[Chapter-delegates] English Wikipedia going dark tomorrow!

[Sivasubramanian M]

Internet Society India Chennai on SOPA strike http://isocindiachennai.org/


On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Christian de Larrinaga
<cdel at firsthand.net>wrote:

> Excellent post! and the US perspective you give is very relevant elsewhere
> too.
>
> The criminalisation of civic or private disputes is a huge fat elephant in
> this room So far executive actions to suspend domains have stuck to
> complaints by some copyright lobbysts. How far away is the US Patent troll
> lobby in receiving a similar consideration by ICE?
>
> I hope this is a rhetorical question!
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2012, at 19:05, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 16, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Narelle Clark wrote:
> >
> >> Do you think HADOPI is equally outrageous, eg
> >> - long jail terms
> >> - extradition
> >> - require these entities to take all “technically feasible and
> reasonable measures” to prevent access
> >
> > Well, my first concerns with COICA/SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/etc aren't the
> penalties. If we were talking about murder, for example, long jail terms,
> extradition, and cooperation among law enforcement and with citizens would
> make a lot of sense. My question regarding the penalties is whether they
> are appropriate. But my first question is whether the law is appropriate,
> in that it reduces the security of the routing system and the applications
> that use it, and that it violates my understanding of the basic tenets of
> American (and British, and by extension Australian) law.
> >
> > From a US perspective, my problem with several of the proposals is the
> lack of due process. Alice thinks Bob is violating her property (however
> that is defined), and BY VIRTUE OF THE ALLEGATION seizes control of Bob's
> property (however that is defined). There are cases in which we in fact do
> that, but they are in criminal law - if a police officer thinks that a
> crime is in progress, they can break into a house, arrest its occupants,
> and hold them pending trial. In civil law, the counterpart would be that
> the plaintiff makes a complaint to a judge and the judge makes the
> defendant post a bond which will be returned should the eventual suit fail
> - which we don't do. COICA/SOPA/PIPA/etc, as I understand them, leave the
> judge out of that - the assets (a domain name) are seized before the judge
> is ever brought into the picture and before a case is presented. To my
> mind, that is a violation of the spirit of our fifth and sixth
> constitutional amendments:
> >
> >> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
> cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
> actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
> subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
> nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
> himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
> of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
> compensation.
> >
> >> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
> wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
> previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
> of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
> compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
> Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
> >
> > I say "spirit", because these deal with criminal cases and I'm applying
> them to civil disputes. But I'm talking about the right to due process, and
> the right to have a trial. If there is a proceeding in court, the defendant
> has the opportunity face his/her accuser, and the judgement is that the
> plaintiff should get control of some of the assets of the defendant, that
> is within legal bounds; having that happen as a result of the accusation
> without a proceeding is a problem.
> >
> > Yes, we have already had that happen - per something I read somewhere, a
> reasonably large number of web sites have already been taken down as a
> result of the accusation, and on legal consideration it has been found that
> in many cases the sites had not been engaged in the activity they were
> accused of.
> >
> > My concern with HADOPI is in part that it is the prototype for these
> laws. It does involve a judge, but where one might expect the judge to
> issue a warrant for investigation or arrest, the judge authorizes an attack
> on an institution in terms of taking down its DNS name and/or preventing
> routing to it. I raised the question because I am signatory to the EFF open
> letter to congress on SOPA, but I don't think the US is the sole source of
> these laws, nor is it even the first. So while you're saying things about
> COICA/SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/etc, don't delude yourself into thinking it's only the
> US.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chapter-delegates mailing list
> > Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120118/95c8e738/attachment.htm>