6 ms·

Not defending Forbes, but the bill was amended to only apply to sites outside US jurisdiction. "Lamar’s amendments also clarify that sites ending in .com, .org

Not defending Forbes, but the bill was amended to only apply to sites outside US jurisdiction. "Lamar’s amendments also clarify that sites ending in .com, .org and .net are not covered by the bill. Only foreign sites fall under SOPA’s wrath." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/sopa-watered-down-amendment/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/sopa-watered-down-a...

scrod 15y ago
That actually comes far closer the censorship measures currently being considered across the middle-east, not to mention China's Great Firewall.
nextparadigms 15y ago
So co.uk sites are a go. Please explain what gives US the right to do that? Especially without due process.
- skymt 15y ago
  Why wouldn't they have the right? The DNS servers in question are physically in US territory. And due process is part of the bill: in the current version a domain takedown requires a court order. Weak protection to be sure, given the army of lawyers the MPAA has lined up and the tendency of some judges to rubber-stamp legitimate-seeming orders, but not strictly speaking a due-process issue.
  - gergles 15y ago
    A domain takedown, sure, but not a payment-processing and ad-serving ban, which may as well be a takedown for 99+% of sites.
  - marshray 15y ago
    Why wouldn't they have the right? The DNS servers in question are physically in US territory. Well in the US we have this thing called "constitutional rights" which say, among other things, that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Laws blocking results returned from a DNS server is just about the closest thing imaginable to "abridging a press" in the 21 century.
  - sp332 15y ago
    IANA is only under (US-based) ICANN control because of the grudging agreement of the rest of the world. There have been arguments to remove control over the DNS root from US jurisdiction, but each time the US Government and ICANN have promised not to do something like SOPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_zone_file#Root_server_supervision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_zone_file#Root_server_sup... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assig... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth...
skymt 15y ago
It's not a coincidence that the amendment only exempts domains that the US can already censor via ICE. Hardly a concession at all, really. http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1011/101129washington.htm http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1011/101129washington.htm

scrod 15y ago

That actually comes far closer the censorship measures currently being considered across the middle-east, not to mention China's Great Firewall.

nextparadigms 15y ago

So co.uk sites are a go. Please explain what gives US the right to do that? Especially without due process.

skymt 15y ago
Why wouldn't they have the right? The DNS servers in question are physically in US territory. And due process is part of the bill: in the current version a domain takedown requires a court order. Weak protection to be sure, given the army of lawyers the MPAA has lined up and the tendency of some judges to rubber-stamp legitimate-seeming orders, but not strictly speaking a due-process issue.
- gergles 15y ago
  A domain takedown, sure, but not a payment-processing and ad-serving ban, which may as well be a takedown for 99+% of sites.
- marshray 15y ago
  Why wouldn't they have the right? The DNS servers in question are physically in US territory. Well in the US we have this thing called "constitutional rights" which say, among other things, that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Laws blocking results returned from a DNS server is just about the closest thing imaginable to "abridging a press" in the 21 century.
- sp332 15y ago
  IANA is only under (US-based) ICANN control because of the grudging agreement of the rest of the world. There have been arguments to remove control over the DNS root from US jurisdiction, but each time the US Government and ICANN have promised not to do something like SOPA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_zone_file#Root_server_supervision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_zone_file#Root_server_sup... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assig... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Oversight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth...

skymt 15y ago

It's not a coincidence that the amendment only exempts domains that the US can already censor via ICE. Hardly a concession at all, really. http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1011/101129washington.htm http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1011/101129washington.htm