would be free speech. Money is not free speech, it is a tool and tools are inanimate...
Public interest groups are effective because they can aggregate and direct campaign contributions. Simply soliciting members to donate to candidate X, Y and Z means PK loses control of the spigot. It also prevents quick reaction. Google cares about Google. Don't kid yourself about their good intentions. They seized on the DNS blocking "breaks the internet" mantra because it had legs. Now that is accomplished their true agenda comes out. Relieve search engines of any responsibility and kill private right of action, which will correspondingly slow the cutoff of internet ads from which they profit.
Under your theory, the wealthy would have an even more disproportionate influence on politics. Without aggregators like EFF, PK, labor unions, and even PACs- you give control of the entire process to the 1%. Granted there would be far less money in the pool, but that would make it all the more valuable and more lop-sided. The top 20% in terms of net worth account for 85% of total wealth. In terms of financial wealth, the top 20% controls 93% of total wealth. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
I understand where you want to go, but this is the wrong path. Better to look at ramping up limits on the current excesses. Ironically, the courts generally uphold the current system under free speech grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $1,996,470
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., $1,465,160
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., $1,295,718
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., $899,366 (sponsor)
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., $890,668
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., $747,491
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mont., $503,291
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., $493,069
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, $492,407
Sen. Robert Menιndez, D-N.J., $445,575
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., $430,500
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., $368,733
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., $365,589
Sen. Robert Casey, D-Penn., $343,225
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., $312,320
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., $297,771
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, $291,621
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, $284,225
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., $254,162
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., $237,084
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., $230,569
Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., $218,539
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., - $217,847
Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., - $171,790
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., $158,066
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., $94,45
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a good idea
Especially when you have a shit load of people who oppose this bill that can easily vote you out with a flick of a wrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]