Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue

from the it-is-a-trade-issue,-isn't-it dept

While the MPAA has been pretending that there are no alternatives beyond the insanity that is PIPA and SOPA, some in Congress have actually been hard at work on trying to think through the specific issues. And one key point has become clear: this isn't a law and order issue, but an international trade issue. Nearly all of the complaints are about the problem of "foreign" sites sending goods across the border into the US. So it makes absolutely no sense that this issue isn't under the purview of the Finance Committee, whose job it is to oversee international trade. Thus, a bill is being worked on that tackles the issues as an international trade issue. A "discussion draft" is being circulated on this (embedded below).

This new effort has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, and unlike SOPA and PIPA, seeks to try to focus in on situations that are actually problematic. In the Senate, it has the backing of Senators Cantwell, Moran, Paul, Warner and Wyden. All of whom had come out against PIPA, except for Warner. Adding him to this issue is big, given his experience in the business world. On the House side, it's Reps. Chaffetz, Campbell, Doggett, Eshoo, Issa and Lofgren. The focus would be putting the issue into the International Trade Commission, where there are experts focused on trade issues.

I think this is an approach that absolutely makes sense for counterfeit physical goods and the websites that sell them. Frankly, it's bizarre that it ever went beyond a discussion of international trade. It becomes somewhat trickier with copyright issues, and that's because you now have questions about how physical borders apply to digital networks. And I'm not sure I know how to best deal with that. Separately, having seen the ITC process on patents go off the rails at times, and become more of a way for patent holders to issue a "double whack" against a company they accuse of infringement, I'd be concerned about making sure that this process doesn't allow for two bites at the same apple. If it's properly focused on just foreign sites, that might not be as big an issue.

Either way, the devil will be in the details, but the details are still being written. Seeing as this is a discussion draft, I'm hearing that the folks involved really do want a discussion (unlike what we got with SOPA/PIPA), and that includes folks here. Take a look at the draft, and weigh in, knowing that some of the folks involved really will be reading what you have to say.

Filed Under: anna eshoo, copyright, darrell issa, international trade, itc, jason chaffetz, jerry moran, maria cantwell, mark warner, pipa, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, sopa, trade, zoe lofgren

Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

from the not-an-easy-task dept

While most of the attention over the past few weeks was given to SOPA and the House side of Congress in this debate on censoring the internet, the Senate side is becoming increasingly important. One of the ridiculous side effects of SOPA being so ridiculously bad is that PROTECT IP (the Senate version, also called PIPA) being just slightly less bad, means that some think that it can be seen as a "compromise." That's ridiculous, but it's part of the angle that supporters are using to try to rush that bill through the Senate in the near future. That's why the three Senators who stood up last week and spoke out against PIPA for the first time, Senators Rand Paul, Maria Cantwell and Jerry Moran deserve extra kudos. There's been massive lobbying support in favor of PIPA, and lots going on behind the scenes while the public was focused on SOPA on the House side. Having three Senators willing to stand up on principle, recognizing that the broad definitions and consequences of PIPA would hurt jobs, the economy and innovation, is something we don't see enough of these days. If one of these is your Senator, you should reach out and thank them for standing up for the benefit of society, rather than the benefit of big time corporate lobbyists.

Filed Under: copyright, jerry moran, maria cantwell, pipa, principles, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, sopa

Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran And Maria Cantwell All Warn That PROTECT IP Will Kill Jobs

from the good-for-them dept

Quite an interesting day. Having Rep. Nancy Pelosi come out against SOPA was quite something. But the Senate has still been pretty quiet. However, it appears that some Senators saw the public outcry against online censorship, against regulating internet companies, against changing the basic regulatory and technological framework that the internet has been built on... and realized that perhaps they shouldn't stay quiet any longer either. Senator Wyden, of course, has been vocal about his opposition to PROTECT IP (and has put a hold on the bill), but now Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran and Maria Cantwell have also come out with a statement against PROTECT IP, saying that they, too, will put a hold on PROTECT IP.

Our fear, which is shared by many, is that S. 968 as currently written will have the unintended consequences of undermining our nation's national security and our goals to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation.

As currently written, the Protect IP Act and the companion Stop Online Piracy Act legislation in the House unnecessarily risk an overbroad application of the new and unprecedented tools they provide to the U.S. Department of Justice and the private sector. An excessively expansionary application of these tools would undermine our national security and economic interests.

We are particularly concerned that the proposal authorizes the use of remedies that will undermine the infrastructure of the Internet. The nation's leading technologists and security experts say these provisions will kill our best hope for actually making the Internet more secure against cyber attacks. We take seriously the alarm expressed by the nation's leading investors in new online startups who say the proposal will dampen interest in financing the new ideas and businesses of tomorrow, and to legal and human rights experts who caution that the proposal enables the silencing of speech.

With significant concerns from both parties in both Houses of Congress, will supporters of these bills still try to push them forward as is? Will they finally let the tech industry into the discussions? Or will they continue to make ridiculous claims about how this effort to regulate the internet is to "protect the troops"?

Unfortunately, the biggest lobbyists in favor of these bills -- the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce, mainly -- are working over time to get them to move forward. They're telling Senators and House members that yesterday's protests, which inundated Congress with calls and letters against SOPA/PIPA were "just a fluke." We know that's not the case, but it would be nice if Congress heard that as well.

Filed Under: copyright, jerry moran, jobs, maria cantwell, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, senate

TSA Chief Pistole: Maybe We Can Stop Petting Your Children

from the but-probably-not dept

There are things in this life that are difficult to figure out.  Quantum Physics, for instance, just ain't easy.  Hell, I'm 29 years old and I still don't don't understand the very basics of neuro-regenerative surgery.  So perhaps we should all take a moment to stand up and applaud TSA boss John Pistole for deciphering the it's-probably-not-okay-to-touch-our-children code.

At a recent meeting of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Pistole relented:

"We have changed the policy to say that there'll be repeated efforts made to resolve that without a pat-down."

This was in response to outrage over a YouTube video in which a six year old girl gets groped by a TSA employee, including having the inside of the waist of her pants checked (video embedded below).  As he was specifically discussing airport gropings at this meeting, it's as yet unclear if this policy change will also apply to the TSA Flashmob Security Theatre Troupe that they have roaming around other transportation hubs throughout the country.  Besides which, it's hardly a firm admission that strangers sticking their fingers down our children's pants may not be the best of ideas.  In fact, at the same meeting, Pistole went on to say:

"Unfortunately, we know that terrorists around the world have used children as suicide bombers."

This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.  What we have is a few rather isolated incidents of bad things happening on the other side of the world and we somehow go from that to what can only be described as overreactionist policies on our side of the ocean.  Have terrorists ever used a baseball bat to commit their crimes?  Probably.  There goes the national past time.  I'm pretty sure they've used cell phones too.  How could we possibly allow these combination sexting/bomb-making devices to enter an airplane?  It's said that bin Laden had a stash of porn at his Pakistani safehouse.  Why haven't we arrested Jenna Jameson yet?

Senator Rand Paul appears to think the threat posed by American child-terrorist wunderwaffe is overblown as well:

"This isn't to say we don't believe in safety procedures," Paul said. "But I think I feel less safe when we're doing these invasive exams on a 6-year-old. It makes me think that you're clueless, that you think she's going to attack our country, and that you're not doing your research on the people who would attack our country."

Indeed.  Why are we spending time converting our airports into Mr. Rogers' land of Make Believe, where children are a threat and the good guys are the ones twisting our naughty bits?  And, perhaps as infuriating, why are we paying for it?

Filed Under: children, john pistole, rand paul, security theater, tsa

Harry Reid Routes Around Rand Paul; Says No Changes To Patriot Act Is 'An Excellent Compromise'

from the do-we-use-different-dictionaries dept

We've been following the Senate leadership (of both major parties) attempts to push through an extension of some controversial Patriot Act surveillance provisions. As noted, the Senate decided to quickly push the matter towards a vote, cutting off outside debate over the provisions. However, that did still leave room for debate on the floor and the introduction of amendments, and some Senators spoke up -- and spoke up vehemently. Rand Paul had a bunch of amendments and threatened to delay things. He pointed out that Senator Harry Reid lied, after promising to "set aside a week's worth of debate" on the Patriot Act. Meanwhile Senators Ron Wyden, Mark Udall and Jeff Merkley all spoke out against parts of the Patriot Act and these extensions.

And yet... Senator Reid decided to get around all of that, by using a procedural trick to dump the existing bill and instead attach his bill to what appears to be a totally unrelated House business bill:

Sen. Reid basically killed his current bill and and opted to take up a House small business bill (it's in a form that's considered filibuster-proof as far as starting debate goes). Neither Rand Paul nor anyone else can object to this. Reid then amended the House bill with the entire text of the Patriot Act extension.

Of course, where this gets insane is in Senator Reid's explanation for cutting off all of these complaints and amendments:

"We have worked over the last several days to work something out that I think is an excellent compromise," said Reid on the Senate floor. "Is this bill something everyone in the Congress likes? I think the answer is no. But we all agree it's important legislation.

"I have had many conversations with Senator Paul and tried to come up with a process to allow Senator Paul and others to offer amendments. I have been unsuccessful," Reid said.

I think Senator Reid and I have different dictionaries. How is making no changes and simply extending out the existing law for four years, despite such vocal opposition, "an excellent compromise"? What "compromise" did he make, other than to his principles and his oath to serve the people?

Furthermore, if he tried to allow these Senators to offer amendments, how is cutting them off from being able to offer amendments in line with what he claims he tried to do? Rather than cutting them off and using a procedural trick, why didn't he let them offer amendments?

Either way, it sounds like the extension will be somewhat delayed, meaning that the provisions may lapse for a day or two. Some supporters of the extension are suggesting that this is a horrible thing that will put us all in danger, but that's ridiculous. First of all, existing investigations are grandfathered in, and second of all, it's just a few days.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of all of this is that one of the reasons why they're saying this needs to be rushed through is that the bill itself needs to be flown to Europe so that the President (who is visiting Europe) can sign it. Do they no realize that these things can be done electronically these days?

Filed Under: harry reid, jeff merkley, mark udall, patriot act, rand paul, ron wyden