Don't Be Fooled: Leahy Is NOT Removing DNS Blocking Provisions, Merely Delaying Them

from the bad-reporting dept

Fri, Jan 13th 2012 9:09am — Mike Masnick

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 everyone’s 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

40 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hephaestus (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 8:33am

If this bill gets passed, my hope is that it happens before the upcoming elections. It would allow us to fund and support "the other guy".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someantimalwareguy (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:19am

Re:
And this is probably a reason why he may try and delay this past the elections...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:19am

Congress will drop all of the provisions that no one wants and add them back in at the last minute like they always do. IE: See, the TSA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:25am

He just knows that once something is law then no one is likely to go back and change it. So he just wants to put in a footnote saying "we will think about this for a bit before we turn it on". That translates to "Once we pass this we can ignore it for a year or so then suddenly turn that part on and claim that we 'thought about it for a year'"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:29am

Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
Patrick Leahy (Vermont) is a class 3 senator. That means he isn't up for re-election until 2016.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:33am

You have to pass it to see what is in it
Apparently the new mantra for bills is to pass it first then examine what is in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:33am

Re:
Congress will drop all of the provisions that no one wants and add them back in at the last minute like they always do.

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 thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:35am

Re: Re:
Well crap. That link is wrong. (stupid browser tabs).

Here is is:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38129
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:44am

Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
So the vital question is whether you can oust a politician for something he did years ago. Can you hold a grudge that long? If you can't, then forgiveness will always be easier to obtain than permission, and you'll get more laws like this.

Quick, without looking, what was the worst legislation of 2008, and who was behind it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:57am

Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
I think you mean "third rate..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:59am

Re: Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
Unfortunately, you can't oust the people behind bad legislation because they aren't members of Congress...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 9:59am

Re: Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
what was the worst legislation of 2008, and who was behind it?

�Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity� by Greg Sargent, Oct 24, 2007:

�To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

�Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left� by Paul Kane, June 20, 2008:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:05am

Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
What we need is for the rules to change to require a 1 year public study period for all bills. Then after each revision a 6 month public study period. Plus the ability the challenge the constitutionality right after the bill is passed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:10am

Simple Car Salesman tactics
We don't need to put that in the written contract. Take my word for it, we will do it right later, once you've signed on...

Fire all congressional car salesman types!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:24am

Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
That's nothing new.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:25am

Re: Simple Car Salesman tactics
We don't need to put that in the written contract.

Some people can be fooled all of the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:27am

Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
Plus the ability the challenge the constitutionality right after the bill is passed.

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 thread ]
gorehound (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:28am

Censorship comes then I hope the high Techies out there know what to do.
These arses who want to take away our Rights should have to answer for their Crimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:29am

There are delays, and then there are delays. Inevitably the worst (DNS blocking) will happen.

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 thread ]
Someantimalwareguy (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 10:39am

Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
Actually it can be more simplified than all of that minus a duty for constitutional challenge when appropriate. Simply force three important things on DC:

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 thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:25am

Re:
What "other guy"? They're all politicians and each and every last one of them would sell us out for under a buck. All you get to make a choice on is who they'll sell you out to and how much under a buck they'll do it for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
There's a real simple way of taking care of 3. Stop treating business entities as people.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:51am

Re:
If this bill gets passed, my hope is that it happens before the upcoming elections. It would allow us to fund and support "the other guy".

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 thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:57am

Re: Re:
Pffft, most people are idiots who vote for the most charismatic. With a side requirement that he be at least slightly funny looking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 11:59am

Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
What we need is for the rules to change to require a 1 year public study period for all bills. Then after each revision a 6 month public study period.

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 thread ]
johnny canada, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
@ Someantimalwareguy

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 thread ]
Curious, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:03pm

SOPA and TZ database
What would a company like Astrolab ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111017/01071416378/icann-takes-over-time-zone-database-dares-astr olabe-to-sue.shtml and http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/11532316235/astrolabe-claims-it-holds-copyright-timezone-d ata-sues-maintainers-public-timezone-database.shtml) be able to do to just about any website in the world if SOPA/PIPA passes?

'Tis a scary thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm

No surprise at all. This will only create a market for 'independent DNS' software now, won't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:12pm

They'll study it, just like they study the effects of the Patriot ACT before renewing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Re: You have to pass it to see what is in it
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.

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 thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:43pm

I guess Leahy got the message he was sent in 2002: Play ball or you're dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someantimalwareguy (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 1:31pm

Re: 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?
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...
How do you get around the Constutional provision and court rulings that allow redress of grievances by individuals and corporations?
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 2:26pm

"It's like we've been telling you for months, Mr. Leahy. This bill will cause countless problems, and not actually help anyone or fix anything."

"So you've studied it, then?"

"Yes, and-"

"IMPLEMENTED!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2012 @ 7:33pm

"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?
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 thread ]
USPatriot (profile), 14 Jan 2012 @ 3:17am

Re:Sopa & Pipa
My ancestors founded the US Constitution and they must be rolling over in their graves to see how that document is used, misused and treated as a dead document. My family being insiders has given me a view of a system out of control that only insiders really see and know and what the public is beginning to recognize. Money, politics and criminal activity controls the system. Regardless of how unlawful or morally and ethically wrong something can be, the system will defend it if it meets the goals of an agenda of one or more connected individuals which certainly are the elite. The public is told what sounds good to them, but, in reality, what is done is what is good for the connected few. Money talks and all else walks! I can easily show the public how the system, organized crime and corporations are all working against the masses sharing the spoils. Granted all is not evil, but, the majority is corrupt. The internet was a government project started by Al Gore. US and China work together, thanks to George Bush, but, this alliance will one day be our undoing. The elite only have concerns with their pockets and that of their friends. You can see they want to tax the underpriveledged while refusing to pay any more taxes themselves while their money of the 1% buys 8 times what your money buys! The elections are as corrupt as all else is and look at all the bank scandals and mortgage scams as well as Wall Street Scams, yet, all tax payers are forced to finance Government Sponsors Looters who throw people on to the streets, and then, people think that any of those lucky enough to run for office are thinking of them! Remember the lessons of the French Revolution. When will America Wake up?? People are voting for Romney, yet, noone mentions that he was the Chief Bishop of the Mormon church,or that he and his church displaced people in Belmont Mass. destroying their homes, nor that he and his former employer connect to Roche Carens and DiGiacomo now named Murtha Cullina which has been defendants in ENRON, S and L, Lincoln Savings and Loan, Ocwen Bank and Colonial which led to Whitey Bulger and the FBI. No one mentions that Romney's father was in the Nixon Cabinet, that Romney has been caught in lies repeatedly and that he and his people essentially murdered at least 2 women. One was divorced and had her home stolen on fraud while Romney and his friends in the system set her up to steal millions and the other was killed by a falling steel panel in the big dig bridge after he fired the head of the transportation dept. who told him there were problems. The state later blamed the adhesive and anchoring companies instead of themselves. The entire system is a web of families and friends networking at all levels exploiting the public. Those in the system have judges, politicians and special interest groups all in their pockets and illegal favors abound. Romney is a friend of the Bush's and oddly noone brings up any more how the Bush's were deeply involved in the S and L scandal, or how they stole a person's property for their ball park taken by emminent domain, nor how 60 minutes reported on how they met a drug running plane in Florida, and the pilot involved with them ended up dead and then the plane became part of the private fleet of the Bush's in Tx. Noone reports how Neil Bush was responsible for all the contracts to China, nor how he took everything away from his wife of 25 years and noone would help her because of who they were. Noone reports that George Bush Senior was the Ambassador to China and that do to him and Congress the Chinese own 2 thirds of our treasury bills where legally, this could allow China to demand to take us over! That is only a small concern with China. The US did not like what Officer Manning did with Wikileaks because it showed them up as the Hippocrates they really are! WAKE UP AMERICA!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2012 @ 7:07am

But he DID remove it! Fox News said so! And if you can't trust Fox News, who CAN you trust?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: 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

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 thread ]
Timothy Seward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:19am

Follow the money
You want to know why this bill is being passed? This is a PRIME example of Washington corruption. From the sunlight foundation which is a nonprofit washington organization with the goal to make issues like this transparent. Be ready to be shocked (or no if you realize that our government is broken). Career totals in donations from hollywood and media lobbyist groups that have pushed for this bill to the 40 senators supporting this bill: the drum rolle please

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 Men�ndez, 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 thread ]
demented, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:46am

Re: Re:
Most people vote for whoever's tallest. They might as well vote for a single issue instead of NO issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Psyga Sanichigo (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:05pm

Not a good idea
Hey, not removing a legislation that not only is gonna create more problems, but is actively opposed by the goddamn White House, the guys who REALLY run this show, isn't a very 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 thread ]