6 ms·

I'm listening currently (11:43a EST) and they're quoting cyber security experts about how it could undermine security. From consumer union groups about how it a

I'm listening currently (11:43a EST) and they're quoting cyber security experts about how it could undermine security. From consumer union groups about how it affects consumer safety, from venture capitalists about how it can stifle innovation. A lady right now is addressing how it's an issue that they don't have any technical expertise on the panel. It's not ALL madness..

feralchimp 15y ago
Talking about the Firefox plugin to workaround site blocking now...popcorn...
- ukgent 15y ago
  FoxyProxy!
  - sp332 15y ago
    No, that only works against blocking traffic. SOPA would remove the DNS entry from the .COM domain. It's an attack at the DNS level so using a proxy won't work. You'd need something like the MAFIAFire plugin to keep a "shadow" DNS going.
    - apotheon 15y ago
      That's the extension they must have been discussing, because it's the extension Mozilla was pressured to remove from its listings.
esmevane 15y ago
I'm so glad to hear that there's a mild representation from a few voices of reason. Trying to drum up any sort of attention from my Facebook/Twitter list is just frustrating and had left me very disheartened.
davidhansen 15y ago
That's not the madness of the legislative process. You'll witness the madness play out when the legislators, having given the plebes their "voice", ignore every single one of them and proceed with graduating the bill to a full vote. Which will likely pass.
- tomkinstinch 15y ago
  If it does pass, there is still a chance (however small and expensive) that it will be ruled against in the courts. The judiciary seems like the branch least impacted by the influence of big-media.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    That requires someone to bring a relevant legal case to an appropriately positioned judicial body, which requires a great deal of money, and two sides willing to take it that far.
    - regularfry 15y ago
      Doesn't that just mean YouTube v. Viacom redux?
      - mMark 15y ago
        Hopefully it won't have to come full circle back to YouTube. The Puerto80/RojaDirecta case seems like it has lawyers who know what they're doing(cough unlike a certain other Harvard-based lawyer cough) - I'm hoping they get a good precedent before SOPA even takes effect
      - Natsu 15y ago
        Viacom v. YouTube. The one who complains is listed first. But yes, it does mean wasting a lot of money on lawyers to fight a very bad law which Google could instead be using to build computer-driven cars, improve machine translation, and to create more high-paying jobs. Instead, we're getting the broken window version where they're forced to create more highly-paid lawyers, instead.

feralchimp 15y ago

Talking about the Firefox plugin to workaround site blocking now...popcorn...

ukgent 15y ago
FoxyProxy!
- sp332 15y ago
  No, that only works against blocking traffic. SOPA would remove the DNS entry from the .COM domain. It's an attack at the DNS level so using a proxy won't work. You'd need something like the MAFIAFire plugin to keep a "shadow" DNS going.
  - apotheon 15y ago
    That's the extension they must have been discussing, because it's the extension Mozilla was pressured to remove from its listings.

esmevane 15y ago

I'm so glad to hear that there's a mild representation from a few voices of reason. Trying to drum up any sort of attention from my Facebook/Twitter list is just frustrating and had left me very disheartened.

davidhansen 15y ago

That's not the madness of the legislative process. You'll witness the madness play out when the legislators, having given the plebes their "voice", ignore every single one of them and proceed with graduating the bill to a full vote. Which will likely pass.

tomkinstinch 15y ago
If it does pass, there is still a chance (however small and expensive) that it will be ruled against in the courts. The judiciary seems like the branch least impacted by the influence of big-media.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  That requires someone to bring a relevant legal case to an appropriately positioned judicial body, which requires a great deal of money, and two sides willing to take it that far.
  - regularfry 15y ago
    Doesn't that just mean YouTube v. Viacom redux?
    - mMark 15y ago
      Hopefully it won't have to come full circle back to YouTube. The Puerto80/RojaDirecta case seems like it has lawyers who know what they're doing(cough unlike a certain other Harvard-based lawyer cough) - I'm hoping they get a good precedent before SOPA even takes effect
    - Natsu 15y ago
      Viacom v. YouTube. The one who complains is listed first. But yes, it does mean wasting a lot of money on lawyers to fight a very bad law which Google could instead be using to build computer-driven cars, improve machine translation, and to create more high-paying jobs. Instead, we're getting the broken window version where they're forced to create more highly-paid lawyers, instead.