It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
We take a look at why HR 1981 could be more of a privacy concern to US internet users that SOAP and put huge pressure on ISP’s to act as snoops on every internet user in the US, for the “protection of the children”. Is this really necessary or is this another Draconian Senator Lamar Smith bill he wants to pass to snoop more and more on US citizens?
From second additional newslink....
Many people came together to protest SOPA and PIPA last week, in fact, it was the largest online protest in history and helped lead to SOPA and PIPA being tabled (for the time being). Of course, with these bills being tabled should not come peace. The most obvious course is for legislators to add the most offensive parts of SOPA and PIPA to another bill and quickly pass it.
Meet HR 1981 - "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"
We all want to protect children from internet pronographers, right? Despite the underlying argument of the age of consent, we can all agree that there is an age in which children cannot legally comprehend enough to agree to sexual acts. So wouldn't we all want to protect these children from internet pornographers?
No one wants to be that guy, you know, the one who votes against the children. So what's hidden in the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"?
As we noted in our post about people just discovering ACTA this week, some had put together an odd White House petition, asking the White House to "end ACTA." The oddity was over the fact that the President just signed ACTA a few months ago. What struck us as a more interesting question was the serious constitutional questions of whether or not Obama is even allowed to sign ACTA.
In case you haven't been following this or don't spend your life dealing in Constitutional minutiae, the debate is over the nature of the agreement. A treaty between the US and other nations requires Senate approval. However, there's a "simpler" form of an international agreement, known as an "executive agreement," which allows the President to sign the agreement without getting approval. In theory, this also limits the ability of the agreement to bind Congress. In practice... however, international agreements are international agreements. Some legal scholars have suggested that the only real difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is the fact that... the president calls any treaty an "executive agreement" if he's unsure if the Senate would approve it. Another words, the difference is basically in how the President presents it.
The document relates to copyright infringement, but has also been linked to online child safety and there are fears that it could become a one-stop-censorship-shop for anything this "expert body" deems inappropriate.
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Status: This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the House as a whole. Explanation: Although it has been placed on a calendar of business, the order in which legislation is considered and voted on is determined by the majority party leadership. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Dec 17, 2011 6:15AM]
•OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to address unfair trade practices relating to infringement of copyrights and trademarks by certain Internet sites, and for other purposes.
OPEN has received support from technology giants such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others, but the Motion Picture Association of America complains in a statement (PDF) that the bill goes easy on Internet piracy.