The Whitehouse has sort of come out against SOPA. Its possible that this position also played a roll in the backpedalling that is now occurring. It seems that someone over at the Whitehouse must have figured out that the DNS experts are not wrong about how DNS works. (Emphasis theirs)

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

I previously made the point that the technical argument regarding DNSSec is important but it shouldn't overshadow the more important discussion about whether the US should have any centralized Internet Blacklist. It is helpful that they understand that the specific DNS requirements in SOPA interfere with DNSSec. However, the problem is more significant then that. In fact, specifically targeting DNS was already dropped in favor of merely insisting that service providers find some way to block access to sites. Even a technically feasible approach would still be a problem.

Americans do not want an Internet Blacklist! Its not clear that the Whitehouse understands that.

We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.

Like, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Apparently the Administration wants to know what the Internet would do to fight piracy. You have only a few days to come up with an answer:

The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

You can expect SOPA proponents and copyright maximalists to participate in that discussion.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation.

I would argue that whatever an "open Internet" is, it does not involve a centralized blacklist.

Authors:

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget

Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff

Whitehouse: Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

Rep. Issa has announced that he will now postpone the "nerd" hearing that he was holding in the House Oversight Committee, which was originally scheduled for Wednesday. The key reason? Majority Leader Eric Cantor has promised him that he will not bring the bill to the floor unless there's real consensus on the bill.

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that in conjunction with that hearing, a number of popular websites such as Reddit and Wikipedia plan to shut down for the day. The mainstream news media has, thus far, avoided reporting on the SOPA issue, but they will have no choice on Wednesday. Reporters looking for footage about the bill might put that hearing on the news.

No one, not the supporters of SOPA nor their Congressional opponents like Issa, wants the Internet community to speak directly to the American people in this way. Therefore, things are being folded up for now.

"Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote,” said Chairman Issa. “The voice of the Internet community has been heard."

No, the voice of the Internet community has not been heard. Supporters of this legislation on both sides of the isle have repeatedly disrespectfully dismissed the views of its opponents. However, the power that the Internet community has to influence public opinion is being respected. That is not quite the same thing.

We recognize that Congress is not interested in listening to our voices. We know that the supporters of this legislation do not care about its negative consequences. This has long ago stopped being about having a reasonable discussion.

This is not a conversation, this is a fight.

"Right now, the focus of protecting the Internet needs to be on the Senate where Majority Leader Reid has announced his intention to try to move similar legislation in less than two weeks."

Democratic party leaders continue to be visible supporters of this thing. Word is starting to get around among the union membership that forms their electoral base that their leadership is off selling their fundamental freedoms down the river.

Congress dodging real debate over SOPA

Last month, ThinkProgress blogger Alyssa Rosenberg hosted MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd at the Center for American Progress, a forum that he used to forcefully dismiss the freedom of speech related objections that have been raised to SOPA. Blogging last week, Rosenberg was rather dismissive of the importance of opposition to SOPA. Emphasis mine:

One of the things that has interested me watching the SOPA debate evolve is the role of consumers, whether they’re like-minded tech enthusiasts or fans of certain products, in lobbying against the bill. They haven’t always been successful — some SOPA advocates have, for example, dismissed Reddit advocates as a loud but insignificant minority. But it’s not necessarily the reaction of the lobbied that matters in this one. It’s whether, having gotten a taste of activism, fans decide to become forces on other issues.

Really? It doesn't matter whether or not Congress hears the significant objections that Internet communities have raised regarding the impact of THIS legislation?! Their opinions on other issues matter, but not this one?

Perhaps their opinions are only important if they are willing to become forces for establishment interests?

SOPA, Fans, and Activism | ThinkProgress

“After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision. We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers,” Smith said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear whether Smith would also remove the requirement that, if an ISP decided not to redirect, it must employ other censoring methods such as deep-packet inspection to prevent American citizens from visiting sites the attorney general maintains are dedicated to infringing activities.

Whether or not this represents a victory depends greatly on the exact text of the next draft of the legislation.

Its been noted and discussed that the main stream television media, largely owned by media companies that support SOPA, have not been reporting on the controversy. If Wikipedia goes black on Wednesday, it will no longer be possible for the MSM to fail to report on this controversy. The American people will very quickly learn that Congress is planning to create an Internet Censorship system for them, just like the one they have in China. The consequences of that could be very significant.

By removing that provision now, these Congressmen may be able to discredit the controversy by claiming that people are getting spun up about something that they already removed from the legislation.

Its possible that no alternate draft bill will appear, and it will be back to business once the media cycle is over.

Rep. Smith Waters Down SOPA, DNS-Redirects Out | Threat Level | Wired.com

Under the DMCA, its illegal to file a fraudulent takedown notice, but Google provides the big studios like Universal with a special user interface for performing takedowns, and Universal has argued that takedowns which use this interface don't fall under the DMCA, and so there is no legal consequence for fraudulent misuse of the system. Universal has also argued that its OK for them to file a DMCA take down when they know that the victim is making a fair use of the material, and the court challenge to that shocking assertion has dragged along since 2008 without a final resolution because the system doesn't like it when individual citizens challenge the power of wealthy institutions. With these two legal interpretations behind it, Universal has proceeded to maliciously file takedown notices against legitimate news programs that are reporting on the "megaupload" controversy!!

This is no holds barred censorship of legitimate speech on the Internet in order to supress dissent.

Remember kids, the laws don't apply to the rich, only to the little people!

But UMG apparently continued its takedown campaign, targeting an episode of Tech News Today that included a clip from the video in its coverage of the controversy. The host, Tom Merritt, says he filed a counter-notice under the DMCA, but as of Wednesday evening the show had not been restored. Under the DMCA, it will take 10 days for the video to go back up. "In 10 days a daily news show is worthless," he told the Verge, "so Universal was able to censor this episode of Tech News Today."

Universial studios: "We are above the laws - laws only apply to little people!"

"I don't believe that they are. I thought we had reconciled the issues. The bill's been passed out of committee."

Us rich people got together, and we agreed that this is fine! Who gives a fuck what you little people think?

Senator Dianne Feinstein: So Out Of Touch, She Doesn't Realize Tech Companies Are Vehemently Against PROTECT IP | Techdirt

I've been trying to decide if the economic conditions in the past couple months, which have seemed mild, represented an end to the pain or if they simply represented an eye in the storm.

Its the later.

California and other states are likely to see an enormous wave of long-delayed foreclosure action in the coming year as banks deal more aggressively with 3.5 million seriously delinquent mortgages.

And experts said that dealing with the foreclosure process, from issuing notices of default to selling repossessed homes, is likely to push housing prices lower this year before the real estate market has a chance to recover.

Hold on to your hats - we're going back down.

Foreclosures expected to rise, pushing home prices lower - latimes.com

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

Hijexx asked me what I wrote to my Senators and Congressman regarding SOPA, but I had thrown the text of the post out. I thought I would link this writeup, which I posted in the comment section of the Tennessean last month in response to a Pro-SOPA oped from Marsha Blackburn. The text I sent my own representatives was much much shorter, only a paragraph, but it touched on many of the same themes.

Rep Blackburn - I went to high school in your district many years ago. Your support for this bill is not surprising given the large number of music industry people in Williamson county. I work in a different industry - I'm an information security professional. I work on protecting computer networks from the sort of Internet criminal groups you describe in this oped.

Your oped presents this as a black and white issue - if we don't support SOPA our Intellectual Property rights will have no meaning or value at all! In reality, we both know that there are a myriad of different policy options available for pursuing intellectual property rights internationally. The question is whether this specific approach is the right approach.

Many people in my industry have come out against this particular approach because it would hamper our present efforts to improve the reliability of the Internet naming system, steps we feel are necessary to prevent Internet crime. But there are other negative consequences that are probably even more important.

SOPA involves building, in the US, a system from preventing Americans from accessing banned foreign websites, similar to systems presently used in other countries, such as China, to prevent citizens from reading foreign news and information critical of their governments.

Although the American blacklist will obviously be more narrow than China's, many feel that the establishment of any Internet blacklist in the United States will be a dark day in our history. It means we've given up on trying to reach a mutual understanding with the rest of the world regarding issues such as intellectual property and have turned instead to closing ourselves off.

Furthermore, the technology that we develop here in the United States order to implement this blacklist will be adopted in other places in the world who have different types of content that they want to ban, driven by different political interests and different value systems. Ultimately, the scope of our own blacklist will expand. Once this system exists it will be a very temping tool for any future Administration that wishes to prevent Americans from accessing information in the midst of a political crisis. Even an unconstitutional ban might operate for months or years pending a court challenge.

SOPA will have tangible negative consequences for freedom of speech that cannot be addressed simply by prepending a silly little "hear no evil" savings clause to front of the bill. The only way to prevent abuse of the sort of censorship infrastructure that SOPA will create, is not to create it in the first place.

There are myriad options for pursuing Intellectual Property rights internationally. Please, pick a different one.

Lawless Internet is crushing U.S. creators | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

Red State managing editor and influential Tea Party activist Erick Erickson lamented how he supports Rep. Blackburn on many issues, yet still would pledge to support a primary challenge against her if that’s what it meant to stop SOPA. “Sometimes a fight is that important,” he said. 

Blacklist Bills Becoming Hot Button Issue in 2012 Election | Electronic Frontier Foundation