Hacker News Reader

Comment by nyellin | Hacker News Reader

Shame on CNET and BoingBoing. This is hyperbole and they know it.

At the very end of the below committee hearing, Rep. Zoe Lofgren proposed an amendment that would ensure TOR and the friends aren't effected by SOPA. Rep. Lamar Smith, committee chairman, requested that she shelve the amendment so they could work on the issue out-of-channel.

http://www.justin.tv/unearthed365/b/302702510

Edit: I missed the paragraph in the CNET article that addresses this. Perhaps my wording is a bit strong, but I'm sticking to my guns.

View on HN

Since the amendment is propossed, that confirms that SOPA would, otherwise, ban Tor. Until the amendment is actually in SOPA, that's the reaility: Tor will be banned by SOPA.

I would need more than that to consider as confirmation. It looks to me like it wouldn't fit under their definition, although it is quite ambiguous.

   a product or service designed or marketed for the 
   circumvention or bypassing of measures described in 
   paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order 
   issued pursuant to this subsection includes a product or 
   service that is designed or marketed to enable a domain 
   name described in such an order--

Tor is designed to circunvent censorship, including SOPA. So yes, it matches the definition.

It is not however designed the specific censorship legislated by SOPA. It sure sounds like it is addressing MAFIAAfire (and DeSOPA), but not generalized tools like tor.

I guess we'll see.

That doesn't mean that that amendment is in SOPA though.

Nor does it mean the amendment would be effective or widespread enough.

Rep. Smith defended the language saying it was an important piece of the legislation. Without, it had no teeth.

He also said he cannot make guarantees that this section will not limit global free speech.

Then how, in his right mind, is he pushing for this legislation to go through as written?

This is a rhetorical question, sadly we already know the answer.

Don't these guys take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn into office? How is attempting to pass a law to subvert free speech not breaking what they swore to protect?

Politicians and most judges, and almost all lawyers, are paid specifically to come up with plausible sounding reasons why nothing violates the constitution.

It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com