[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against censorship

I spent 2 hours with ICE reviewing their domain seizure practices and
have committed to engage the technical community to look for
alternative mechanisms to fight piracy in lieu of domain name seizure
or the mechanisms of the ill-conceived SOPA/PIPA. I may be calling on
some of you to engage.


On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 6:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
>>> fail to proactively engage governments.
>> John, the implication of your original note and this latest round is that opposition constitutes a failure to engage. ?The signed opposition note is a petition. ?You might recall a reference to petitioning in the Consitution.
>> The point that you seem to be missing is that the current bill is being pursued willfully and is ignoring expert guidance that contradicts the substance of the bill.
>> That's just bad technical policy.
> Dave -
> ?Our failure to engage _years ago_ proactively with governments
> ?regarding their needs has led to this outcome.
> ?Do you feel the petition is constructive engagement regarding
> ?governments perceived needs in this area? ?I am unable to find
> ?any suggestion therein of an alternative approach to solving the
> ?problem of "foreign infringing sites", nor even a suggestion of
> ?meeting to seek an understanding of their views on the problem.
> ?Absence of these elements leads me to believe that the petition,
> ?while quite clear in its message, doesn't represent constructive
> ?engagement as much as "drawing battle lines". ?It may or may not
> ?be an effective mechanism, but my point is one of Internet history
> ?in that we've never proactively sought out governments' requirements
> ?for the Internet during its development into a global communication
> ?medium, and therefore we should not be surprised at government attempts
> ?to now more directly control communications in order to accomplish
> ?their perceived responsibilities.
> /John