SOPA isn't dead, just renamed: PCIPA

Recommended Videos

DiMono

New member
Mar 18, 2010
837
0
0
In a great blow for Internet freedom, SOPA and PIPA both died last week after thousands of websites went dark in protest of them. However, the danger of these bills hasn't been destroyed; it's just been moved.

Now, I'm not talking about ACTA; that's an international group of laws that's already passed in over a dozen countries after being secretly negotiated in back rooms without public input, and is just awaiting ratification in the EU before going into effect. America passed it back in November, I believe. I'm talking about the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.

Sounds good, right? I mean, the name is very straightforward: child pornography is bad, and this bill stops it. But that's not what it actually does. The original bill was introduced in May 2011, and it requires ISPs to keep IP address records for 18 months. The idea is that when someone downloads child porn, they can trace the IP address to exactly who had leased it at the time and catch them. We'll ignore, for now, that it also requires them to store your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, and your credit card numbers [http://ipowerproject.com/forum/topics/pcipa-and-acta-the-next-pipa-and-sopa-the-bills-we-really-need-to]. We'll also ignore the fact that as per that article I just linked to, it won't actually do what it claims to do, and instead just amounts to a gross violation of privacy.

This is a bill that got crushed 6 months ago, but now it seems to be back, and the rumor mill says the worst parts of SOPA are going to be rolled into it. It was also written by Lamar Smith, just like SOPA was. And the bill's name basically says "If you don't vote for this then you're in favor of child porn." Wonderful.

What are your thoughts, on this, Escapists? And please, if you have any information I don't have, include it in your replies; I'd rather be proven a fool than have people be misled on my account.

EDIT: Make sure you read post #7 before replying. Relevant information is relevant. It seems the direct impact of PCIPA has been overblown some, though it is still the most likely place for pieces of SOPA to be reintroduced, now that it's back on the table. So there's nothing to worry about for now, but we should still keep a close eye on this bill.
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
I raised this point in a thread yesterday. It's a horrible bill that I hope doesn't pass, and to use something as horrible as child pornography as a front to invade innocent people's privacy is reprehensible to say the least.
 

craftomega

New member
May 4, 2011
546
0
0
Why... WHY!!!!

Why are people so stupid.

I live in canada and i wanna protest this shit because guess what. If they record my information in this way they would be breaking the law here. yay for the privacy act.
 

Aidinthel

Occasional Gentleman
Apr 3, 2010
1,743
0
0
I strongly advise anyone who is concerned to read the bill before freaking out. It isn't very long and only section 4 is relevant to the internet anyway.

SEC. 4. RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) In General- Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
'(h) Retention of Certain Records-
'(1) A commercial provider of an electronic communication service shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.
'(2) Access to a record or information required to be retained under this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity that is not a governmental entity.
'(3) The Attorney General shall make a study to determine the costs associated with compliance by providers with the requirement of paragraph (1). Such study shall include an assessment of all the types of costs, including for hardware, software, and personnel that are involved. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall report to Congress the results of that study.
'(4) In this subsection--
'(A) the term 'commercial provider' means a provider of electronic communication service that offers Internet access capability for a fee to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of the facilities used; and
'(B) the term 'Internet' has the same meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934.'.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress--
(1) to encourage electronic communication service providers to give prompt notice to their customers in the event of a breach of the data retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18 of the United States Code, in order that those effected can take the necessary steps to protect themselves from potential misuse of private information; and
(2) that records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code, should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent against breaches of the records.
(c) Transition Rule- The amendment made by this section shall not apply until 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to a provider of an electronic communications service that does not, on that date of enactment, have in effect a system of retention of records that complies with the requirements of that amendment.
(d) Study-
(1) The Attorney General, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall complete a study of providers affected by section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Such study shall include--
(A) the privacy standards and considerations implemented by those providers as they comply with the requirements of section 2703(h); and
(B) the frequency of any reported breaches of data retained pursuant to section 2703(h).
(3) The Attorney General shall, upon the completion of the study, report the results of the study to Congress.
(Emphasis mine)

So they're required keep a record of your IP address. Not your internet activity. As for name, address, bank account and credit card numbers: they're your ISP. They already have all that because you pay them for internet service. And if they don't then this bill will not require them to obtain it.

And then I read Section 2703 of title 18 (which this is an amendment to) and discovered that the government needs a court order to access the information, just like all the other records a company keeps.

Excuse me while I find something worth getting upset about, because this has been very disappointing on that front.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
This was brought up a while ago and while I'm sceptical the bill seems to be trying to fly straight instead of using child pornography as a front for invasion. The bill is about preservation of evidence. From what I have read government officials will have to go through all proper channels to attain warrants the same way law enforcement would have to attain one to go to the phone company to check your call history.( Unless the bill has been reworded since I looked at it last and that's out the window.) This is going to receive a lot of scrutiny but I think if we analyse and criticize in order to find a legitimate compromise this could seriously do some good.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Okay, this is funny. I posted either yesterday or the day before that if piracy didn't exist, the entertainment industry would find a new scapegoat to get their censorship bills passed. The first such scapegoat I listed was child porn, because let's be honest: no politician wants to be the one who voted against an anti-child porn bill, even if the only part of the bill that has anything to do with child porn is the name. This is one of those things where it could have clauses that allow for Judge Dredd style summary executions, and it would still be an uphill battle to stop, because nobody wants to look like they're in favor of something as abhorrent as child porn. This is also why the PATRIOT act is called what it is. PATRIOT is actually a long winded acronym, but they worded it that way to make it look like anyone who voted against it was unpatriotic -- right after 9/11, in a time when blind nationalism was at the highest point in the US since World War II, if not at its highest point in history. Politics: it's a lot more complicated and underhanded than most people realize. It's also more like high school drama than anything adults are supposed to participate in.
 

Drop_D-Bombshell

Doing Nothing Productive...
Apr 17, 2010
501
0
0
This'll pass. Stupid mothers will see the title and go "Hooray! This bill protects our children! It should pass to protect the children".

Putting Protect Children in a bill is a automatic pass move.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Well, I suppose we're going to see this thread a few dozen more times.

I guess anything that raises awareness.

Drop_D-Bombshell said:
This'll pass. Stupid mothers will see the title and go "Hooray! This bill protects our children! It should pass to protect the children".

Putting Protect Children in a bill is a automatic pass move.
It worked so well for the INDUCE act.
 

cookyy2k

Senior Member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
21
This attack on the internet will never end. There was a piece on channel 4 news (UK) this evening about anonymous, they were saying they were protesting an American bill that would "prevent them from pirating copyrighted material" then they had a web "expert" on who said they're a "neo-nazi terrorist organisation who want to twist the internet to their cause". I mean seriously, people who don't know anything about them will believe this. I had to explain to my grandparents who were watching with me that they arn't neo-nazi pirates but are fighting against horribly intrusive legislation designed to cripple the internet but there are a lot of people out there who would just believe it.
 

Monkeyman O'Brien

New member
Jan 27, 2012
427
0
0
Jonathan Holmes, Jonathan Holmes! Is protesting PCIPA paedophillia or not?

Anyway is anyone actually surprised by this? These people want to control us, of course they have no problem resorting to disgusting and underhanded tactics to do it.
I still say we skip this protesting bullshit and get right to Operation Firebomb. Its about time we had a good ol fashioned revolution and it would give these worthless politicians something to think about.
 

Pegghead

New member
Aug 4, 2009
4,017
0
0
FUCK IT, I'M DONE. I DON'T CARE ANYMORE. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GIVING UP. TAKE MY BLOOD FOR ALL I CARE.

Every damn DAY there's some new bill out. It's a goddamn hydra and I'm done with it. There's only so many times I can vote up some petition or give some link the thumbs up, I'm sick and I'm tired and I'm done. Call me when you need someone to hold up a sign at a rally or something, that's about the only meaningful thing left to do.
 

Drops a Sweet Katana

Folded 1000x for her pleasure
May 27, 2009
897
0
0
Why has this guy not been shot? He seems to determined to be considers ignorant now. The fact that he's essentially been pushing the same thing just under different names is a little suspicious, not to mention using child pornography as a shield to pass a bill that will essentially dissolve any kind of privacy anyone may have is absolutely abhorrent.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Hyperbole aside, this really isn't anything remotely close to SOPA.

If they do add elements of SOPA into it, and rumours DO NOT COUNT, then it'll be worth panicking over.
 

ShindoL Shill

Truely we are the Our Avatars XI
Jul 11, 2011
21,802
0
0
Drop_D-Bombshell said:
Putting Protect Children in a bill is a automatic pass move.
i have a cunning plan... Protect Children from Unregistered Paedophiles Act. Basically, it requires all children to be in their own country for 18 years. No adults allowed. After 18 years, people realise it was a stupid idea that only passed because of its name.

Pegghead said:
FUCK IT, I'M DONE. I DON'T CARE ANYMORE.
personally, I'm getting to this point as well.