I used to think Patrick Leahy was one of the voices of reason in the Senate on Internet issues but he has lost a tremendous amount of credibility in my mind through his support of SOPA. Any shred of credibility he might have had left pretty much went out the door when I read this press release.

“It is also through this process that I and the bill’s cosponsors have continued to hear concerns about the Domain Name provision from engineers, human rights groups, and others. I have also heard from a number of Vermonters on this important issue. I remain confident that the ISPs – including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs – would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest.

So, its the opinion of Patrick Leahy that a bunch of self interested media companies that also happen to be ISPs have a better understanding of DNS than people like Paul Vixie and Dan Kaminsky? I am a security professional, and I've read the SOPA DNSSec paper, and I agree with its conclusions, so to my ears Leahy really sounds like a fool here.

"I remain confident that the Catholic Church, which knows an aweful lot about the universe, would not support the view that earth is at the center of the solar system if that was not the truth, no matter what this Galileo guy has to say about it..."

I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it when websites operating overseas are stealing American property, threatening the safety and security of American consumers.

I am not a fan of the technical argument regarding SOPA. SOPA, as originally written, cannot be implemented on top of DNSSec. (Leahy and his friends at Comcast are wrong.) However, it could be rewritten in a way that would make it "work" (although Vixie et all still think thats a bad idea for a lot of pretty good technical reasons).

Would that change my opinion on the bill? Of course not. The main problem is not that it breaks DNSSec. The main problem is that it creates a central internet censorship infrastructure in the United States. You can't "fix" that.

However, the bill remains a strong and balanced approach to protecting intellectual property through a no-fault, no-liability system that leverages the most relevant players in the Internet ecosystem.

That is a crooked statement. The legislation as Leahy sponsored it was not remotely balanced. Anyone anywhere could allege that a site was dedicated to infringement and get that site's payment and advertising pulled in 5 days with no independent review. That is not balanced. It is extremist. The reason that these bans do not contain "fault or liability" is because they are intended to target sites that are out of jurisdiction, so upholding that as a feature, which Leahy here does, is a crooked thing to do. You couldn't create liability in these cases if you wanted to. That is why there is no liability. If there were liability, the Constitution would require that they create more due process then they did here. I think, frankly, that the Constitution requires more process for this, too.

Basically, I can't take Leahy seriously anymore. He is part of the problem.

Update: Sounds like the crooks bought him out:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) is Hollywood's current favorite son in Washington. His top two career campaign contributors are Time Warner and Disney, according to data compiled by Center for Responsive Politics; Time Warner has even given him cameo appearances in Batman movies, an experience Leahy talks of proudly.

Patrick Leahy - United States Senator for Vermont: Release