Don’t Break the Internet

Two bills now pending in Congress—the PROTECT IP Act of 2011 (Protect IP) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House—represent the latest legislative attempts to address a serious global problem: large-scale online copyright and trademark infringement.

Although the bills differ in certain respects, they share an underlying approach and an enforcement philosophy that pose grave constitutional problems and that could have potentially disastrous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet’s addressing system, for the principle of interconnectivity that has helped drive the Internet’s extraordinary growth, and for free expression.

To begin with, the bills represent an unprecedented, legally sanctioned assault on the Internet’s critical technical infrastructure. Based upon nothing more than an application by a federal prosecutor alleging that a foreign website is “dedicated to infringing activities,” Protect IP authorizes courts to order all U.S. Internet service providers, domain name registries, domain name registrars, and operators of domain name servers-a category that includes hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses, colleges, universities, nonprofit organizations, and the like-to take steps to prevent the offending site’s domain name from translating to the correct Internet protocol address. These orders can be issued even when the domains in question are located outside of the United States and registered in top-level domains (e.g., .fr, .de, or .jp) whose operators are themselves located outside the United States; indeed, some of the bills’ remedial provisions are directed solely at such domains.

Directing the remedial power of the courts towards the Internet’s core technical infrastructure in this sledgehammer fashion has impact far beyond intellectual property rights enforcement-it threatens the fundamental principle of interconnectivity that is at the very heart of the Internet. The Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) is a foundational block upon which the Internet has been built and upon which its continued functioning critically depends; it is among a handful of protocols upon which almost every other protocol, and countless Internet applications, rely to operate smoothly. Court-ordered removal or replacement of entries from the series of interlocking databases that reside in domain name servers and domain name registries around the globe undermines the principle of domain name universality-the principle that all domain name servers, wherever they may be located across the network, will return the same answer when queried with respect to the Internet address of any specific domain name. Much Internet communication, and many of the thousands of protocols and applications that together provide the platform for that communication, are premised on this principle.

Mandated court-ordered DNS filtering will also have potentially catastrophic consequences for DNS stability and security. It will subvert efforts currently underway-and strongly supported by the U.S. government-to build more robust security protections into the DNS protocols. In the words of a number of leading technology experts, several of whom have been intimately involved in the creation and continued evolution of the DNS for decades:

Mandated DNS filtering would be minimally effective and would present technical challenges that could frustrate important security initiatives. Additionally, it would promote development of techniques and software that circumvent use of the DNS. These actions would threaten the DNS’s ability to provide universal naming, a primary source of the Internet’s value as a single, unified, global communications network. . . . DNS filtering will be evaded through trivial and often automated changes through easily accessible and installed software plugins. Given this strong potential for evasion, the long-term benefits of using mandated DNS filtering to combat infringement seem modest at best.

Indeed, this approach could actually have an effect directly contrary to what its proponents intend: if large swaths of websites are cut out of the Internet addressing system, those sites-and the users who want to reach them-may well gravitate towards alternative, unregulated domain name addressing systems, making it even harder for governments to exercise their legitimate regulatory role in Internet activities.

The bills take aim not only at the Internet’s core technical infrastructure, but at its economic and commercial infrastructure as well. Credit card companies, banks, and other financial institutions could be ordered to “prevent, prohibit, or suspend” all dealings with the site associated with the domain name. Online advertisers could be ordered to cease providing advertising services to the site associated with the domain name. Search engine providers could be ordered to “remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name,” and to disable all hypertext links to the site.

These drastic consequences would be imposed against persons and organizations outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts by virtue of the fiction that these prosecutorial actions are proceedings in rem, in which the “defendant” is not the operator of the site but the domain name itself. Both bills suggest that these remedies can be meted out by courts after nothing more than ex parte proceedings-proceedings at which only one side (the prosecutor or even a private plaintiff) need present evidence and the operator of the allegedly infringing site need not be present nor even made aware that the action was pending against his or her “property.”

This not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action suppressing speech, if taken prior to anadversary proceeding and subsequent judicial determination that the speech in question is unlawful, is a presumptively unconstitutional “prior restraint.” In other words, it is the “most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,” permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution requires a court “to make a final determination” that the material in question is unlawful “after an adversary hearing before the material is completely removed from circulation.“

The procedures outlined in both bills fail this fundamental constitutional test. Websites can be “completely removed from circulation”-rendered unreachable by, and invisible to, Internet users in the United States and abroad-immediately upon application by the government, without anyreasonable opportunity for the owner or operator of the website in question to be heard or to present evidence on his or her own behalf. This falls far short of what the Constitution requires before speech can be eliminated from public circulation.

As serious as these infirmities are, SOPA, the House’s bill, builds upon them, enlarges them, and makes them worse. Under SOPA, IP rights holders can proceed vigilante-style against allegedly offending sites, without any court hearing or any judicial intervention or oversight whatsoever. For example, SOPA establishes a scheme under which an IP rights holder need only notify credit card companies of the facts supporting its “good faith belief” that an identified Internet site is “primarily designed or operated for the purpose of” infringement. The recipients of that notice will then have five days to cease doing business with the specified site by taking “technically feasible and reasonable” steps to prevent it “from completing payment transactions” with customers. And all of this occurs based upon a notice delivered by the rights holder, which no neutral third party has even looked at, let alone adjudicated on the merits. If they get the assistance of a court, IP owners can also prevent other companies from “making available advertisements” to the site, and the government can prevent search engines from pointing to that site.

These bills, and the enforcement philosophy that underlies them, represent a dramatic retreat from this country’s tradition of leadership in supporting the free exchange of information and ideas on the Internet. At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications, these bills would incorporate into U.S. law a principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law.

United States law has long allowed Internet intermediaries to focus on empowering communications by and among users, free from the need to monitor, supervise, or play any other gatekeeping or policing role with respect to those communications. Requiring Internet service providers, website operators, search engine providers, credit card companies, banks, Internet advertisers, and others to block access to websites because of their content would constitute a dramatic retreat from that important policy. Laws protecting Internet intermediaries from liability for content on the Internet are responsible for transforming the Internet into the revolutionary communications medium that it is today. They reflect a policy that has not only helped make the United States the world leader in a wide range of Internet-related industries, but that has also enabled the Internet’s uniquely decentralized structure to serve as a global platform for innovation, speech, collaboration, civic engagement, and economic growth. These bills would undermine that leadership and dramatically diminish the Internet’s capability as a communications medium. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted last year:

[T]he new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls. . . . Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. . . . With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world.

It would be not just ironic, but tragic, were the United States to join the ranks of these repressive and restrictive regimes, erecting our own “virtual walls” to prevent people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. Passage of these bills will compromise our ability to defend the principle of the single global Internet-the Internet that looks the same to, and allows free and unfettered communication between, users located in Boston, Bucharest, and Buenos Aires, free of locally imposed censorship regimes. As such, it may represent the biggest threat to the Internet in its history.

Copyright and trademark infringement on the Internet is a very real problem, and reasonable proposals to augment the ample array of enforcement powers already at the disposal of IP rights holders and law enforcement officials may serve the public interest. But the power to break the Internet shouldn’t be among them.

This article, by Mark Lemley, David S. Levine, & David G. Post, was originally published onStanford Law Review Online

Image by AmericanCensorship.org

Not only that, the bill could be used to stop any website that is not “Aligned” with the 1% line of thought. They would just need to say “This website has some Copyrighted material” and *POOF* no more website. Very, very scary, Youtube is a medium of free speech, for example, and if someone can make any video disappear (Just because the site is *POTENTIALLY* infringing a Copyright, we are in big, big trouble.

Yesterday California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced she was teaming up with Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to investigate and prosecute foreclosure fraud and misconduct in the mortgage industry.1

In announcing the move, Attorney General Harris said, “The mortgage crisis is a law enforcement matter, and we will prosecute to hold accountable those who are responsible and also protect the homeowners who are targeted for fraud.”

The alliance with Nevada’s attorney general is a very positive move by Attorney General Harris, whom we know has been pressured by the Obama administration to cut a terrible deal with Wall Street banks that lets them off the hook.

California and Nevada are the two states that have been hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. And Nevada Attorney General Masto has been one of the most aggressive state attorneys general in holding banks accountable for wrongdoing, including criminally indicting a number of people.

The alliance to share information, litigation strategies and evidence for both civil and criminal cases has the potential to set the stage for meaningful accountability for illegal mortgage practices that harmed millions of people in California, Nevada and across the country.

And this would not have happened without the hard work by members of CREDO and other progressive organizations who worked hard to become a forceful counterweight to the political pressure from Washington and from Wall Street to sweep this issue under the carpet.

After a recent Wall Street Journal article reported that Attorney General Harris, who had stopped participating in 50-state settlement negotiations, was being wooed back to the table, CREDO members made over 1,400 calls and sent over 8,000 faxes to her office. And we were joined by groups like MoveOn, Progressives United and Color of Change. On the ground groups, like ACCE, PICO and the New Bottom Line organized protests and rallies to demonstrate strong support for holding the banks accountable.

The fact that Attorney General Harris is deciding to join forces with the only attorney general yet to make indictments — rather than the White House which wants to get back to business as usual on Wall Street — is a very good sign for the future.

The real victory will come when California’s investigations are underway and indictments are issued by Attorney General Harris’ office — we hope that day comes soon.

Now, in America there are more or less  528 millions people. So it will be about $15000 each. Not much.

But this line of thought doesn’t work very well, because we are giving the money even to the newborn. So, let’s move the thought to the FAMILIES, that are about 115 millions. That will bring the amount to roughly $67000 per family. Better already. With $67000, a family can start a business, work and create jobs… Restarting the economy in the process.

If we restrict the “Gift” to only the families in trouble, or potentially in trouble because involved in the damn subprime, then you will understand that the problem would have been solved altogether. Moreover, everybody would have a home, no foreclosures, people would have been working and happy.

Yep… But doing things this way would have caused the collapse of several banks…

(*): From Milano Finanza:

In the latest Global Financial Stability Report, the International Monetary Fund updated to $410 Billions the total amount of loss of the world financial institutions in the 2007-10 period. The losses are relative to the total of financial institutions.

 « Nel recente Global Financial Stability Report, il Fondo Monetario Internazionale ha aggiornato a 4.100 miliardi di dollari l’entità delle svalutazioni del totale delle istituzioni finanziarie su scala mondiale per il periodo 2007-10. Le perdite si riferiscono al totale delle istituzioni finanziarie.»

Well, if the ALL THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS lost $410 Billions… Where did the $700 Billions that the Fed gave to the banks IN THE USA ONLY, go? In other words, WHO THE HELL STOLE $360 Billions???

WHERE DID THOSE $360BIL GO?

See who they are, know what they do, count what they have and

Vote on the 1%

Greetings citizens of the world. We are Anonymous. Since the occupation of Wall Street began we have been watching closely as countless people in cities around the world have taken to the streets in peaceful support of the movement. A show of support for a humanity free from the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Free from corruption in our political and financial institutions, and free from the injustices caused by corporate personhood and the oppression of others. This is not the Arab Spring, Egypt, Greece, Tunisia, nor The American Autumn.
This, is mass global awakening.
The lies and corruptions that have attached themselves to our system like a parasite have been exposed.
A way to rid our world of this parasite uncovered.
The cure lies in all of us.
This is only the first wave of our brothers and sisters to awaken to the lies and corruptions taking place around them. You, my brothers and sisters bear the weight of carrying this message to the masses. You must continue to hold your ground and stand up to help educate others to these injustices. The practice of active non participation in the things we deem evil, peaceful protests, and large scale community education efforts are things each one of us can continue and teach others to help aid in the fight. This will assure us victory against tyranny in our world.
We have already seen signs of this process beginning to take hold. With the successful transfer of 4.5 billion dollars on Bank Transfer Day, and 690,000 new accounts created at credit unions in the U.S. alone, we have taken the first strike against the banks.
This will not be the last.
Occupy protests continue to grow despite the puppet media, who is bought and controlled by politicians and corporations continuing to lie about numbers involved in the protests. They have said there is no clear message and otherwise down played and belittled the protests as a whole. Yet our message has still gotten out.
Political and corporate backed entities continue to try to adopt and corrupt the movement. Trying to turn it into a tool for their own purposes, yet they fail.
Worse yet, incidents of police brutality and the revocation of the rights of our citizens are growing more common place. Corrupt elements hidden within police forces around the world have begun to inflict terror and beat the otherwise peaceful protestors into submission. Mayors, and governing officials in cities around the world have begun to send in their dogs in an effort to stamp out the growth of revolution. They have taken notice of our actions and they are scared!
These crimes against our citizens do not go unnoticed, and must not be allowed to quell our efforts in seeking freedom. We must maintain peaceful despite these atrocities and not feed into their efforts to bring us down to their lowly level of existence.
The instigators of these actions are unaware that they are defeating themselves, for we are already at the third act of the famous quote; “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you. then you win.”
There has never been a more exciting time to be alive in all our lives.
It is important that we not be bored or let idle time pass, for the seeds of revolution against worldwide injustice have been sewn. Yet without enough nourishment they will not survive and grow to full fruition.
Citizens of the world, the power for change is in our hands. We must continue to expose the truth to the masses.
Know your own power; inform others of the immediate threat of corporations, banking institutions and the growing takeover of world governments. Maintain true to the foundations of the Occupy movement. Fight greed, corruption and corporate control of our democracy.
Continue to denounce the involvement of entities with political and financial affiliations in the movement. Express your free right to assemble via global, large scale peaceful protests.
Our efforts must not simply continue.
Our efforts must grow.

Corrupt governments, police, corporations, banking institutions and those who oppress others. You cannot kill, or buy an idea.
You are the parasite, not our citizens who gather in peaceful protest against injustice in our world.
You are outnumbered, and surrounded.
The revolution has begun, and the end of your reign is near.
We will not stand for your atrocities and injustices any longer.
We are Bradley Manning, we are Scott Olsen. We are your brother, mother, and best friend.
We are people.
We are free.
We are one.
We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
You should have expected us!

Occupy Wall Street will wel­come famed Ital­ian jour­nal­ist in hid­ing, Roberto Saviano, who will be dis­cussing the pro­found cor­re­la­tion between the wors­en­ing of the eco­nomic cri­sis and the sky­rock­et­ing busi­nesses of crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tions this com­ing Sat­ur­day after­noon. A dra­matic exam­ple of this cor­re­la­tion is Italy, where the mafia is tak­ing advan­tage of the country’s unprece­dented cri­sis. If new rules do not arise, Saviano explains, the mafias will deter­mine our future.

The CONSTITUTION is our PERMIT!