Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111226/23082117192/would-obama-veto-sopa-extremely-doubtful.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
8 comments
Plagarist?
Biden was knocked out of contention for the Democratic Nomination in 1988 because he copied a speech delivered by British Politician a year earlier (and even went so far as to fudge his own familly history a bit to make the copied lines work)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign...
That hardly seems like plagiarism, more paraphrasing and even then it isn't like he took the entire speech - just a basic idea and two sentences (which he apparently cited everywhere except once).
Via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Early_life_and_educat...
"He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University's College of Law in 1968,[19] where by his own description he found it to be "the biggest bore in the world" and pulled many all-nighters to get by.[15][20] During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.[20] He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.[19]"
"He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University's College of Law in 1968,[19] where by his own description he found it to be "the biggest bore in the world" and pulled many all-nighters to get by.[15][20] During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.[20] He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.[19]"
Biden plagiarized a speech in an earlier campaign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign....
leading into what may be a difficult election year, and dependent on money from Hollywood and unions (the big Democratic funders), this is an easy call.
There is no way that Obama hasn't taken the temperature on SOPA by now. Obama's most vocal liberal base will transform into an internet hate machine to rival the likes of the tea party if SOPA is signed. There is also the Ron Paul crew capturing more and more Democratic voters by the day, a signature on SOPA would be an incredible windfall for them in terms of people who would refuse to vote for Obama out of pure anger.
I don't underestimate the influence of these interests in Washington, but SOPA is really unpopular right now and getting more so by the day.
There is no way that Obama hasn't taken the temperature on SOPA by now. Obama's most vocal liberal base will transform into an internet hate machine to rival the likes of the tea party if SOPA is signed. There is also the Ron Paul crew capturing more and more Democratic voters by the day, a signature on SOPA would be an incredible windfall for them in terms of people who would refuse to vote for Obama out of pure anger.
I don't underestimate the influence of these interests in Washington, but SOPA is really unpopular right now and getting more so by the day.
> I don't underestimate the influence of these interests in Washington, but SOPA is really unpopular right now and getting more so by the day.
I think it's really unpopular on HN and on websites with "tech" in the name, but is the general electorate even aware of the issue? I don't see much about SOPA in the MSM (admittedly the last several months have had a lot of news-worthy events).
I think it's really unpopular on HN and on websites with "tech" in the name, but is the general electorate even aware of the issue? I don't see much about SOPA in the MSM (admittedly the last several months have had a lot of news-worthy events).
but is the general electorate even aware of the issue?
I would argue that the tech media is pretty hip these days and not as far removed from the general electorate as you might think, but only time will tell.
I would argue that the tech media is pretty hip these days and not as far removed from the general electorate as you might think, but only time will tell.
Purely anecdotal, but I have had a number of totally non-technical friends and acquaintances come up to me lately to express concerns about SOPA/PIPA and what it might mean for the internet, the critical importance of which even non-technical people clearly understand.
The news still seems largely contained to the tech circles, though the GoDaddy story managed to get a lot of press.
> Obama's most vocal liberal base will transform into an internet hate machine to rival the likes of the tea party if SOPA is signed.
Unless they're willing to vote for his opponent, and they're not, that doesn't matter.
Politicians are only interested in things that affect votes. Signing SOPA will not lose Obama a single state. However, signing it will give him money to win states.
The Repubs are the ones who are playing this one dumb. They should oppose SOPA and all "protect Hollywood/MPAA" measures because those measures give money to folks who contribute to Dems.
Unless they're willing to vote for his opponent, and they're not, that doesn't matter.
Politicians are only interested in things that affect votes. Signing SOPA will not lose Obama a single state. However, signing it will give him money to win states.
The Repubs are the ones who are playing this one dumb. They should oppose SOPA and all "protect Hollywood/MPAA" measures because those measures give money to folks who contribute to Dems.
I think the argument against SOPA has yet to break out of the tech echo chamber.
To be honest I think SOPA is inevitable, most people won't be able to grasp the level of injustice involved until it is enforced.
To be honest I think SOPA is inevitable, most people won't be able to grasp the level of injustice involved until it is enforced.
Give him a "Freedom Of Speech Defender" award. I'm sure it will be as effective as the premature peace prize.
I still believe wholeheartedly that he is a good man, with good intentions. But he lacked the conviction and courage to be a "leader". Instead he focused on reelections from the start. You're the president of the United stated of America ffs! You can get away with a lot more than you think, look at your predecessors.
I still believe wholeheartedly that he is a good man, with good intentions. But he lacked the conviction and courage to be a "leader". Instead he focused on reelections from the start. You're the president of the United stated of America ffs! You can get away with a lot more than you think, look at your predecessors.
There are some interesting points here, but the article misses one very, very important constituency (from the President's point of view, at least): the intelligence community. If the law remains as is and outlaws Tor, Obama will have the head of every intelligence agency in his office telling him to veto the bill or put the nation at risk.
If the law is amended to allow Tor (as was attempted) and then passes, then how long before Tor becomes a household name?
If the law is amended to allow Tor (as was attempted) and then passes, then how long before Tor becomes a household name?
Tor just isn't that important.
It was a comparatively minor project from a minor agency where it is no longer developed.
Not only that, but Tor is too closely associated with the seedier sides of the internet for any elected politician to stand up for it specifically.
Thinking that the President will override a bill because of a minor thing like Tor is grasping at straws.
It was a comparatively minor project from a minor agency where it is no longer developed.
Not only that, but Tor is too closely associated with the seedier sides of the internet for any elected politician to stand up for it specifically.
Thinking that the President will override a bill because of a minor thing like Tor is grasping at straws.
Well, he wouldn't ever publicly say he's vetoing it to protect Tor -- that would be political suicide, due to all of the CP thereon -- but he might still veto it for that reason, and claim another, cf. Iraq War.
I'm getting a bit frustrated here.
Obama's not going to veto SOPA based on a (borderline) argument that it makes a tool which might be used by intelligence agencies, in some possible circumstances possibly illegal.
The argument that it needs lots of non-agency uses to hide traffic is plainly nonsense. If an intelligence agent (or subversive citizen) is using it in a country where it is banned they are going to be in trouble no matter if it is illegal in the US or not.
If it was a concern for US intelligence agencies (which I don't concede it is at all) then that can easily handle it themselves - they get an executive order allowing them to run exit nodes and then what they are doing is legal. Even by the borderline argument that Tor could be illegal under SOPA would only make it a problem for people running exit nodes - use by the general population. I doubt any intelligence agency would complain about being ordered to run a Tor exit node - I think they would love it.
I find it bizarre that people are even talking about this, when in the same source article where this was first raised it said the following:
"Browsers implementing DNSSEC will have to circumvent and bypass criminal blocking, and in the process, they will also circumvent and bypass SOPA orders." A successful injunction from the attorney general, Baker said, would shut down all shipments of a Web browser "until it's been revised to the satisfaction of his staff and their advisers in Hollywood."[1]
The US federal government provided funding to develop and deploy DNSSEC[2], too, and that is also useful for dissidents overseas. It also helps secure communications for billions (if not trillions) of dollars in ecommerce transaction. If that is ignored, do you really think Tor is going to get the bill vetoed?
[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-cir...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Ext...
Obama's not going to veto SOPA based on a (borderline) argument that it makes a tool which might be used by intelligence agencies, in some possible circumstances possibly illegal.
The argument that it needs lots of non-agency uses to hide traffic is plainly nonsense. If an intelligence agent (or subversive citizen) is using it in a country where it is banned they are going to be in trouble no matter if it is illegal in the US or not.
If it was a concern for US intelligence agencies (which I don't concede it is at all) then that can easily handle it themselves - they get an executive order allowing them to run exit nodes and then what they are doing is legal. Even by the borderline argument that Tor could be illegal under SOPA would only make it a problem for people running exit nodes - use by the general population. I doubt any intelligence agency would complain about being ordered to run a Tor exit node - I think they would love it.
I find it bizarre that people are even talking about this, when in the same source article where this was first raised it said the following:
"Browsers implementing DNSSEC will have to circumvent and bypass criminal blocking, and in the process, they will also circumvent and bypass SOPA orders." A successful injunction from the attorney general, Baker said, would shut down all shipments of a Web browser "until it's been revised to the satisfaction of his staff and their advisers in Hollywood."[1]
The US federal government provided funding to develop and deploy DNSSEC[2], too, and that is also useful for dissidents overseas. It also helps secure communications for billions (if not trillions) of dollars in ecommerce transaction. If that is ignored, do you really think Tor is going to get the bill vetoed?
[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-cir...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Ext...
Is Tor really that important?
The project was originally started by the Office of Naval Research. Really, it's the perfect vehicle for electronic espionage: hide your tracks as an intelligence agent on an anonymity network primarily occupied by ordinary citizens.
More details here: https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military
More details here: https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military
I think not only Tor, but many other encryption/anonymizing tools will face risk of being outlawed. I can imagine many situations in which the work of intelligence agencies will become more difficult.
Along with that a conundrum will be created, since such tools are used by Chinese citizens to bypass their governmental firewalls, by people in the middle east to bypass similar types of blockages among others, etc.
Along with that a conundrum will be created, since such tools are used by Chinese citizens to bypass their governmental firewalls, by people in the middle east to bypass similar types of blockages among others, etc.
I wish you were right but I really don't think Tor would stop the bill. I personally expect that SOPA will eventually pass and then portions of it will get struck down as unconstitutional.
> and then portions of it will get struck down as unconstitutional.
This is still a problem. How long has it been since the PATRIOT Act was signed into law (Oct 26, 2001) and how many of it's 325 amendments and 9 additions have been repealed due to judicial decisions noting that they are against the rights granted to US citizens under the constitution or bill of rights?
This is still a problem. How long has it been since the PATRIOT Act was signed into law (Oct 26, 2001) and how many of it's 325 amendments and 9 additions have been repealed due to judicial decisions noting that they are against the rights granted to US citizens under the constitution or bill of rights?
I'll never forget what John Carpenter taught me in They Live. "The golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules."
The frustrating part is that the internet and tech companies opposed to SOPA have plenty of gold. They're just not using it.
I agree. They are frustratingly quiet. Any ideas why?
Increased regulatory compliance costs plays to the advantage of existing big players. The government won't really let Google or Facebook be destroyed. DuckDuckGo or Diaspora? No tears shed. Losing some profit today to know that you just raised the bar of entry for your industry impossibly high for everybody else? A hard offer to resist.
What? Google is one of the few companies that's actually come out swinging against SOPA. I would wager they've done more to defeat it than any other company or individual with a presence on HN.
And I count that to their credit, as I do for the other companies who have fought this. I count it to their credit because it is no credit to resist a temptation not offered to you; my opposition to SOPA is easy, because I do not stand to gain from it. They are actually resisting something. But the answer to the question asked is, even if it appears to harm certain other companies, it's still to their benefit if it harms others even more, and that's why we're not hearing from them very much.
because SOPA doesn't hurt them. It hurts SMALL businesses.
Alt. He who has the peso has the say so.
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the issues that are so very important to them are probably just not that important to the president (if he even knows about them at all.) He has a whole world full of things to worry about and only 365 days a year. When something so important to you such as SOPA arrives on his desk, he probably is forced to paint with very broad strokes. Should I be strong on IP, weak on IP? Does my party support it? The specific long term effects that so many of us fear probably don't even cross his mind.
As I've said before, just look at what Joe Biden's been up to.
This post is on the mark. "The Internet's" problem is that it doesn't have anything to hold over Obama's head. Yet.
This post is on the mark. "The Internet's" problem is that it doesn't have anything to hold over Obama's head. Yet.
Basis for an effective counterargument:
A gut feeling tells me that if somebody did an analysis of Obama's last campaign then they would find that he would have violated the current form of SOPA multiple times. A potential new argument against SOPA would be that it limits the campaigning power of political candidates, especially those running for higher offices.
Not a particularly strong argument, but I don't think a strong case will win this fight. Many different people from many walks of life need to be angry about SOPA before Obama could walk away from the bill easily with "The people don't want this." Nerds on the internet probably won't convince him alone.
Not a particularly strong argument, but I don't think a strong case will win this fight. Many different people from many walks of life need to be angry about SOPA before Obama could walk away from the bill easily with "The people don't want this." Nerds on the internet probably won't convince him alone.
A gut feeling tells me that if somebody did an analysis of Obama's last campaign then they would find that he would have violated the current form of SOPA multiple times.
On what basis? The was the controversy over the ownership of the Obama Hope image, but apart from that I' not aware of anything that would have violated SOPA.
Enlighten me, please.
On what basis? The was the controversy over the ownership of the Obama Hope image, but apart from that I' not aware of anything that would have violated SOPA.
Enlighten me, please.
A better phrasing would be:
"A potential new argument against SOPA would be that it limits the campaigning power of challengers of sitting political candidates, especially those running for higher offices."
This gives incumbents yet another way to defend their seat. If an incumbent has any authority over any agency that decides, submits, enforces, or challenges these requests, would it be misused?
We like to think not.. but I think we've seen otherwise.
"A potential new argument against SOPA would be that it limits the campaigning power of challengers of sitting political candidates, especially those running for higher offices."
This gives incumbents yet another way to defend their seat. If an incumbent has any authority over any agency that decides, submits, enforces, or challenges these requests, would it be misused?
We like to think not.. but I think we've seen otherwise.
Obama's not running his last campaign. That's done and over with. It's as simple as that.
Yep second that.
Last election he ran on transparency, change and hope.
And as three years went by there was no transparency in billions of dollars (TARP) given to big corporations. Change? yeah sure, for worse. And he does not talk about hope any more, since millions of Americans does no have job and economy is not even getting better.
In this campaign he is all about class warfare, soak the rich taxes. Do we even count him as leader who divides people of the country every day in his speeches?
Make me fool once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Last election he ran on transparency, change and hope.
And as three years went by there was no transparency in billions of dollars (TARP) given to big corporations. Change? yeah sure, for worse. And he does not talk about hope any more, since millions of Americans does no have job and economy is not even getting better.
In this campaign he is all about class warfare, soak the rich taxes. Do we even count him as leader who divides people of the country every day in his speeches?
Make me fool once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Come on now, don't misuse facts. TARP was executed in 2008 and most of it was paid off by the end of 2009. Obama became president in jan 2009.
All of this is true, but the implication when we say something like "most of it was paid off" is that the money has actually been returned. In reality, most of it was paid off using new loans that are not under EESA. I could say "I paid off all the credit card debt I accumulated in the last 5 years" after I get two new credit cards and transfer my balances to them, but it would be a bit underhanded to say that.
:)
:)
You mean to say Bush bailed out GM, Citibank, AIG and other long list of companies??? Please at least know a little about the subject before you jump in to comment.
People don't care, he gets blamed for stuff that happened before he was in office all the time. I've seen Republican members of congress publicly blame him for TARP too. The downturn we're in right now is the "Obama economy" even though it started before he was elected.
blame everything on the previous guy, claim all success, rise, repeat
Its amazing how people fall for this tactic over and over again
Its amazing how people fall for this tactic over and over again
>Make me fool once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
That's not how you say it. Not in Tennessee, not in Texas.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me can't get fooled again.
That's not how you say it. Not in Tennessee, not in Texas.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me can't get fooled again.
Who will vote for him then? I am honestly curious. My impression was that young voters (users of the internet) were the key to Obama's success last time. Are the other republican candidates so weak that Obama can just scoop up a bunch of their voters?
Two scenarios seem likely:
1) The Republican party will nominate Mitt Romney, and the election will be a closely contested competition between two men who are disliked by the most active parts of their respective parties.
2) The Republicans will nominate one of the crazy brigade, who will have a small set of very loud proponents but will scare moderate Republicans enough not to vote, and scare Democrats and independents enough that they will turn up to vote for Obama.
(There are other, less likely options. Huntsman is centralist enough to gets votes from unsatisfied independents, and I think Perry could win if he managed to get the nomination. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/how-can-... is a good summary of the current state of the Republican race)
1) The Republican party will nominate Mitt Romney, and the election will be a closely contested competition between two men who are disliked by the most active parts of their respective parties.
2) The Republicans will nominate one of the crazy brigade, who will have a small set of very loud proponents but will scare moderate Republicans enough not to vote, and scare Democrats and independents enough that they will turn up to vote for Obama.
(There are other, less likely options. Huntsman is centralist enough to gets votes from unsatisfied independents, and I think Perry could win if he managed to get the nomination. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/how-can-... is a good summary of the current state of the Republican race)
3) Republican party wakes up and realizes they have an amazing opportunity to beat Obama if they nominate Ron Paul - who opposes SOPA http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3250330 but the Republican establishment would rather have 4 more years of corporatism under Obama than that.
I understand Paul has some support on HN, and I even understand why, but there is no way that he can win the election.
This isn't because of some conspiricy, but simply because what he believes isn't supported by enough people. Worse, many (most?) actively oppose at least some of his policies.
Not only will Democrats oppose him, but most Republicans don't believe he represents them (see recent comments from various Republicans about how they wouldn't vote for him)
(Personally, I think SOPA passing would be a minor price to pay compared to Paul becoming President (and I am totally opposed to SOPA - I just think its importance is much less than some of the things Paul would do))
This isn't because of some conspiricy, but simply because what he believes isn't supported by enough people. Worse, many (most?) actively oppose at least some of his policies.
Not only will Democrats oppose him, but most Republicans don't believe he represents them (see recent comments from various Republicans about how they wouldn't vote for him)
(Personally, I think SOPA passing would be a minor price to pay compared to Paul becoming President (and I am totally opposed to SOPA - I just think its importance is much less than some of the things Paul would do))
Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning.
Among many other things, his support for Israel is poor to non existent, and someone who doesn't support Israel has no chance of winning. Support for Israel is around 63% in the general public, and in the high 80's among Republicans.
His positions on a host of other things appear completely crazy to most people, and they'll never vote for him.
Among many other things, his support for Israel is poor to non existent, and someone who doesn't support Israel has no chance of winning. Support for Israel is around 63% in the general public, and in the high 80's among Republicans.
His positions on a host of other things appear completely crazy to most people, and they'll never vote for him.
Considering the qualities of the republican candidates trying to meet him in the general elections, he could be the lesser of two evils. But frankly, I am so disillusioned with both parties, I don't even know how to feel anymore.
Start asking around, and find out how many people (outside your circle of informed technical friends) even know that SOPA/PIPA are happening (just their existence/names, not to mention what they are about). (Hint: Not many, in my experience.)
It's just like privacy related issues. People seem to be totally apathetic about it.
I agree.
Classic. Leave IP issues to the plagiarist.