Skip to main content

View Diary: Internet censorship bills appear to be fast-tracked for action (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  no, I'm endorsing safeguards against criminal (0+ / 0-)

    activity being organized and directed from abroad.

    A "known mail fraudster" would be, for example, a spammer running illicit wire scams from Russia. Given that the individual can't actually be tried for obvious scams, there is nothing wrong with law enforcement requiring that any mail being sent from such an individual be refused or intercepted.

    In fact, it is well established that if there is an obvious crime in progress, particularly one being directed from a foreign source, law enforcement does not need to first try and convict the offender to stop it. Domestic assets of foreign criminal operations are confiscated all the time, often at the expense of companies who were unwittingly facilitating the activity.

    As for the USPS and its various duties, you are wrong. The USPS is already tasked with refusing certain types of mail and, under anti-spam laws, private individuals are already permitted to submit prohibitionary orders that require USPS to filter out explicit and pornographic material being sent to their address. The USPS is far from a passive entity in controlling what goes into the mail.

    And, of course, since it evidently needs repeating: crime is not protected under the first amendment. Willful copyright infringement is not protected as free expression.

    •  and yes, private carriers are liable too (0+ / 0-)

      if they knowingly allow their services to facilitate a crime and make no reasonable effort to stop it. FedEx cannot knowingly facilitate uranium smuggling and then try to defend itself in court by saying that enforcement is not its responsibility. Likewise, there's no reason search engines and ISPs should facilitate IP theft when there are reasonable steps they can take to curtail it.

      Again, I think the bill needs to be reworked to give legitimate companies breathing room and protection from frivolous litigation, but there's no justifiable reason to oppose requiring ISPs to actively block sites that exist to carry out criminal activity.

      •  I understand that you'd like to see a bill (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burlydee, UncleCharlie

        that will do the same things while giving you more cover to defend it from.

        You've made that clear.

        There's no justifiable reason to task a common carrier with protecting the copyrights of corporations.  We've never seen the need to do this in the history of our nation.

        You're demanding that FedEx be held responsible for delivering not uranium (Damn, dude.  You just created a new subsection to Godwin.  Hyperbolic much?) but rather, bootleg mix tapes.

        What's more, you're saying that Columbia Records ought to be allowed to ground all of FedEx's trucks and planes if they find one such bootleg mix-tape.

        She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

        by JesseCW on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 08:23:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, you're demanding that mere advocacy for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the idea that we're entitled to even try to have secure communications over the internet is somehow a criminally conspiratorial act.

      There is no burden of proof here.  We've already seen how that worked with DMCA notices.  

      You are advocating the destruction of a global information commons for no better reason than that you think it's wrong for NewsCorp to lose 5% of global revenue yearly to "pirates".

      She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

      by JesseCW on Fri Nov 25, 2011 at 08:26:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site