How The Attempted Censorship Of File Sharing Sites Avoids Due Process

from the day-in-court? dept

We've already covered how some US Senators are pitching a bill to censor websites that are deemed centered around "infringing" uses, and noted the irony of the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy, decrying internet censorship in other countries. That said, the more people dig into the details, the worse this bill appears to look. The EFF does a good job highlighting many of the rather serious problems with the bill.

While most of the press coverage has discussed the process by which the Justice Department can go to a judge and get a website added to a blacklist, which ISPs and registrars will have to block, there's another part that hasn't received nearly enough attention: which is that there's an effective loophole that could allow similar blocks without judicial review:

The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines -- without judicial review -- are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

We've seen this game in the past, of course. Generally when you provide companies immunity for sites doing something, they'll do it. So, suddenly we're taking the most basic judicial oversight out of the process of allowing the Justice Department -- which, again, is still staffed with a bunch of former entertainment industry lawyers -- choose which sites should be blocked. It's difficult to see how anyone could think this is a reasonable idea.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, due process, orrin hatch, patrick leahy

Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T

from the just-saying dept

We mentioned, when the recent FCC report on broadband came out, that it seemed notable that the first politician out of the gate complaining about it, Rep. Cliff Stearns just happened to have had massive financial support from the biggest broadband players around when it came to raising money for his political campaigns. Given that, it seemed worth looking into the sponsors of a new bill designed to prevent the FCC from implementing net neutrality rules. Now I'm still not convinced the FCC really has the authority to do what it's trying to do, but I find it even more troubling when a group of Senators get together and call a new bill the "Freedom for Consumer Choice Act (FCC Act)," and it seems like they're all funded by AT&T. Somehow, I don't think that AT&T is supporting "freedom for consumer choice" when it comes to broadband. Over the years, they've done exactly the opposite, and worked hard to limit competition.

So, let's see. The bill's main sponsor is Senator Jim DeMint. Over the course of his career... AT&T is the second largest contributor to his campaigns. Ditto for Senator Tom Coburn. John Cornryn no doubt knows that AT&T is the 4th biggest contributor to his campaigns over the years, and Orrin Hatch must be happy that AT&T is the fifth largest contributor to his campaigns over the years (amusingly, AT&T is the only non-healthcare company in the top 8 on Hatch's list).

There are three other co-sponsors who don't have AT&T among their top contributors, but apparently they all want to start. If you drill down and look at campaign contributions this year all three -- John Ensign, Jeff Sessions and John Thune see AT&T appearing on their list of top contributors after being absent in previous years.

Funny how that works.

Now, of course, you could argue that AT&T contributes to politicians who have the same views as AT&T, rather than that these politicians are responding to AT&T's bidding. But, either way, it's hard to argue with a straight face that this particular bill has anything to do with protecting consumers, when it's pretty clearly designed to protect AT&T.

I've seen people suggest in the past that elected officials should have to wear "sponsorship patches," like Nascar racers, to show who funded their campaigns. While I think the idea was a joke, I have to admit, it's growing on me. Also, a special thanks to Karl Bode for inspiring me to write this post, in noting that none of the press coverage of the newly introduced bill seems to note the AT&T contributions to these Senators...

Filed Under: cliff stearns, contributions, jeff sessions, jim demint, john cornryn, john ensign, john thune, orrin hatch, senators, support, tom coburn
Companies: at&t, fcc

Senate Wants To Send US Copyright Cops To Foreign Countries

from the from-all-sides... dept

With the ProIP bill moving forward and trade representatives hard at work on an ACTA treaty to force customs agents to search for copyright violations at the border, Against Monopoly points out that Senators Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch have introduced a new bill having to do with intellectual property overseas. The bill would have the US Trade Representative draw up piracy "Priority Watch List," allowing the White House take actions against countries that don't get in line, including placing officials at foreign embassies with the sole purpose of enforcing US IP rights. Yup, that's correct. The US may soon be sending copyright cops to other countries. This actually seems like a repeat of a bill introduced last year, but it still should worry other countries -- especially when the US has a history of creating such priority watch lists of IP offenders in the past -- and that list is usually laughable, in that it accuses countries that have much stricter copyright laws than the US itself.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright cops, max baucus, orrin hatch

Senate Sells Out The Country: Approves Telco Immunity

from the sickening dept

Well so much for the attempts to filibuster and block telco immunity from being approved. The Senate has granted the telcos immunity with a 69 to 28 vote, effectively handing the President a "get out of jail free" card to not just protect the telcos, but to hide any evidence that the administration's warrantless wiretapping program may have been illegal. This is a total capitulation, and goes against every concept of checks and balances our government was established under. The link above quotes Senator Orrin Hatch saying:

"Congress should not condone oversight through litigation."

That is, perhaps, one of the most ridiculous statements to come from a politician, and should destroy what little credibility Sen. Hatch may have. The Founding Fathers established three branches of government for exactly that reason: so that there was oversight. What Hatch is saying is that the judicial branch no longer should have any oversight. The idea that Congress should not condone the very basic purpose of the judicial branch of government suggests that Senator Hatch needs a civics lesson in the principles that this country was founded under.

Filed Under: orrin hatch, senate, telco immunity