] For its part, Verizon has been stressing the privacy
] implications of allowing the use of DMCA subpoenas to
] become more widespread. It's backing Brownback's bill,
] which requires that a lawsuit be filed before an Internet
] user be unmasked. (The exact language: "An Internet
] access service may not be compelled to make available to
] a manufacturer of a digital media product or its
] representative the identity or personal information of a
] subscriber or user of its service"--unless, that is, a
] civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution is pending.)

] The landscape has not changed so much that if you had a
] vote taken today, even with all the horror stories of
] RIAA subpoenas sent to grandmothers and honor students,
] the vote would come out in favor of seriously altering or
] removing" that section of the law, Godwin said. "I think
] what you are getting is some impulse, somewhat more
] strongly from the Republican side of the aisle, toward
] some slightly higher level of judicial review and some
] safeguards and remedies for misuse of process."

The DMCA supeonas are a way of removing judicial oversight (and therefore the rule of law) from the information collection phase of intellectual property proceedings. Congress has shown a repeated interest in removing the rule of law from the equation when it benefits their friends in the media industry. Some Republicans are starting to point out that the DMCA supeonas can be used (and abused) by other people, some of whom Congress doesn't like. This is a good thing in general because this law needs to be tightened up. Fortunately its unconstituional for the goverment to give a specific interest group a special right, so they are going to have to lock this thing down across the board. The RIAA offers the same sort of non-technical, and therefore irrelevant response that you're seeing to questions about the security of voting machines. That means they are wrong, and are probably going to loose. This is progress.