Lamar, the author of SOPA comes back with an even worse bill

page: 2
123
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
This bill is disgusting.
CNN is currently running a commercial urging people to call their representatives to "oppose online piracy".




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I think the point is: if you can kill the online audience, far less child porn will be produced. Hence the "protecting the children" part of this bill; that is, protecting those involved in its production.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Looks like they had several versions sitting in the wings. Stop one automatically bring out another bill. I wonder how many they have written up. Maybe we should just black out the entire internet this time instead of just certain sites. Shut it all down.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by khalan4
This bill is disgusting.
CNN is currently running a commercial urging people to call their representatives to "oppose online piracy".

You can't be serious?
Those SOBs at CNN are gonna get arrested too when the revolution comes.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I don't know if this will help or not, but I just emailed Wikipedia about this bill.
At Wikipedia's site it says at the top "Thank you for protecting Wikipedia."
"(We're not done yet.)"



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jason97
I don't know if this will help or not, but I just emailed Wikipedia about this bill.
At Wikipedia's site it says at the top "Thank you for protecting Wikipedia."
"(We're not done yet.)"

Thanks. This bill needs to be spread as much as SOPA/PIPA... it MUST be blocked.

Spread this to facebook, all forums you know, everything.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
To think it couldn't get any worse...

Figured they would play this field.
Now anyone protesting the issue will be accused.


Screw that..
Stay adamant.
edit on 21-1-2012 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I don't think Wikipedia is stupid either. They have the power of words at their command just as did the OP who did a great job giving us the low down on this.

Everybody write your congressmen/women. Especially if they are a co-sponsor. Share this information with everyone on your email list. Put a link to this on your facebook.

Go for it. I'm not just going to roll over and take it!
How about you?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
double post
edit on 1/21/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Wait, wait, chill. As it's already said before, it's going to take LOADS more IT capability than we currently can finance. It would take hectares of server farms to store every single byte going into, out of, and within the United States for an 18 month period. It isn't going to take long for some telecom bigwig to pick up a telephone and tell Lunkhead Smith that this bill is technologically unfeasible. It's like making a law declaring the sky to be magenta. You can say it all you want to but it isn't going to happen.

It is also correct that it would slow network down to a crawl. Bandwidth speed exceeds write speed on most infrastructure-grade data servers. Therefore, they would have to throttle down your download speed to whatever the maximum write speed on their drives. In the financial world the loss of those few seconds could cost billions. Again, unfeasible, Rep. Lunkhead Smith.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by netwarrior
 





Wait, wait, chill. As it's already said before, it's going to take LOADS more IT capability than we currently can finance. It would take hectares of server farms to store every single byte going into, out of, and within the United States for an 18 month period.

My guess is that they would just keep the logging entries. What website you visited and what files you downloaded. Hardly take much.

And even if they want everything, they'll force the ISP to do it, on their own dime, bankrupting a lot of them as for the rest, they will force that $$ on the consumers.



It is also correct that it would slow network down to a crawl. Bandwidth speed exceeds write speed on most infrastructure-grade data servers. Therefore, they would have to throttle down your download speed to whatever the maximum write speed on their drives. In the financial world the loss of those few seconds could cost billions. Again, unfeasible, Rep. Lunkhead Smith.

Like they care about that. You think the REAL WORLD and COMMON SENSE stops them from passing laws? I don't think so.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by netwarrior
 





Wait, wait, chill. As it's already said before, it's going to take LOADS more IT capability than we currently can finance. It would take hectares of server farms to store every single byte going into, out of, and within the United States for an 18 month period.

My guess is that they would just keep the logging entries. What website you visited and what files you downloaded. (Webmasters would just change filenames weekly. You could write a linux program to do that automatically without much effort at all. Without a log of *what* was downloaded the teeth has been ripped out of the case unless it's physically found on the user's machine.) Hardly take much.

And even if they want everything, they'll force the ISP to do it, on their own dime, bankrupting a lot of them as for the rest, they will force that $$ on the consumers.



It is also correct that it would slow network down to a crawl. Bandwidth speed exceeds write speed on most infrastructure-grade data servers. Therefore, they would have to throttle down your download speed to whatever the maximum write speed on their drives. In the financial world the loss of those few seconds could cost billions. Again, unfeasible, Rep. Lunkhead Smith.

Like they care about that. You think the REAL WORLD and COMMON SENSE stops them from passing laws? I don't think so.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


They care about common sense when those losses start creeping up into the multi-hundred billion territory. Things tend to go away silently when money like that just evaporates.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by netwarrior
 


You know they would let Wall Street and all that ``class`` be exempted from this law. So no it wouldn't impact the big industry.

You know it would force a bigger centralization of internet through fewer ISPs.

You know they will pass this and the shills will come here and say ``if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried? Are you for pedophiles??`` That kind of crap. And most sheeple will buy it.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Exempting every single means of financial communication from the recorded traffic would be deleterious for saving any of the traffic. It would be like putting giant glowing targets for every single hacker in the world to shoot at. Unsecured routing access would be cracked within a matter of hours. Access information spreading within days as it goes viral. Financial giants still have everyday joes working in the IT department, and we can be touchy. Just like in the loss prevention world, lots of netsec breaches have some form of insider info somewhere along the line.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
When all else fails......use children.

"what, do you WANT children to get molested you sick F****"!?!?!?!

Vote for this bill or YOUR children WILL get molested and be used in child pornography.!!!!!

FEAR
FEAR
FEAR
FEAR!!!!

I'ts how they get things done!


FEAR!!!



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by jason97
I don't know if this will help or not, but I just emailed Wikipedia about this bill.
At Wikipedia's site it says at the top "Thank you for protecting Wikipedia."
"(We're not done yet.)"

Thanks. This bill needs to be spread as much as SOPA/PIPA... it MUST be blocked.

Spread this to facebook, all forums you know, everything.


Ok one thing is a protest against sopa, that blackout even from big companies such as google... but... not even google would dare to protest something that has "the purpose of going against child porn". That bill will be accepted by everyone because if they protest it they'll be automatically "pro" child porn. And it doesnt matter how good you, me or even google bothers to explain what this bill actually means, because those big red headlines saying "against child porn" will speak for themselves.

So basically right now, if this "plan" goes "live", everyone, specially the ones who really know its true purpose are between a very big rock and a very very hard place.

If put in motion, this WILL be passed.

Now to the person / ppl who came up with this idea:

I welcome you, SOPA 2.0... I have to congratulate the minds behind this and tell you that you have a very good sense of "momentum" and a pretty good recovery and back up plans. By this I dont mean I agree you, but even enemies deserve some praise after a well thought out plan. My personal opinion is "live and let die", and I hope it dies very soon. Long live freedom of speech - because you can stop the internet, you can listen to my phone calls and read every single text message I send... but take a look at history, revolutions and resistances - mouth to mouth is always there, and that you cant stop, never could, never will. Have fun with your little internet pet now - that is freedom of speech and it is forever ours.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
This is quite interesting.

Obviously this move is very transparent, anyone who cares to look will very easily see the true intentions behind this. It is even more transparent than the motives behind SOPA and PIPA, a worrying number of people even here on ATS believed that it was about piracy, but this "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act" is so blatant that nobody is going to miss the obvious.

So what's interesting, or what will be interesting, will be whether this one gets through or not. It'll be very revealing, it'll say a lot about today’s people of the western world.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Fight this with all your vigour , let them know this "lets do it for the children" fake-out won't work. What should be done for the children is that we should leave them a free and neutral internet , for all generations to come. Fight , don't lay down , we outnumber them , so fight! Let it be known how desperate they are to censor the internet , they have come with the "save the children card".

Broadcast it everywhere , pull it's mask off and tell people , this isn't about online piracy or protecting children (if they wanted to they'd stop selling them to arab sheikhs , mexican drug lords or worst , offworld entities at Dulce). This is about controlling the internet , our last bastion of free speech. No they can't have any of mine!



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
What will be the line in the sand for us? When will enough be enough?

I'm ready whenever you guys are



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
This bill would be in violation of the fourth amendment.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bill Of Rights


I always liked the fourth amendment.





top topics
 
123
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join