Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Cosmic Surfer - WE ARE the 99%
3670 Followers
Agnostic Monkey
-8 Followers
wjappeFeb 21, 2012
Fire him!! Before he screws us all!
Ammar_IftikharFeb 22, 2012
Ye it's do or dye
auditortuxFeb 22, 2012
I would love to, but luckily he's just a representative and, alone, doesn't have much push. And incumbents rarely lose.
nitoriFeb 22, 2012
He's corrupt scum I say feed him to honey badgers.
muffberryFeb 22, 2012
those honey badgers don't give a s**t about SOPA
laurahoustonFeb 21, 2012
He's not dreaming up this crap alone..whos the secret people writing this stuff for him?
mtownFeb 21, 2012
MPAA and the RIAA.
rockcosmosFeb 21, 2012
ALEC, Chamber of Commerce
alienmushroomFeb 22, 2012
Chris Dodd
slang4catFeb 22, 2012
Still writing s**t bills.
ghengiskhan1Feb 21, 2012
The internet is the last "free frontier" and that really bothers the government. It bothers them that they arent taxing the crap out of it yet. It bothers them that people are doing "things" without the watchful eye of big brother seeing it. It bothers them that people do not need to depend on the government and its media outlets to get information and gather knowledge.
It is all about control. They want to control you, what you think, what you buy, what you learn. They think they can make you a perfect citizen with the right kind of regulation. They think you are flawed and, without their guiding hand, you will fail.
Free people are a threat to government tyranny (and visa versa).
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
And this is one of those crystal clear instances of conservative hypocrisy as well. They're always railing against government control and regulation, and yet everywhere you look, they're demanding more government control and regulation!
breadfredFeb 22, 2012
Too right - and now information is (almost) free. We, the people are starting to see the links between big business, trade unions and government. And it is ugly.
nitoriFeb 22, 2012
People like Lamar Smith and his backers are even worse then Islamic terrorists as at least they genuinely believe they are doing their God's work these scum bags do not even have that excuse.
Their cause is nothing more then a quest for greed and power.
CrescentSkies_2Feb 21, 2012
Forgive my french sophisticated members of digg.
Go f**k a landmine you stupid legislative bureaucratic assh**e.
bluenose2Feb 21, 2012
Harper wants the same thing in Canada. Great Britain has announced the type of law for England. Fascist police state.
larse1wrFeb 21, 2012
This is insane! These people are dead to rights in the court of public opinion
okloanerFeb 21, 2012
A f**ked up broken government can only do harm......
CrescentSkies_2Feb 21, 2012
Frankly most governments can only do harm, we just have to revolt and reset every once in a while. That's the system for ya.
Ammar_IftikharFeb 22, 2012
But I tell you what he's just barking Dog & that can't bite
kikkiaaFeb 22, 2012
smb. impeach his greedy ass!
raidy11moonFeb 22, 2012
I wonder who's paying this prick to come up with all these Fiiing bills!
Donuts4UFeb 22, 2012
The bill will make it illegal to be anonymous on the Internet. Good bye VPN, Tor and freenet. If you try to use them, you break the law and the tools to break in to even darknets are in the ISP logs.
Magnets won't save you either.
ajh16Feb 22, 2012
Does it, I only saw that it requires ISPs to store the IP you are using. Do you have a link to more information on the legislation?
Donuts4UFeb 22, 2012
Making anonymity illegal was another Bill. Almost every week a new one worse than sopa comes out.
Actual Bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981
Analysis
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/sopa_author_strikes_back_with_internet_surveillance_bill_no_one_is_safe
ISPs will store your IP and where your IP connects to on the Internet, along with creditcard data and other personally identifiable information.
This Bill will probably stop wide scale child porn swapping because you won't be able to be anonymous, but it won't stop creeps from getting on chat programs with your kids and taping it.
This bill makes anonymity effectively impossible and makes everyone an unregistered sex offender. No subpoena is required to access your transactions, meaning the data can be mined.
Anonymity is impossible because you no longer need a supercomputer to connect everywhere to track nodes, or do traffic analysis, you have it all in the logs. (And harvesting, bootstraps, correlations, adaptive searches ect becomes almost trivial when you know every transaction at a point in time.)
China just blocks and shuts down anonymous traffic, the USA will store the traffic... which is scarier to you?
ajh16Feb 22, 2012
It doesn't make anonymity impossible though. Networks like TOR would be unaffected, also encryption would keep the contents of connections private. It would allow it to be known that a communication occurred to an end point, but not much beyond that. There is nothing preventing companies from storing this information already, many already do, this would simply make it illegal not to and eliminate safe havens within US jurisdiction. It also would only apply to government agencies (as far as who could access the data).
I did substantially more digging in to the bill after posting here and couldn't find any substantial problems with it other than wanting them to be more clear on the fact a warrant should be required to access the information.
"This bill makes anonymity effectively impossible and makes everyone an unregistered sex offender. No subpoena is required to access your transactions, meaning the data can be mined."
Do you have the portion of the bill where this verbiage can be found? All I saw is that the information would only be available to be demanded by government agencies, it made no claim that judicial over-site would not be necessary as well, simply that it would not be legal for the courts to demand the information in this store be given to non-governmental agencies (ie, the RIAA couldn't sue the provider to get the information for a civil case).
"Anonymity is impossible because you no longer need a supercomputer to connect everywhere to track nodes, or do traffic analysis, you have it all in the logs. (And harvesting, bootstraps, correlations, adaptive searches ect becomes almost trivial when you know every transaction at a point in time.) "
Not really, there are ways to maintain anonymity. This only governs ISPs and not something like TOR nodes or servers. It would be fully possible to send out multiple different connections at the same time or time offset transmissions to render it impossible to tell what came in and went where. Also, foreign nodes would still not be under these laws even if they made a logging requirement on them (which they are not currently).
"China just blocks and shuts down anonymous traffic, the USA will store the traffic... which is scarier to you?"
This legislation is not talking about storing the traffic, only the IP address and who was using it at a particular time. It is detailed in section 4 of the legislation quite clearly. There is no storage requirement other than the IP address, the time it was used and the details of the individual who was using it.
Donuts4UFeb 22, 2012
tl;dr
If the Bill was a useless as you seem to think, which it isn't, then how the heck was it supposed to help the poor children?
Knowing all US traffic will allow all anonymizing nodes in the USA to be identified. Tor would be most impacted, not least as it's only an anonymzer. Freenet would be less impacted, but traffic analysis may give a subpoena(ble) idea of where data originated. VPNs would work only so much as they stayed out of the USA's jurisdiction and influence, and as we know if they take money from the USA... they can find a paramilitary task force in their home.
The packets don't have to be stored. Knowing where it came from is almost as good.
The Bill specifies that no subpoena is needed for the data needed for traffic analysis.
ajh16Feb 22, 2012
Where did I say the bill is useless? It would still be possible to circumvent what this bill says, but it means people would have to be less careless to manage to get caught. Something as simple as dynamic IP addresses make it virtually impossible to run down the exact customer for a particular internet connection when information surfaces that would otherwise be actionable.
As a hypothetical example, lets say the FBI raided the servers of a site that was hosting child pornography. If the server has any records of IP addresses that it was providing content to, then the FBI would be able to go back and find out who was at those IPs during the times of the access. Currently, not all ISPs keep those records. This would require those records to be kept.
Again, this law does not require logging of all TRAFFIC, it requires logging of all IP addresses. There is a HUGE difference. Since you are unwilling to look it up yourself, I have elected to copy and paste it hear for your reading pleasure. "A commercial provider of an electronic communication service shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section."
In other words, this a)Only applies to ISPs providing dynamic IP addresses to a customer and b) only covers storing the allocation of the IP and the billing and account information associated with the IP at that time. Stop being paranoid.
In regards to how it could be used, you are incorrect that it would not require a subpoena.
`(C) issue administrative subpoenas in accordance with section 3486 of title 18, solely for the purpose of investigating unregistered sex offenders (as defined in such section 3486).'.
Specifically this section being amended governs the US Marshal's right to issue administrative subpoenas
Donuts4UFeb 22, 2012
I concede and retain my right to paranoia.
ajh16Feb 22, 2012
@Donuts4U - yeah, not saying we shouldn't constantly be vigilant. This kind of legislation certainly has the ability to go south if extended too far, but in this particular case it seems like it is reasonable.
nitoriFeb 22, 2012
The bill will do next to nothing to stop child porn in fact it could make tracking it harder as there are ways around such measures and they're easy as f**k it only will harm innocent law abiding citizens.
Donuts4UFeb 23, 2012
Having read it all now instead of reading about it. It does pretty much nothing. The only people it would help catch are those whom think rebooting their router is high security.
Why did he feel the need to claim this was to catch pedos? It will only catch a few people who did an oops OMG on some website and tried hiding their mistake. Rename it the oops law.
basilmckeonFeb 22, 2012
Anyone else think he has a bit of a pedosmile?
taketheleapFeb 22, 2012
FYI: this bill was introduced in May 2011: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1981:
mbourgonFeb 22, 2012
All: he is up for election this year. Since he's a republican he Will Win The Seat.
HOWEVER, if he loses the Repub primary, he's out. Considerably fewer people vote in the primary. It may be too late; I don't know the deadlines. But seriously, he can be ousted, and probably pretty cheaply.
m1r4cl3Feb 22, 2012
As a native Texan, I can tell you that it's not likely, unfortunately. As for dates, "The 21st congressional district of Texas will hold an election for the U.S. House of Representatives on November 6, 2012. The primary elections will be held on April 3, 2012. Should a runoff occur, the Primary Runoff Election will take place on June 5, 2012."
alecsputnikFeb 22, 2012
This would be a perfect opportunity for OWS to come up with a candidate.
m1r4cl3Mar 8, 2012
Richard Mack would be their candidate. He is the only opposition. I am a registered voter. My vote will be for him. The only people that show up to vote are the elderly, I'm afraid, besides me. Old people don't care about the internet. They barely know what it is, much less how to use it. One against one hundred doesn't count for much. I'll still make my voice heard, though.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
Jesus, doesn't TEXAS have another republican that can beat him? Or are they just adopting the attitude of "oh, he's the incumbent, for a republican to challenge him would just be RUDE."
Seriously, I hate all republicans. But I'd wholeheartedly support almost anyone who'd run against this guy.
m1r4cl3Mar 8, 2012
We are a republican state. It's not our entire state... but, yeah, it really is. No, we don't have another republican that can beat him. Politics are not governed by the laws of rudeness here, just as they aren't in other places. Neither political party is concerned with the middle or lower class. Capitalism is based on... wait for it... capital. We don't need to be einstein to realize that John Smith is running against Johnny Smith. Black guy? Wow. Now we can say that our two-party system is so progressive. Money makes politicians. Politicians make law. Money is law in the United States of America. Our economy will fail, no matter how many tax exceptions we give to corporations. But, yeah, hey, go Republican or Democrat! You guys can give us plans to bomb Iran or "change."
nitoriFeb 22, 2012
Come election people of Texas do not vote for this broken toilet of a human being.
Seriously Lamar Smith can go f**k himself and die.
m1r4cl3Mar 8, 2012
I won't. Yeah, he can.
Freeman_GordonFeb 23, 2012
The guy is a conservative psychopath. "HEY! I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HE INTERNET. SO HOW ABOUT I RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE!"
anacondatmzFeb 23, 2012
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
-Adolf Hitler, 1943.
m1r4cl3Mar 8, 2012
How insightful and relevant to US politics. "No Child Left Behind," for instance. Thank you for the quote; hat's off to your unequivocal perception.
dustinthewind2Feb 22, 2012
Texas, you know what to do Dec 15th. He's been getting over 60% of the vote in recent reelections. Do not let this happen again. If there's no one strong running against him, find someone and give them a push in the right direction.
Only you, Texas, can get rid of this abomination called Lamar Smith.
m1r4cl3Mar 8, 2012
I'll tell gramma and gramps to get back to you. If anyone on here really wants to make a difference, donate a couple mil to good ol' Mack. Money buys positions in government, in case you haven't noticed. Haven't you guys heard of lobbyists? Money exists, even out here in Texas. You thought that it was all dirt trails and s**t. Let me list the most populated cities in the US. 1. NYC 2. LA 3. Chicago 4. Houston, TX
Closed AccountFeb 22, 2012
I only hope Anonymous f**ks with him hard
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
I don't know what they're waiting for. He's surely been in their sights for a while now.
notmanFeb 22, 2012
Good to know there aren't more important things he could be working on :/
anton178Feb 22, 2012
Russian pirates are with you... :)
spc4Feb 23, 2012
This bill isn't framed to protect children from paedophiles, its to protect children from even seeing porn, or being a target from adult web sites.
linuxpersonFeb 21, 2012
What's ironic to me about this whole issue is how much rage is coming out of the left. You want government regulation? This is government regulation at its finest.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 21, 2012
Indeed it is.
isaac7719Feb 21, 2012
What's depressing to me about the issue of regulations, is how some people can only look at it in black and white terms, as if one side hates all regulations and the other embraces all regulations.
Reality check for the ideologically impaired: The colloquial "Left" supports regulation that promotes worker and environment safety, safe handling of waste materials from production, and various other rules that harbor the safety and well-being of the populace and planet as a higher priority than the accumulation of maximum profit. In the long term, this is the only intelligent, rational, and sustainable course of action to take.
Regulations that mindlessly s**t on freedoms and liberties like this solely in the name of protecting corporate interests are not supported by the "Left", and you're simply wrong if you think they are, period.
linuxpersonFeb 21, 2012
"Reality check for the ideologically impaired: The colloquial "Left" supports regulation that promotes worker and environment safety, safe handling of waste materials from production, and various other rules that harbor the safety and well-being of the populace and planet as a higher priority than the accumulation of maximum profit. In the long term, this is the only intelligent, rational, and sustainable course of action to take."
Reality check for the reality impaired: granting government the authority to coercively regulate the market is a slippery slope that has unintended consequences regardless of how noble your intentions.
With that simple historically accurate fact in mind, if you grant government the authority to regulate things that "promote worker and environment safety" you intrinsically grant it the authority to regulate things that you otherwise wouldn't have intended, like for example the internet.
Furthermore your original assertion is inaccurate. I could name a litany of regulations that the left support which don't do any of the things you listed. Lets take for example the regulatory ban on cannabis, how exactly does that protect people when the facts show that the drug war is far more harmful than the actual effects of the drugs that the left (and the right) are so graciously protecting us from?
"Regulations that mindlessly s**t on freedoms and liberties like this solely in the name of protecting corporate interests are not supported by the "Left", and you're simply wrong if you think they are, period."
You are simply uneducated and uninformed or naive beyond belief. Both the left and the right support regulations which mindlessly s**t on freedom and liberties solely in the name of protecting corporate interests. If you disagree with me, then you have zero experience in the real world trying to run a business, period.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ratinakagerFeb 22, 2012
Anyone who ends their argument with "If you disagree with me, then you have zero experience in the real world...." has just lost the argument.
Its pretty clear to me that the "right" and "left" both have plenty of legislation they would like to push through. For the right to throw their arms up every time the left try to argue for a law and say "big government" whilst still trying to keep gays out the military, interfere with women's rights to abortion and pretty much every other right is ridiculous. Argue for or against a piece of legislation based on its merit not based on the fact that the left or right may or may not want it.
linuxpersonFeb 22, 2012
For the record, do you have experience in the real world trying to run a business?
ratinakagerFeb 23, 2012
For the record I do... ;) - I run a successful web design agency that employs 5 people and I also consult companies on their IT needs. Really no idea why you would be asking that... Do you think only people who have run a business have the right to an opinion?
m1r4cl3Mar 8, 2012
As an IT college student, I feel as though I have a right to an opinion as well.
"With that simple historically accurate fact in mind, if you grant government the authority to regulate things that "promote worker and environment safety" you intrinsically grant it the authority to regulate things that you otherwise wouldn't have intended, like for example the internet."
Ronald Reagan is dead, along with his thoughts of what the right should embrace. Do you forget that we are commenting on Republican SOPA author, Lamar Smith? Do you not see how foolish you look?
isaac7719Feb 22, 2012
"Lets take for example the regulatory ban on cannabis, how exactly does that protect people when the facts show that the drug war is far more harmful than the actual effects of the drugs that the left (and the right) are so graciously protecting us from?"
Who are the people who strongly advocate for drug law reform, decriminalization of marijuana, and an end to the drug war? It's largely liberals and "leftists". The people who want to propogate the endless war on drugs are conservatives and Republicans. This point you just made supports my argument and hurts yours, which makes it really kind of weird that you would say this in the first place.
"You are simply uneducated and uninformed or naive beyond belief."
This is a pretty big statement to make after reading one sentence, and from a guy who can't even create a consistent argument, it doesn't hold much weight anyways. Also, ratinakager is right. If you end your post with, "If you disagree with me, then you [are wrong]", you pretty much lose all credibility (seriously dude, this is something children say when they have temper tantrums).
Closed AccountFeb 22, 2012
Everyone is against BAD regulation.
linuxpersonFeb 22, 2012
BULLs**t.
"Bad regulation" is purely subjective.
Closed AccountFeb 22, 2012
Exactly. Therefore one can like some regulations and not like others. Thanks for proving my point! :)
linuxpersonFeb 22, 2012
The problem is the term, "bad regulation" is subjective. Thus, not everyone is going to be against bad regulations using your definition of the term.
I get the rhetorical point you're trying to make but it's vague.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 22, 2012
Awww, shucks. :)
m1r4cl3Mar 8, 2012
I can't figure out why this has so many negative diggs. Although he is incorrect on so many other issues, he is accurate in this post. "Bad regulation" IS subjective. I feel that it's important to carefully consider both sides of each topic before blindly making a judgement. Consider, for instance, that the word "bad" is entirely subjective.
anomaly100Feb 22, 2012
Hammer --> nail. You hit it.
Ammar_IftikharFeb 22, 2012
& Kill it
connormatthews2222Feb 23, 2012
Let Just become china. censor Google Youtube and what ever else The democrats think against their agenda to destroy america and its people for their own political gain
ajh16Feb 22, 2012
Can someone offer an actual description of what this law would require? The article was very shy on details and only mentions keeping track of which users had which IP address at what time for 18 months. That hardly seems unreasonable to me. The idea that, through proper judicially reviewed channels, it should be possible to remove the anonymity of an individual on the internet does not seem to be counter to the rule of law or the freedom of the internet. If the law is going to grant access to that information to anyone without a court order, then I would be opposed to it, but simply requiring that the information is recorded seems to be a non-issue to me. Am I missing something?