When the US Senate Tried To Ban Dial Telephones

[needimprovement]

With the Senate now looking to have the government block access to websites it deems to be bad (which seems to be called "censorship" in other countries), it's worth pointing out that the Senate doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to deciding what technologies to ban. Back in 1930, some Senators came close to banning the dial telephone, because they felt that it was wrong that they had to do the labor themselves, rather than an operator at the other end. A "resolution", which passed, read:

 

Whereas dial telephones are more difficult to operate than are manual telephones; and Whereas Senators are required, since the installation of dial phones in the Capitol, to perform the duties of telephone operators in order to enjoy the benefits of telephone service; and Whereas dial telephones have failed to expedite telephone service; Therefore be it resolved that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and directed to order the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. to replace with manual phones within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, all dial telephones in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol and in the Senate office building.

[CaptainPanic]

Old wise men should be acting like old wise men... meaning they shouldn't try to pretend they know something about modern gadgets.

 

I didn't pretend I understood much about ethics or philosophy when I was 12 years old either.

[D H]

With the Senate now looking to have the government block access to websites it deems to be bad (which seems to be called "censorship" in other countries) ...

The Congress also deems murder to be bad. Is that censorship?

 

More to the point, suppose I went out, bought a best-selling book, photocopied it, printed reproductions, and started selling them. Congress deems that to be bad also. It is in fact illegal. That said, doing this is going to require me to have a printing press, a distribution system, etc. I would have to do quite a bit of work just to make a few dishonest bucks. Fortunately, technology helps. Instead of printing books, I could buy a top-selling music CD or video game. Bypassing the copy protection on these apparently is child's play. Now, instead of having to have a bulky and expensive printing press and a bulky and expensive supply of paper, all I now need are some much smaller and cheaper electronic devices and a bunch of smaller and much CDs. Blank CDs in bulk are a dime a dozen or so. That said, I still have to have some way to distribute my cheap to produce product. The real nice thing about the internet, from the perspective of the criminal mind, is that it makes it even easier to make a dishonest buck. Technology has long been a boon for the savvy criminal.

 

The only problem here is that Congress has been painstakingly slow to react to an ever growing crime problem.

Edited September 23, 2010 by D H

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, there's a slight difference between blocking websites they deem bad, and making it easier to file lawsuits against American websites that are breaking American law. The difference, of course, is that you can still go visit the websites hosted elsewhere, outside of US jurisdiction.

[D H]

If someone was caught physically transporting stolen merchandise into the US the immediate solution is quite simple: Seize the stolen merchandise and put the person who was carrying it in jail. That simple remedy is not available when the transportation is electronic rather than physical. The remedy Congress has come up with is better than nothing. It is essentially making domestic internet providers partners in crime with the non-domestic sites that profit from these stolen goods. It is important to remember that the targeted sites are dealing in stolen goods. Just because the transportation is electronic rather than physical does not not make the legitimize the transportation of those stolen goods.

 

That said, there certainly is a potential for governmental abuse with this bill. How the government uses these powers, should the bill become law, does bear watching.

[Mr Skeptic]

If someone was caught physically transporting stolen merchandise into the US the immediate solution is quite simple: Seize the stolen merchandise and put the person who was carrying it in jail. That simple remedy is not available when the transportation is electronic rather than physical. The remedy Congress has come up with is better than nothing. It is essentially making domestic internet providers partners in crime with the non-domestic sites that profit from these stolen goods. It is important to remember that the targeted sites are dealing in stolen goods. Just because the transportation is electronic rather than physical does not not make the legitimize the transportation of those stolen goods.

 

That said, there certainly is a potential for governmental abuse with this bill. How the government uses these powers, should the bill become law, does bear watching.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

Here's the full text of the bill. Internet service providers will not be targeted, although if they run a DNS they have to take reasonable steps to prevent the domain name from resolving to the IP address. Therefore it would seem that using the IP address directly would sidestep this bill. Another effect is that the website itself is targeted rather than its owner, and so the owner need not be in the US to be sued.

[D H]

http://www.govtrack....?bill=s111-3804

Here's the full text of the bill. Internet service providers will not be targeted, although if they run a DNS they have to take reasonable steps to prevent the domain name from resolving to the IP address.

Not just if they run a DNS. ISPs are targeted. So are financial transaction providers (e.g., paypal, credit card companies), and so are ad servers. Re-read section 2324 (e) Service of Court Order. Link: http://www.govtrack....id=t0%3Ais%3A48

Edited September 23, 2010 by D H

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is worth noting that the provisions of that section will not, in fact, block access to any website. Should the .net registrar revoke scienceforums.net's registration, I can merely disseminate our IP address, 78.129.223.64, via a mass e-mail, and set up the webserver to handle that IP address correctly. Because the registrar is located domestically, 2324(e)(2) would not apply, and we could continue to receive advertising revenue to support our operations.

 

Suppose the bill is passed and the government decides to take action against ThePirateBay, which notoriously resists any copyright enforcement attempts made against it. Their domain name is thepiratebay.org, and .org is a United States-based registry. (Run by, ironically enough, the Public Interest Registry.) The government would issue a court order to the PIR, and thepiratebay.org would fail to resolve any longer...

 

...until, of course, every major online news site points out that 194.71.107.15 takes you to ThePirateBay, and you can continue finding torrents of Avatar 3D to your heart's content.

 

In short: Copyright infringement is a problem. But we happen to have designed the Internet so that stopping it is almost impossible.